smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 6 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm sure many millions of inactives are living in some kind of sin that would warrant discipline. In most circumstances the form of and need for discipline is left to the discretion of the bishops. But there are some forms of sin which are not left to the discretion of the bishops in terms of discipline. A Church member entering into a same-sex marriage falls into this latter category. Thanks, -Smac 1
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, rongo said: They can still use discretion in other cases of morality. But, policy-wise, they are supposed to hold a council for gay marriage. Targeting the LGBT community and their children represents the worst of the church. It's a sad state of affairs. Maybe they should take a break from the LGBT issue and focus instead on other critical social ills like birth control and women working outside the home and...wait...the church left that track in the 80's. My bad. 1
ERMD Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, ERMD said: ALarson: In my opinion, it's not a good precedent to start unless there has been a directive from church leaders regarding those in a SSM within your ward. . 12 minutes ago, ERMD said: ALarson: Now, if he was directed from church headquarters to start the process, that would be different (I'm assuming this, but haven't asked him). The Handbook is unequivocal. In these instances, a council is mandatory. The statement you quoted from the Handbook is a directive. You're smart. Connect the dots.
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think ERMD's point is that the Brethren have already given a directive to bishops and stake presidents. The CHI is clear as to when discipline is mandatory. One of those circumstances is apostasy. One form of apostasy is a Church member being in a same-sex marriage. I agree, but this is territory that is very new to Bishops and Stake Presidents and it is also a very sensitive and inflammatory topic. I believe most local leaders are not going to actively seek out those in their wards who are in a SSM and then start the disciplinary process for them. And, I think that is the correct thing to do. I know others disagree, but I'm only stating my opinion here. I know that my Bishop has no intention of moving forward to contact or discipline the member in our ward who is in a SSM. He has very strong feelings that this is the wrong direction to take with this member. I'm in full support of him. . Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
HappyJackWagon Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ERMD said: The Handbook is unequivocal. In these instances, a council is mandatory. The statement you quoted from the Handbook is a directive. You're smart. Connect the dots. For being unequivocal, the handbook sure changes frequently. These handbook policies were not written by the finger of God on stone tablets. They were developed in committees and councils of leaders and lawyers. 3
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, ERMD said: The Handbook is unequivocal. In these instances, a council is mandatory. The statement you quoted from the Handbook is a directive. You're smart. Connect the dots. Thanks. Read my post above in response to smac97. I think that covers how I feel.
ERMD Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: Targeting the LGBT community and their children represents the worst of the church. It's a sad state of affairs. Maybe they should take a break from the LGBT issue and focus instead on other critical social ills like birth control and women working outside the home and...wait...the church left that track in the 80's. My bad. When you're the Lord's representative on the earth and hold all the keys, maybe you'll be able to tell us where He stands on this. In the meantime, I'll stick with those who I sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators. 2
Gray Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If we excommunicate everyone living in sin the church may reduce in size by 2/3 but at least everyone would be righteous wheat. Next we can get rid of the left-handed red heads. 1
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: This is my question.... Do Bishops need to (mandatory) seek those out in their wards who are in apostasy and then start disciplinary proceedings? By "seek out," do you mean an obsessive combing through the ward list at the expense of all other things? Or, in the course of working with the ward in his capacity as bishop (Sunday meetings, interviews, activities, meetings, etc.), he comes to learn of certain things? I think that when he learns that people are living in a gay marriage, or otherwise apostatizing from the Church, the policy requires that he convene a council (which begins with having them meet with the stake president). Quote or should they leave them alone if the member is not actively preaching or harming the church? Edited February 25, 2016 by rongo
Gray Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: In most circumstances the form of and need for discipline is left to the discretion of the bishops. But there are some forms of sin which are not left to the discretion of the bishops in terms of discipline. A Church member entering into a same-sex marriage falls into this latter category. Thanks, -Smac Unfortunately that is the current stance. It's very ugly. 3
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 12 minutes ago, rongo said: Thanks for clarifying. It would make a difference if I knew I had a household that this applied to in my ward. I'm interested to know if those advocating a bishops' "lassaiz faire" approach to gay marriage would also recommend "hands off" for other forms of apostasy: directly trying to tear the Church down and recruit people out of the Church. Would it be okay to "just let them be?" The three reasons for church discipline spelled out in CHI 1 are: 1) bring the sinner to true and full repentance 2) protect the innocent, and 3) protect the Church's name. If one were to ignore "church-tearing-down apostasy," one would be derelict of duty in my book. I happen to agree with the Brethren that gay marriage itself is not distinguishable from "church-tearing-down apostasy." They are both apostasy. How will holding a Bishop's Court bring the inactive nonvocal member to true and full repentance? Looks like she pretty well distanced herself from the authority of the Church. Will excommunicating her bring her back? How will a Bishop's Court for a inactive nonvocal member protect the innocent? From what I've read she isn't a threat to any innocent. How is a Bishop's Court for an inactive nonvocal member tearing down the Church? Now if she were out there publicly saying as a member of the Church it is in error. Then her Bishop would have cause. But she isn't. To seek her out is something quite different. I think Apostasy has a more narrower meaning within the Church. If that were the case any sin would make us all Apostates. 3
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Are we agreed that if members *are* "actively preaching [against] or harming the church," that a bishop should be compelled to act? I know that you don't regard a gay marriage as belonging to this class, but do you agree that "tearing-down-the-church" apostasy should compel action?
