Bishop tells Mormon Lesbian to divorce or be ex'd

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm LDS and I speak.  I'm not outside of being LDS.  But, I'm fine if you want to bow out. 

In the LDS paradigm, a person in a same-sex marriage is committing a sin.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.  You said that you are "not granting that she is sinning."  By this I understood you as referencing a member of the Church in a same-sex marriage, and that in doing so she is "{not} sinning."  You are certainly at liberty to say and believe such a thing, but you can't pass it off as being within the LDS paradigm.  

It's not a matter of whether you are a member of the Church or not.  Plenty of non-members can discuss the doctrines of the Church, and can even do so within the LDS paradigm.  But the parameters of that paradigm are established by what the LDS Church teaches, not what individual members may happen to believe.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[thesometimesaint]

Being a member of an unpopular religion does have its advantages.

To be internally consistent we'd need to hold a Bishop's Court for every Church member who has disobeyed the Law of Chastity in any regard. I don't see that as particularly useful or even warranted. I've been a member for long enough to remember when members became quite upset when Bishop's and other leaders started prying into the personal sex lives of members seeking a Temple Recommend. I really don't want to return to those times. 

SEE "The Gospel Perspective on Morality" page 240.

Edited February 25, 2016 by thesometimesaint

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

this is one of those cases wherein it appears the Church is trying to play us a little.  Seems obvious there was some HQ involvement in these. 

You have no idea what a breath of fresh air it is to have somebody on this board just admit the obvious.

 

[stemelbow]

Just now, smac97 said:

In the LDS paradigm, a person in a same-sex marriage is committing a sin.  There is no reasonable dispute about that.  You said that you are "not granting that she is sinning."  By this I understood you as referencing a member of the Church in a same-sex marriage, and that in doing so she is "{not} sinning."  You are certainly at liberty to say and believe such a thing, but you can't pass it off as being within the LDS paradigm.  

It's not a matter of whether you are a member of the Church or not.  Plenty of non-members can discuss the doctrines of the Church, and can even do so within the LDS paradigm.  But the parameters of that paradigm are established by what the LDS Church teaches, not what individual members may happen to believe.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I think a paradigm is not the rules of a certain group but a certain set of assumptions or methodologies.  But, I get your point.  No need to quibble over the word usage. 

[USU78]

32 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

I love you, USU.  I hope you know (or remember) that.

But you are dodging the issue I raise.

Over and over, when a high-profile person gets excommunicated, the Church assures the press that top leadership has no involvement in local disciplinary proceedings.

The new policy shows that to be untrue.

I guess we're speaking past one another then.  High-profile apostates are a special case.  Everybody would acknowledge that.  There is, however, a difference between Martin Harris and Irving Nonentity's being able to command the attention of the Twelve or the First Presidency.  Their cases get treated differently.

A whiny bunch of kids [for the most part] and parents who've been bullied by whiny kids [for the most part] into resigning their memberships because of a change in policy are unlikely to bring that attention to bear.  They aren't Dehlins, whose influence for ill is incalculable.  They are deluded, lying and lied to hoipoloi like thee and me.

Edited February 25, 2016 by USU78
tense

[ERMD]

38 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Wrong.

Saying that same-gender cohabitation constitutes "apostasy" per se, and then requiring a disciplinary hearing under such circumstances is not only meddling--it is top-down micromanaging.

Anybody who says disciplinary matters are purely a local matter has no credibility.

This is laughable.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Hogwash.

Why do you think the letter from the local leaders told the gay member she could resign her membership in lieu of having the disciplinary council?

Do we have a copy of the letter? I'm skeptical about the one-sided claims where the only source is a John Dehlin podcast. I wonder how the bishop would describe what happened and what he said, and how he said it.

If a copy of the letter was provided, then that's different. The reason I'm skeptical is that I've never had pre-determined outcomes going into a disciplinary council (and in fact, I have had my preconceptions overturned through the course of the council). And I have never, and would never, recommend resignation as a course of action (one member didn't want to go through with his disciplinary council, and simply wanted to resign his membership, but I convinced him to go through with it because there is a big difference between voluntarily resigning from the Church and submitting to the decision of priesthood keys. A world of difference). If this bishop did, then I find that odd and not something I would do. Do we know for sure that he did?

The outcome is already decided.

Can you not see that?

It's a show trial.

The verdict has already been rendered at higher levels.

This is your opinion, only. Talk about pre-determined!

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  There's nothing "ugly" about upholding the doctrines of the Church relating to marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Nothing at all.

