Same-sex couple members asked to divorce or be excommunicate

Both attended the Mormon Church, formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

While this line makes me a little leery of their reporting I don’t find this at all surprising. This sort of action is in line with the new policy. To borrow from OON, this couple got the Full Nelson.

I know my ward will have PH members go out & identify people on the rolls who haven’t been seen 10 years.

If they said they didn’t want contact with the church, we would encourage them to write a letter to the

Bishop & ask that no one visit them or ask to have their names removed from the rolls.

I don’t remember ever sending someone out to identify SS couples or anyone that was considered not living the principles of the gospel.

There doesn’t seem to be alot of information to make a judgement call.

I will try to ask someone in our Bishopric about it.

I assumed that councils were held if the person confessed and it was to be part of the repentance process or to preserve the good name of the church. In this story it doesn’t seem that either is the case. If this is just a bishop or stake president’s individual initiative, then hopefully it will be stopped but if it’s part of a larger movement, then heaven, literally, help the church.

It feels almost Orwellian to be looking for totally inactive members so that you can kick them out of the Church. And I’m sure the Church’s official response willl be that they don’t comment on DCs, that it’s an action taken by an individual bishop when it was the Church who told bishops to do this in the first place. We must look very, very weird to outsiders.

I am not surprised it is happening as the policy change says if bishops or SP’s are aware of members that are same-sex cohabiting (legally married or not) they are REQUIRED to hold a church court.

Of course some leaders are just ignoring it and focusing on more pressing issues.

I was under the impression that it was just SSM that mandated a court. Same sex cohabitation without benefit of marriage seems to fall under the same grey area as heterosexual cohabitation, spousal abuse, crimes, etc. where a court MAY be held.

I do think it’s ironic that gay marriage is worse than living together in God’s eyes. Of the people I know in committed same-sex relationships, all of them married as soon as the option became available, and all of them are fairly religious; I think they saw marriage the same way that religious straight people do, as something that God wants you to do. (My libertarian side would also point out that marriage is better for society than cohabitation, and tends to produce better results for the offspring involved.)

The other thing that caught my eye in this story is that the women say ‘a hardware store employee’ approached them. Was he in his work clothes when he approached them, and/or were they in the hardware store where he works when this happens? Seems like most employers would take a dim view of such behavior ‘on the clock.’

I was under the impression that it was just SSM that mandated a court. Same sex cohabitation without benefit of marriage seems to fall under the same grey area as heterosexual cohabitation, spousal abuse, crimes, etc. where a court MAY be held.

I do think it’s ironic that gay marriage is worse than living together in God’s eyes. Of the people I know in committed same-sex relationships, all of them married as soon as the option became available, and all of them are fairly religious; I think they saw marriage the same way that religious straight people do, as something that God wants you to do. (My libertarian side would also point out that marriage is better for society than cohabitation, and tends to produce better results for the offspring involved.)

My recollection coincides with Joni. SSM is considered apostasy and requires a church court.

I can kinda see where they get their logic from. An apostate may take legitimacy from their church membership. Thus sometimes we see courts for apostasy where the individual has not attended church in many years (such is my understanding for the court on the individual from the CES Letter).

We might let inactives live a “life of sin” but we seem to draw the line when they try to call their lifestyle choices good and acceptable and thus muddy the waters for anyone else (especially subsequent generations) trying to choose between right and wrong.

So, now that we have established a rationale for holding courts for inactive apostates and for why Same-sex married model citizens could be considered apostates, 2 + 2 = 4. What is good for the internet hate spewing apostate is also good for the Same sex married, broadcasting their contrary lifestyle choice cloaked in legitimacy, apostate.

I believe it is absolutely reasonable that some local leaders might see it as their mandate to hold disciplinary courts in order to further clarify that the church does not condone these family formations (it is also entirely likely that some individual leaders have personal biases that are further spurring them to act). I do not believe that it is an explicit push to purge from top leadership necessarily, more so that the SSM policy itself was taken as marching orders in some quarters and is being followed to its natural conclusion.

Roy wrote:

I do not believe that it is an explicit push to purge from top leadership necessarily, more so that the SSM policy itself was taken as marching orders in some quarters and is being followed to its natural conclusion.

And I think the missing piece here is the stake president. The bishops are reporting to them, having received what instructions from them?

It’s amazing to me that there couldn’t be clearer communication. If they don’t intend for people completely estranged from the church to be pursued like this…it’s really that hard to sketch out who bishops should be giving attention to?

A line from a recent (post-policy) Richard Bushman interview is ringing in my head. “We’re a pastoral people….” He was lamenting the policy; I don’t see anything pastoral about this.