mtomm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 So for a large many of these members their only contact with the bishop is to be called to a disciplinary council. 1
ERMD Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: I agree, but this is territory that is very new to Bishops and Stake Presidents and it is also a very sensitive and inflammatory topic. I believe most local leaders are not going to actively seek out those in their wards who are in a SSM and the start disciplinary process for them. And, I think that is the correct thing to do. I know others disagree, but I'm only stating my opinion here. . Every disciplinary council deals with sensitive topics, and avoiding one because of that is a disservice to all involved. To say that acting in direct contradiction the the CHI is the correct thing to do is to assume a great responsibility. I'm sure there are some people who disagree with your opinion that disciplinary councils should not be held for those in a SSM. I can think of 15, specifically. 1
Popular Post USU78 Posted February 25, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Next we can get rid of the left-handed red heads. To marry a person of the same sex is to enter into a covenant not to comply with G-d's law of sexual morality. There is a declaration that one is committed to not complying with G-d's law. This is not the case where spouses are male and female: even if one or the other or both engaged in conduct noncompliant with G-d's law of sexual morality, there is no commitment by covenant to break that law. The two cases are not remotely the same. The trivialization of the issue like Gray does here in order to mock is regrettable. 6
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, rongo said: Are we agreed that if members *are* "actively preaching [against] or harming the church," that a bishop should be compelled to act? I know that you don't regard a gay marriage as belonging to this class, but do you agree that "tearing-down-the-church" apostasy should compel action? Yes. I believe that some of the recent excommunications (discussed on here) were justified and I'm actually surprised it took so long to hold a disciplinary court for them. I also believe that this is different than someone who is in a SSM, still loves the church and still welcomes HTs and VTs into their home (and are not organizing or preaching or making money off of tearing down the church). 1
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: How will holding a Bishop's Court bring the inactive nonvocal member to true and full repentance? Looks like she pretty well distanced herself from the authority of the Church. Will excommunicating her bring her back? It gives her a fighting chance. Maybe not immediately (probably not immediately), but down the road. The institutional Church acting as if it is really okay (by default, by doing nothing) certainly isn't going to help her get to the broken heart and contrite spirit state. I know people who have come back after decades. They were not ready when they were disciplined, but they are later. And they never would have come back in the full sense without the discipline. How will a Bishop's Court for a inactive nonvocal member protect the innocent? From what I've read she isn't a threat to any innocent. By teaching and showing with clarity the Church's teaching and stance. In a way that cannot be communicated with clarity in any other way. The innocents in a gay marriage are the children --- the ones that progressive Mormons are working themselves up in a lather over. What about them? How will they understand the gravity and importance of this issue if the Church doesn't make it clear? And that's what this policy has done --- it has made it crystal clear just how important this is; even to the point of taking our lumps in the court of public opinion and social change. How is a Bishop's Court for an inactive nonvocal member tearing down the Church? Now if she were out there publicly saying as a member of the Church it is in error. Then her Bishop would have cause. But she isn't. To seek her out is something quite different. I agree that a non-vocal member quietly living in gay marriage is not as disruptive as a vocal apostate. But, again, the Church's reputation will suffer over time with "mission creep" if it simply sits on its hands with important PotF issues.