Now upholding those principles may not always be pleasant, I'll grant you that.  But them's the breaks.  Being a judge in Israel is not supposed to be easy.  Bishops are called upon to administer the Restored Gospel, both when doing so is easy and when it's hard.  

Christ Himself said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him.  I'm quite okay with that.  I'm also quite okay with His servants doing the same thing.  I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church.  Our reputation affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission.  But preserving and ehnancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity.

Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular.  He did so because it was right.

Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world.  He knew that.  But He preached it anyway.  I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people.  But He preached anyway.  I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World.  Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually): "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."

In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation.  Our lot as Latter-day Saints is not to adhere to counsel from the Brethren because it is popular.  

Our lot is to adhere to such counsel because it is right.  And when it is right and unpopular, well . . . that's what the Spirit is for.

Thanks,

-Smac

I'll grant that it's unpopular. Unpopular doesn't mean good, though. The church has reformed itself into an anti-family organization with this policy. It's actively trying to break up families.

And singling out a vulnerable minority population for persecution is particularly ugly. In my opinion.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Being a member of an unpopular religion does have its advantages.

To be internally consistent we'd need to hold a Bishop's Court for every Church member who has disobeyed the Law of Chastity in any regard. I don't see that as particularly useful or even warranted. I've been a member for long enough to remember when members became quite upset when Bishop's and other leaders started prying into the personal sex lives of members seeking a Temple Recommend. I really don't want to return to those times. 

Back when I was in EQpresidency, we visited everyone in our ward, we had a huge number of inactive people, whom many in the ward, it appeared, knew much about.  In so doing we ran into many gay people who were on the roles.  Good people, very worth my time in getting to know.  I'd hate to see them approached by the Bishop with some ultimatum, particularly since the Bishop hadn't tried with them in the past.  As I said, this case seems very unhelpful in the long run. 

[USU78]

28 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I don't know a nominal Mormon within the LDS context is. However I do think that the average Mormon would agree that willful violation of Church Standards could subject them to Church Discipline. I think we have to be very careful when using the terms "putting the Church into disrepute". Obviously serious criminal actions would qualify, Private actions between consenting adults is a bit trickier.

You're tripping over yourself excusing the notorious "married" lesbian Mormon ladies' apostasy.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

You have no idea what a breath of fresh air it is to have somebody on this board just admit the obvious.

 

You'll catch me admitting the obvious sometimes, but you'd be surprised how often the obvious, sitting right in front of my nose ,gets missed by me. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Back when I was in EQpresidency, we visited everyone in our ward, we had a huge number of inactive people, whom many in the ward, it appeared, knew much about.  In so doing we ran into many gay people who were on the roles.  Good people, very worth my time in getting to know.  I'd hate to see them approached by the Bishop with some ultimatum, particularly since the Bishop hadn't tried with them in the past.  As I said, this case seems very unhelpful in the long run. 

How many of them are gay-married?

I know, and know of, a lot of gay inactive members, too. Not one of them is gay-married (some are married).

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, mtomm said:

 I doubt anyone involved can walk away unaffected.

That's well and good, but who is proximately responsible for the consequences that ensue from the behavior that triggered the disciplinary council?  The ref?  Or the player that threw the punch?

[mtomm]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

That's well and good, but who is proximately responsible for the consequences that ensue from the behavior that triggered the disciplinary council?  The ref?  Or the player that threw the punch?

Of course there would be no council if there were no SSM. However, when a bishop holds the court he must consider the consequences to more than just the defendant. Much like throwing the pebble in a pond. 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

How many of them are gay-married?

I know, and know of, a lot of gay inactive members, too. Not one of them is gay-married (some are married).

Some.  I know of 3 couples

Edited February 25, 2016 by stemelbow

[USU78]

1 minute ago, mtomm said:

Of course there would be no council if there were no SSM. However, when a bishop holds the court he must consider the consequences to more than just the defendant. Much like throwing the pebble in a pond. 

Nobody's throwing stones here.  Let's tread carefully and not approximate the hyperbolist.

Of course priesthood leadership in such cases carries an awful burden and must be absolutely clear of personal agenda, self-seeking or empire-building.  In my experience nobody wants to be involved in these councils, but the duties of office compel their involvement.  Yes there are repercussions, but the primary mover of events, the primary sine-qua-non pebble-tosser is the principal, and not the after-the-fact priesthood leader.  Proximate causation of all ripples is in the principal.  All other actors have secondary, tertiary or even more remote effect.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Of course there would be no council if there were no SSM. However, when a bishop holds the court he must consider the consequences to more than just the defendant. Much like throwing the pebble in a pond. 

True and good but the perpetrator(s) of the sin still caused the problem, rather than whoever corrects the problem. 

