Under What Circumstances

[Saints Alive]

No I was thinking along the lines of being forgiven by Christ. If he has forgiven us then we have repented. I'd hate to be in a world where my repentance depended on someone else's forgiveness.

[rpn]

I supposed there could be a circumstance where a priesthood leader asks someone to attend another congregation as part of their repentance --- maybe to help a victim heal. And there might be a circumstance in which a leader might ask a member/former member to stay away from church if they kept preaching apostasy, until they were willing to quit. But it would be far more common that another member got a restraining order that meant the person against whom the order was couldn't attend church in the same facility.

[Stargazer]

I suspect that a conviction for pedophilia would warrant an invitation not to show up at the church. Especially if one was a repeat offender. There are just too many children and the atmosphere is too relaxed to take chances on that one.

For such, there is a "note" that appears on the membership record, and a member with said note will not be called to serve in positions which would involve contact with whatever class the victim(s) fell into. I don't know much about this, but I do know that of the two types of printed membership records, one is "the" membership record, and is not shared with the member; instead he or she is given the Individual Ordinance Summary, which contains pretty much everything on the membership record, EXCEPT for such confidiential "notes". I've been a ward clerk for years and years over time, and I've never seen the aforesaid "note" appearing on any membership record. Probably because we had no-one who qualified for it.

[Calm]

No I was thinking along the lines of being forgiven by Christ.....

Then what does the 70 x 7 have to do with it?

[Stargazer]

Im not great at math but I am pretty sure 2 is less than 490 (i.e. 70 X 7)

I believe there is a few verses in the Doctrine and Covenants which are of interest here:

24 Thou shalt not commit aadultery; and he that committeth badultery, and repenteth not, shall be ccast out.

25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive;

26 But if he doeth it aagain, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

[Saints Alive]

I believe there is a few verses in the Doctrine and Covenants which are of interest here:

That still doesn't say that he can't be forgiven again, all it says is that if he sins again he will be cast out again. It's the same way with every excommunicateable offense. No where does it say he can't be forgiven again. I'm sorry, I guess I happen to believe in an infinite atonement, not one that's good for 2 offenses and then you are d@mned.

[ERayR]

For such, there is a "note" that appears on the membership record, and a member with said note will not be called to serve in positions which would involve contact with whatever class the victim(s) fell into. I don't know much about this, but I do know that of the two types of printed membership records, one is "the" membership record, and is not shared with the member; instead he or she is given the Individual Ordinance Summary, which contains pretty much everything on the membership record, EXCEPT for such confidiential "notes". I've been a ward clerk for years and years over time, and I've never seen the aforesaid "note" appearing on any membership record. Probably because we had no-one who qualified for it.

I have been and am now a Ward Clerk. I know of the records of which you speak. I have received records which say "Contact Former Bishop". There are also protocols in place for the Bishop to put a hold on someones record and not let it be moved to a new ward without the Bishops release. This is to prevent someone from simply moving to outrun their crime or to try and circumvent a restriction invoked by their former Bishop or Stake President.

[Calm]

I guess I happen to believe in an infinite atonement, not one that's good for 2 offenses and then you are d@mned.

And if that was what an excommunication entailed....eternal damnation....you might have a point. Feel free to find doctinal support for your position.

John D. Lee had his blessings restored after his death.

6 There are those who have sought occasion against him without cause;

7 Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.

9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

12 And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation.

13 And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/64.34-35?lang=eng Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That still doesn't say that he can't be forgiven again, all it says is that if he sins again he will be cast out again. It's the same way with every excommunicateable offense. No where does it say he can't be forgiven again. I'm sorry, I guess I happen to believe in an infinite atonement, not one that's good for 2 offenses and then you are d@mned.

The policy, from what I have read is not a hard and fast rule and depends a great deal on revelation, in accordance to the given scripture above. It is not three strikes you are out no matter what....it is if you have gone down this path before multiple times, been willing to sin at a level that requires excommunication, then you are not typically showing the fruits of true repentance and much evidence that you do not respect the things of the Lord....in those few cases where true repentance does occur, special permission can be obtained. Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

That still doesn't say that he can't be forgiven again, all it says is that if he sins again he will be cast out again. It's the same way with every excommunicateable offense. No where does it say he can't be forgiven again. I'm sorry, I guess I happen to believe in an infinite atonement, not one that's good for 2 offenses and then you are d@mned.

