katherine the great Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I have to question the wisdom of a former Bishop or Stake President who publicly discusses a particular member's repentance process. When a leader discusses such experiences using their real name, I think it is a breach of confidentiality even when they do not name the member. It isn't hard for other members of the ward or stake to connect the dots. I have felt that way occasionally in General Conference when General Authorities have told such stories. It may have been in the distant past, but doing so with such a potentially vast audience is just inappropriate IMO--even when an attempt is made to veil details.
katherine the great Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I'm also curious to know what becomes of the notes or "minutes" taken during these proceedings. Confidentiality could easily be inadvertently compromised if they are kept on file. Are they shredded after the issue is resolved?
Duncan Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 I'm also curious to know what becomes of the notes or "minutes" taken during these proceedings. Confidentiality could easily be inadvertently compromised if they are kept on file. Are they shredded after the issue is resolved? my bro is the stake clerk and he said there are two copies of the minutes, one is sent to Salt Lake and one is kept in a locked file with, at least here anyways, the stake pres. is the only one who has a key.It's in a locked cabinet somewhere.
katherine the great Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 my bro is the stake clerk and he said there are two copies of the minutes, one is sent to Salt Lake and one is kept in a locked file with, at least here anyways, the stake pres. is the only one who has a key.It's in a locked cabinet somewhere. That is disturbing.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 That is disturbing. apparently that is SOP, he doesn't know how long records are kept. We are trying to reactivate an excommunicated member lady who was exed about 20 years ago and he doubts her file is still here, he hasn't seen any of these records FWIW. On the ward level it's the same thing and if someone is exed at the ward level the SP has to sign off on it and one record is kept locally and one has to be sent to SLC. FYI-I am trying to get a list generated of who was exed from the Church here, I figure who better to reach out to than exed people, "Finding the one'. I don't want to know why or what happened but maybe someone will come back. I know some who are over the moon nutty but at least we can extend the hand of fellowship because I doubt highly anyone on the stake level is keeping contact with them-based on some conversations I have had with the SP about this
katherine the great Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 apparently that is SOP, he doesn't know how long records are kept. We are trying to reactivate an excommunicated member lady who was exed about 20 years ago and he doubts her file is still here, he hasn't seen any of these records FWIW. On the ward level it's the same thing and if someone is exed at the ward level the SP has to sign off on it and one record is kept locally and one has to be sent to SLC. FYI-I am trying to get a list generated of who was exed from the Church here, I figure who better to reach out to than exed people, "Finding the one'. I don't want to know why or what happened but maybe someone will come back. I know some who are over the moon nutty but at least we can extend the hand of fellowship because I doubt highly anyone on the stake level is keeping contact with them-based on some conversations I have had with the SP about thisThere is a difference between keeping a list of former members and keeping the confidential notes from their disciplinary council. I imagine that the notes are quite comprehensive and contain very personal information that the individual would not want to be made known to anyone other than those to whom they entrusted the information.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 There is a difference between keeping a list of former members and keeping the confidential notes from their disciplinary council. I imagine that the notes are quite comprehensive and contain very personal information that the individual would not want to be made known to anyone other than those to whom they entrusted the information. just the list of who was exed is what I want not why, But to get a list would mean someone going through all those transcripts. It's almost like you have to have RCMP special clearance! I don't want to know why they are out but just who
katherine the great Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 just the list of who was exed is what I want not why, But to get a list would mean someone going through all those transcripts. It's almost like you have to have RCMP special clearance! I don't want to know why they are out but just whoI understand. I'm just lamenting the fact that these transcripts even exist.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) I understand. I'm just lamenting the fact that these transcripts even exist. apparently these transcripts aren't who said what like a script but a summary of who was there, current calling, did they confess, brief summary of what happened for a court to be convened, what the outcome was, any recommendations, action taken, stuff like that and so they are only a few pages apparently. My Bro. hasn't seen these but asked about them so take this with a 100lbs bag of salt interestingly enough a friend of mine who is now a Bishop had his name removed years ago. What is supposed to happen is you get rebaptized but I am fairly certain all he did to get back into the Church is he had an interview with the SP. I vividly recall him phoning me telling me about his name removal and I also recall him suddenly showing up at church and he was all happy and things went on as before and eh said he had an interview, so I dunno if that procedure was blipped but he is now a Bishop! Edited July 8, 2014 by Duncan
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I understand. I'm just lamenting the fact that these transcripts even exist. How could they not? X'ed member comes to bishop 10 years afterwards and wants to re-admitted. Bishop has no record of the DC, or the reason for the X. How can he adequately know how to deal with the situation? Rely upon the ex-member's complete truthfulness about what happened? When I was a branch president in Germany many years ago, there was a family in the branch whose father had stolen funds from the Church: a lot of funds. He was excommunicated, and as part of his repentance process (the Church did NOT involve the criminal law on the matter) he was supposed to pay it all back before he could come back in. If the church unit (would have been his home stake back in the USA) did not keep detailed records about how much he needed to pay back, how would they ever be able to judge if he had completed repayment?