Those who sin should not be given free reign even though it can get messy trying to fix all  of the problems that resulted from what they did.

[mtomm]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Nobody's throwing stones here.  Let's tread carefully and not approximate the hyperbolist.

Of course priesthood leadership in such cases carries an awful burden and must be absolutely clear of personal agenda, self-seeking or empire-building.  In my experience nobody wants to be involved in these councils, but the duties of office compel their involvement.  Yes there are repercussions, but the primary mover of events, the primary sine-qua-non pebble-tosser is the principal, and not the after-the-fact priesthood leader.  Proximate causation of all ripples is in the principal.  All other actors have secondary, tertiary or even more remote effect.

Why do some people always insist on doing the weirdest things like comparing the ripples in a pond to someone throwing stones? It makes the conversation in these threads really difficult. Were you using hyperbole with the referee and punch throwing example? Should I respond:   Hey! Nobody is throwing punches! 

Let me just say this and you can do whatever weird thing you want with my words in your head.

Maybe some bishops determine the consequences of a council, no matter the outcome, do not warrant convening one. 

(Let me also say that I feel DCs can be a very important part of repentance both for the sinner and maybe especially for any who may have been harmed by their actions. I have no problem with mandatory DCs for those involved in incest.)

[thesometimesaint]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You're tripping over yourself excusing the notorious "married" lesbian Mormon ladies' apostasy.

I've made no excuse for them.

I don't believe they were married in the Temple. So, as long as it legal they can marry whomever will marry them.

I long ago, some 45 years, agreed that the Church has the right to discipline its members. I'm just questioning the wisdom in doing so under these conditions. 

What was so notorious about them? The first I've heard of them was post #1.

Sure I'd be upset too if my Bishop came up my driveway and told me to divorce, resign my membership, or be held to a Bishop's Court for Apostasy. There are much better, and kinder ways to go about it. Doing it this way gives them a public platform.

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, mtomm said:

Why do some people always insist on doing the weirdest things like comparing the ripples in a pond to someone throwing stones? It makes the conversation in these threads really difficult. Were you using hyperbole with the referee and punch throwing example? Should I respond:   Hey! Nobody is throwing punches! 

Let me just say this and you can do whatever weird thing you want with my words in your head.

Maybe some bishops determine the consequences of a council, no matter the outcome, do not warrant convening one. 

(Let me also say that I feel DCs can be a very important part of repentance both for the sinner and maybe especially for any who may have been harmed by their actions. I have no problem with mandatory DCs for those involved in incest.)

If only the whole world felt that same sex sexual relations is a sin that is a lot more horrible than incest.

We're all brothers and sisters here.

All forms of sexual relations between sexes should be limited to "within the bounds the Lord has set".

[ERMD]

49 minutes ago, Gray said:

 The church has reformed itself into an anti-family organization with this policy. It's actively trying to break up families.

 

Satan is the Great Counterfeiter, and this is a prime example of his success.

Same-sex couples are not married, and a same-sex couple raising children is not a family.

[USU78]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

I've made no excuse for them.

I don't believe they were married in the Temple. So, as long as it legal they can marry whomever will marry them.

I long ago, some 45 years, agreed that the Church has the right to discipline its members. I'm just questioning the wisdom in doing so under these conditions. 

What was so notorious about them? The first I've heard of them was post #1.

Sure I'd be upset too if my Bishop came up my driveway and told me to divorce, resign my membership, or be held to a Bishop's Court for Apostasy. There are much better, and kinder ways to go about it. Doing it this way gives them a public platform.

By going public with a private matter they made themselves notorious 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Kemara said:

I am glad you clarified this I was about to take issue with it. In saying that though, it seems, from what little I know, that the Bishop was aware of this Sisters circumstance, at least to some degree through her contact with the Church (i.e. VT). As such it seems a mischaracterisation of the situation to state that this Bishop had to "seek out" this Sister.  

Well, use whatever word you choose, but the Bishop came to her about the subject of church discipline.  She did not approach him to discuss repentance or the process she'd need to go through. To me, that's seeking her out, not the other way around (especially since she was also no longer attending church).

[rodheadlee]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

Where?  Do you have a link for this?  (you can PM me, if you don't want to post it here).

It's a family member by his first marriage. There is no link, you'll just have to take my word for it.

[mtomm]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

If only the whole world felt that same sex sexual relations is a sin that is a lot more horrible than incest.

We're all brothers and sisters here.

All forms of sexual relations between sexes should be limited to "within the bounds the Lord has set".

Thanks for the visuals, Ahab. You never cease to entertain.