Again you are confusing ourselves forgiving with the process of repentance, we in the Church should forgive all no matter what they have done, but this is the Lord's Church, not ours and he will forgive whom he will and he has put restrictions on the process of receiving his forgiveness through sincere repentance. He does not desire someone to further condemn himself by making covenants he is not willing to live up to.

What the guideline does is simply raise the level of scrutiny higher than in the past due to the individual's patterns of broken covenants.

If you were a householder with an extended family member who had stolen money, drugs or valuables or who had injured...maybe even raped another family member who was under your stewardship and you had accepted him back into the community after he demonstrated and expressed sincere repentance at that time and yet when allowed to reenter your home in awhile committed the same crimes against you and others...and was kicked out and then allowed into the family fold for a third time only to slide back into sin, cause significant pain to others.....would you not at least take great care in opening your door up again to him for the sake of those under your stewardship who had never harmed someone else at that level or who were innocent, requiring greater evidence of a long lasting change of heart and not of just an emotional desire to belong again? Or would you insist that because the family was able to have forgiven him, that they were also required to treat him to just as if none of his past actions had occurred.

Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

http://www.lds.org/e...ssings?lang=eng

If you continue to have issues with how it is discussed in abstract, perhaps you should examine how it is implemented to see if that meets your standard,

Edited April 17, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Again you are confusing ourselves forgiving with the process of repentance, we in the Church should forgive all no matter what they have done, but this is the Lord's Church, not ours and he will forgive whom he will and he has put restrictions on the process of receiving his forgiveness thorough sincere repentance. He does not desire someone to further condemn himself by making covenants he is not willing to live up to.

What the guideline does is simply raise the level of scrutiny higher than in the past due to the individual's patterns of broken covenants.

If you were a householder with an extended family member who had stolen money, drugs or valuables or who had injured...maybe even raped another family member who was under your stewardship and you had accepted him back into the community after he demonstrated and expressed sincere repentance at that time and yet when allowed to reenter your home in awhile committed the same crimes against you and others...and was kicked out and then allowed into the family fold for a third time only to slide back into sin, cause significant pain to others.....would you not at least take great care in opening your door up again to him for the sake of those under your stewardship who had never harmed someone else at that level or who were innocent, requiring greater evidence of a long lasting change of heart and not of just an emotional desire to belong again? Or would you insist that because the family was able to have forgiven him, that they were also required to allow himself to be treated just as if none of his past actions had occurred.

Exactly. Just because we forgive someone doesn't mean we have to let them move in with us.

[Marmonboy]

For such, there is a "note" that appears on the membership record, and a member with said note will not be called to serve in positions which would involve contact with whatever class the victim(s) fell into. I don't know much about this, but I do know that of the two types of printed membership records, one is "the" membership record, and is not shared with the member; instead he or she is given the Individual Ordinance Summary, which contains pretty much everything on the membership record, EXCEPT for such confidiential "notes". I've been a ward clerk for years and years over time, and I've never seen the aforesaid "note" appearing on any membership record. Probably because we had no-one who qualified for it.

Once when I was a branch clerk I did see a note on a record instructing us to call SLC--I can't recall what it was for, but it was in reference to something the member had done in the past. It is also done posthumously for some reason--there is a note on my great-grandfather's record that says if I want to find more info on him besides the basic name, etc. I need to get in touch with someone in SLC. I have no idea what it is, as I never followed through, but I hear family stories that he was not a nice guy.

[rongo]

Our branch president banned an investigator in Oldenburg, Germany (by "ban," I mean he forbade him from setting foot in the building, and was fully ready to take legal measures as well. The police station was right across the street from the chapel. ). He was insane, and was brought to church by another insane investigator.

The elders in the northern part of the city had a female eternal investigator who met him in line at the bank and invited him to church. The woman had had an abortion when she was 16, and saw a family with a daughter who was roughly how old her child would have been. She followed them home, thanked them for taking care of her daughter, and demanded that they give her her daughter back. The family had a restraining order against her.