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 apparently these transcripts aren't who said what like a script but a summary of who was there, current calling, did they confess, brief summary of what happened for a court to be convened, what the outcome was, any recommendations, action taken, stuff like that and so they are only a few pages apparently. My Bro. hasn't seen these but asked about them so take this with a 100lbs bag of salt interestingly enough a friend of mine who is now a Bishop had his name removed years ago. What is supposed to happen is you get rebaptized but I am fairly certain all he did to get back into the Church is he had an interview with the SP. I vividly recall him phoning me telling me about his name removal and I also recall him suddenly showing up at church and he was all happy and things went on as before and eh said he had an interview, so I dunno if that procedure was blipped but he is now a Bishop!
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 apparently these transcripts aren't who said what like a script but a summary of who was there, current calling, did they confess, brief summary of what happened for a court to be convened, what the outcome was, any recommendations, action taken, stuff like that and so they are only a few pages apparently. My Bro. hasn't seen these but asked about them so take this with a 100lbs bag of salt interestingly enough a friend of mine who is now a Bishop had his name removed years ago. What is supposed to happen is you get rebaptized but I am fairly certain all he did to get back into the Church is he had an interview with the SP. I vividly recall him phoning me telling me about his name removal and I also recall him suddenyl showing up at church and he was all happy and things went on as before and eh said he had an interview, so I dunno if that procedure was blipped but he is now a Bishop! It is a fact that a name-removed member must be rebaptized. A formerly endowed and name-removed priesthood holder must receive the ordinance of Restoration of Blessings before their priesthood and temple blessings are again active. In that case, the priesthood office that the member formerly held is restored, except for the offices of bishop, seventy, or patriarch. First Presidency approval of this restoration is required, and the FP will not consider it until at least a year has passed since the rebaptism. The ordinance is performed by a General Authority or by the stake president. I don't think they make exceptions and just let a SP interview fix it all up. It isn't necessary for the rebaptism to be public -- it could have been done quietly in the case of your friend.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 It is a fact that a name-removed member must be rebaptized. A formerly endowed and name-removed priesthood holder must receive the ordinance of Restoration of Blessings before their priesthood and temple blessings are again active. In that case, the priesthood office that the member formerly held is restored, except for the offices of bishop, seventy, or patriarch. First Presidency approval of this restoration is required, and the FP will not consider it until at least a year has passed since the rebaptism. The ordinance is performed by a General Authority or by the stake president. I don't think they make exceptions and just let a SP interview fix it all up. It isn't necessary for the rebaptism to be public -- it could have been done quietly in the case of your friend. I don't recall him being a MP holder but he could have been and I know he wasn't endowed so maybe that had something to do with it. I was thinking maybe the policy had changed or he changed his mind within 30 days but I dunno. I could talk to him about it but that requires effort
Stargazer Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 I don't recall him being a MP holder but he could have been and I know he wasn't endowed so maybe that had something to do with it. I was thinking maybe the policy had changed or he changed his mind within 30 days but I dunno. I could talk to him about it but that requires effort On a name removal, you can back out of it within 30 days. The SP is supposed to hold it that long before sending it in to SLC. Otherwise you must wait at least 1 year before getting back in. And no, the policy hasn't changed recently. Or even in the last 10 years.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 On a name removal, you can back out of it within 30 days. The SP is supposed to hold it that long before sending it in to SLC. Otherwise you must wait at least 1 year before getting back in. And no, the policy hasn't changed recently. Or even in the last 10 years. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, given how things are done around here, I now need to ask him you were ordained a High Priest right?!
katherine the great Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 How could they not? X'ed member comes to bishop 10 years afterwards and wants to re-admitted. Bishop has no record of the DC, or the reason for the X. How can he adequately know how to deal with the situation? Rely upon the ex-member's complete truthfulness about what happened? Uh...yes. Just like we rely on a new convert's complete truthfulness when they have their baptismal interview. Unless there is child sexual abuse involved or some overwhelming reason this person cannot be entrusted in certain callings, I think it's inappropriate to keep a detailed account of their previous sin. I'm an archaeologist and can just see these documents ending up in some kind of public collection someday.