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, ERMD said: Every disciplinary council deals with sensitive topics, and avoiding one because of that is a disservice to all involved. To say that acting in direct contradiction the the CHI is the correct thing to do is to assume a great responsibility. I agree that disciplinary councils deal with sensitive topics. But few are as inflammatory as holding one for someone because they are in a SSM (especially if they are inactive and still loving towards the church and church members). And, I'm in full support of my Bishop (and Stake President) regarding them choosing to not contact those in a SSM to start disciplinary action. I'll assume that "great responsibility" and I believe it's the right thing to do here. . Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson
smac97 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: I agree, but this is territory that is very new to Bishops and Stake Presidents and it is also a very sensitive and inflammatory topic. I believe most local leaders are not going to actively seek out those in their wards who are in a SSM and the start disciplinary process for them. And, I think that is the correct thing to do. I know others disagree, but I'm only stating my opinion here. I'm not sure what you mean by "actively seek out," but if a bishop knows that a member of his ward is in a same-sex marriage, then there wouldn't seem to be a need to "seek out" anything. To be honest, though, I understand how a bishop could want to proceed cautiously on this particular issue. I would hope that a bishop in such circumstances would confer with his stake president regarding an appropriate application of the policies set forth in the CHI. That would not be abdication. That would be sensible. Thanks, -Smac 1
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 9 minutes ago, mtomm said: So for a large many of these members their only contact with the bishop is to be called to a disciplinary council. How large is the number of LDS worldwide who have entered into a gay marriage? I think it is a tiny, tiny number. Yes, their contact with their bishop is likely to be minimal before a disciplinary council. Not to sound callous, but what are they out if they are excommunicated, then? Why is this such a travesty to them? They are functionally completely inactive and clearly disagree with a fundamental tenet of the Church. I find it interesting that some people act like separating from the Church for people in a state of apostasy is a huge atrocity. They have already cut themselves off from the Church. I think the number of LDS living in a gay marriage who attend church regularly and want their children to be raised active LDS (or even receive ordinances) is extremely small. 2
ALarson Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I'm not sure what you mean by "actively seek out," but if a bishop knows that a member of his ward is in a same-sex marriage, then there wouldn't seem to be a need to "seek out" anything. To be honest, though, I understand how a bishop could want to proceed cautiously on this particular issue. I would hope that a bishop in such circumstances would confer with his stake president regarding an appropriate application of the policies set forth in the CHI. That would not be abdication. That would be sensible. By saying "seek out", I only mean that the member is not attending and would need to be found and contacted. I fully agree with your second paragraph above. I know my Bishop has discussed this with our Stake President at length and I support them both.
thesometimesaint Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, rongo said: Are we agreed that if members *are* "actively preaching [against] or harming the church," that a bishop should be compelled to act? I know that you don't regard a gay marriage as belonging to this class, but do you agree that "tearing-down-the-church" apostasy should compel action? Yes. I did not say that. I said sometimes it is better to let sleeping dragons lay asleep. IOW The Law of Unintended Consequences. Not exactly what I said. However I do not believe that it is wise that we should seek out the tiny fish of an inactive quiet MINO for excommunication. I think we have much bigger fish to fry with the active vocal ones.
rongo Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: Yes. I believe that some of the recent excommunications (discussed on here) were justified and I'm actually surprised it took so long to hold a disciplinary court for them. I am surprised it took so long with them, too. I also believe that this is different than someone who is in a SSM, still loves the church and still welcomes HTs and VTs into their home (and are not organizing or preaching or making money off of tearing down the church). If they "still love the church," then they will "still welcome HTs and VTs into their home" after formal discipline. We home and visit teach lots of formally-disciplined members in our wards and branches, many of whom continue to love the Church and work their way back into membership or fellowship. That's the point. We hope that people in gay marriages will come into full fellowship and keep their covenants. Probably the only thing that would lead to this for many is formal discipline. Without it, many never will.
JLHPROF Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Gray said: Next we can get rid of the left-handed red heads. Total nonsense. And there is no sin in being left handed, or being red-headed. But there is in homosexuality. Edited February 25, 2016 by JLHPROF
mtomm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, rongo said: How large is the number of LDS worldwide who have entered into a gay marriage? I think it is a tiny, tiny number. Yes, their contact with their bishop is likely to be minimal before a disciplinary council. Not to sound callous, but what are they out if they are excommunicated, then? Why is this such a travesty to them? They are functionally completely inactive and clearly disagree with a fundamental tenet of the Church. I find it interesting that some people act like separating from the Church for people in a state of apostasy is a huge atrocity. They have already cut themselves off from the Church. I think the number of LDS living in a gay marriage who attend church regularly and want their children to be raised active LDS (or even receive ordinances) is extremely small. Hmm, I'm not sure how to re-word my sentence because I'm not saying the number of members in a SSM is large, I'm saying that a large number of members in SSM would only have contact with their bishop to be called to a disciplinary council.
Recommended Posts