Her boyfriend looked just like the ubiquitous picture of Jesus in the Church --- spitting image, with long hair and a beard. He wore a purple tuxedo to church, though. During the first discussion (he lived in the south, which was our territory), he told us that he was the Messiah who had been reborn in our day to save the world through his art and music. He also propositioned several women in the branch, and declared that women found him irresistable and could not keep themselves out of his bed (that led to the banning from the building). When we stopped teaching him (he wanted the priesthood so he could start baptizing people in the park), he complained to the mission office that I refused to teach him, even though he wanted to be baptized. Despite my explanations as to why we weren't teaching him any more, the APs wanted to visit him with me and get this baptism going. The visit could not have gone better ---- he was in his full insane glory, and afterwards, they fully agreed that not teaching and pursuing baptism with him were the right call.

I could share a lot more detail (like what happened at the AP visit), but that's enough to give an idea of how there might be certain circumstances that legitimately warrant physically banning someone from church buildings.

[thesometimesaint]

Yikes.

[Calm]

I could share a lot more detail (like what happened at the AP visit), but that's enough to give an idea of how there might be certain circumstances that legitimately warrant physically banning someone from church buildings.

Purple tuxedos will get you banned every time.

[Kenngo1969]

What about, say, this guy?

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/The-Mask.jpg

I've worn a zoot-suit to Church before, but it's a little more subdued than that. (I wouldn't do it now, because I'm in a quasi-leadership position. I'm waiting to be released ... )

[ERayR]

What about, say, this guy?

http://www.scifinow....09/The-Mask.jpg

I've worn a zoot-suit to Church before, but it's a little more subdued than that. (I wouldn't do it now, because I'm in a quasi-leadership position. I'm waiting to be released ... )

If you want released, wear the suit.

[MormonMason]

I supposed there could be a circumstance where a priesthood leader asks someone to attend another congregation as part of their repentance --- maybe to help a victim heal. And there might be a circumstance in which a leader might ask a member/former member to stay away from church if they kept preaching apostasy, until they were willing to quit. But it would be far more common that another member got a restraining order that meant the person against whom the order was couldn't attend church in the same facility.

A member of the Church cannot obtain a restraining order forbidding a person from a public place of worship. In one Ward I was in, one family actually tried to get a restraining order against another family who had been harming them. The judge would not grant it unless that line was struck out in the court paperwork. All that they could do is limit interaction but not actually stop them from attending the same public place of worship. As to the apostasy part, yes I can see that happening. A Bishop has to protect the Church. But, the only recourse a Bishop has is to call the police every time a person becomes disruptive and have that person removed. The only way that an effective restraining order could be granted is if the person restrained was actually committing bodily harm in the facilities and could be arrested on those grounds, or made a credible threat of physical harm. Of course, one should call headquarters for tips and assistance with such situations from the legal department because laws vary from State to State.

[Kenngo1969]

If you want released, wear the suit.

P.S.: The good news (or is it actually bad?) is that I don't have a green mask.

Edited April 19, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

A member of the Church cannot obtain a restraining order forbidding a person from a public place of worship. In one Ward I was in, one family actually tried to get a restraining order against another family who had been harming them. The judge would not grant it unless that line was struck out in the court paperwork. All that they could do is limit interaction but not actually stop them from attending the same public place of worship. ...

I wonder, in the case where more than one ward meets in a building, if a restraining order might mandate that one or the other family attend services for the other ward? Maybe not. Too intrusive. Comes too close to a court mandating religious practice. (Still, it's an innovative potential solution to a prickly problem ...)

[ERayR]

I wonder, in the case where more than one ward meets in a building, if a restraining order might mandate that one or the other family attend services for the other ward? Maybe not. Too intrusive. Comes too close to a court mandating religious practice. (Still, it's an innovative potential solution to a prickly problem ...)

I knew of a case where one family chose, on their own, to attend another ward so as to not exacerbate the tensions. I have also known of a couple of cases where they worked out their problems as outlined in the D & C and while not being best buddies they became friends.

[Kenngo1969]

I knew of a case where one family chose, on their own, to attend another ward so as to not exacerbate the tensions. I have also known of a couple of cases where they worked out their problems as outlined in the D & C and while not being best buddies they became friends.

That's always the best way to handle things, if at all possible. The whole "court-and-restraining-order" thing is so ... messy, after all!