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Uh...yes. Just like we rely on a new convert's complete truthfulness when they have their baptismal interview. Unless there is child sexual abuse involved or some overwhelming reason this person cannot be entrusted in certain callings, I think it's inappropriate to keep a detailed account of their previous sin. I'm an archaeologist and can just see these documents ending up in some kind of public collection someday. After about 100 years few if any alive at the time would even care.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 After about 100 years few if any alive at the time would even care.Be that as it may, I know that Church disciplinary proceedings are among the few things on the limited list of items that the Church History Department will not make available to researchers, this because of the confidentiality of such proceedings.
rongo Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Duncan: When I was a bishop, our disciplinary council minutes were a detailed transcript of what was said, and by whom (like a Supreme Court deliberation transcript). The ward clerk would typically fill up much of a yellow legal pad for lengthy ones (we had a couple that took several hours), which would then be transcribed. I found detailed ones to be helpful when we ordered them, and figured they would be helpful for future priesthood leaders. One we ordered was a lengthy, transcript-style one from a BYU stake. Several of the men on the stake presidency and high council were prominent professors (Eugene England, Richard Anderson, etc.). This particular one was *extremely* helpful, because of its detail. The new system is online, I think, and has character limits (like with mission applications), so I think the bishops in any case are limited as to what and how much they can include. Pretty much just who was present, what the charge was, and what the outcome was, etc. 1
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Duncan: When I was a bishop, our disciplinary council minutes were a detailed transcript of what was said, and by whom (like a Supreme Court deliberation transcript). The ward clerk would typically fill up much of a yellow legal pad for lengthy ones (we had a couple that took several hours), which would then be transcribed. I found detailed ones to be helpful when we ordered them, and figured they would be helpful for future priesthood leaders. One we ordered was a lengthy, transcript-style one from a BYU stake. Several of the men on the stake presidency and high council were prominent professors (Eugene England, Richard Anderson, etc.). This particular one was *extremely* helpful, because of its detail. The new system is online, I think, and has character limits (like with mission applications), so I think the bishops in any case are limited as to what and how much they can include. Pretty much just who was present, what the charge was, and what the outcome was, etc. I can just imagine clerks were complaining "I don't want to write all this mumbo jumbo out, who said what and all!" so they went to the skeleton version
katherine the great Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Being a somewhat skeptical thinker, I wonder how many people would be motivated to confess serious sins if they think through the entire process and realize all the implications of unburdening their souls. I'm not making a judgement. Just pondering.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Being a somewhat skeptical thinker, I wonder how many people would be motivated to confess serious sins if they think through the entire process and realize all the implications of unburdening their souls. I'm not making a judgement. Just pondering.My impression is that in very many -- if not most -- cases, they are all too aware of the pain involved but are willing to endure it because the burden of sin grows unbearable. It could be compared to the suffering attendant to surgery or physical therapy. You endure the pain and discomfort and trust the practitioners as a tradeoff for being rid of the malady.
thesometimesaint Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 Be that as it may, I know that Church disciplinary proceedings are among the few things on the limited list of items that the Church History Department will not make available to researchers, this because of the confidentiality of such proceedings. That is how I think it should be as long as those involved are still alive.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 That is how I think it should be as long as those involved are still alive.If I understand correctly, the policy prevails long past that point -- on into perpetuity. Those involved don't cease to exist after death.
Duncan Posted July 8, 2014 Posted July 8, 2014 (edited) Being a somewhat skeptical thinker, I wonder how many people would be motivated to confess serious sins if they think through the entire process and realize all the implications of unburdening their souls. I'm not making a judgement. Just pondering. i've wondered that for years now too! I had a curious tyrannical Bishop as a youth and my two YSA Bishops were nutcases and wanted all the nitty gritty for various reasons. Long story short now I would only, only go to the Bishop to confess something that affects my membership in the Church, otherwise it's NONE of their blooming business! Elder Joe J. Christensen once said that Bishops are shepherds and not veterinarians. I can unburden my soul by talking to family, friends or through Dollar Drink days at McDonalds Edited July 8, 2014 by Duncan
Recommended Posts