Johnnie Cake Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind. I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS...Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die? Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed? Or why is it needed in the first place? anyone have insight into this question? thanks
Duncan Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 Are you sure this actually happens? even if this does then if you repent you can get your recommend back and go on your merry way. You don't need a calling to love and serve other people, as per the parable of the Samaritan 1
Jeanne Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind. I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS...Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die? Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed? Or why is it needed in the first place? anyone have insight into this question? thanks I didn't know this...do members know? This would be a great stumbling block for going to the Bishop for repentance.
Popular Post smac97 Posted February 11, 2016 Popular Post Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind. I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. What "some sin" do you have in mind? As I understand it, such permanently annotated files arise from situations involving sexual misconduct (generally toward a child or vulnerable person). There also may be an annotation arising from misappropriation of Church funds, but I'm not sure about that. Are you suggesting that sexual misconduct toward a child or vulnerable person is not "grievous?" I think there are other Quote Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS... You are not accurately describing the policy. None of the situations you describe here would trigger an annotation. Quote Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die? Again, you are not accurately describing the Church's policy. An annotation can be removed upon request of the individual's stake president and by the approval of the First Presidency. Quote Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed? Or why is it needed in the first place? anyone have insight into this question? thanks First, see the link above. Second, our society is much more transient than it used to be. People move all over the place all the time. An annotation helps reduce the risk of a transient person moving around and catching the Saints unawares. Third, nobody knows about the annotation except the bishop and stake president (sometimes the individual isn't aware of it). So this isn't a Scarlet Letter or a Pink Triangle or a Yellow Star of David or anything like that (given your recent outrageous calumnies leveled against the Church earlier today, I just want to nip such suggestions in the bud). Thanks, -Smac Edited February 11, 2016 by smac97 5
Johnnie Cake Posted February 11, 2016 Author Posted February 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, smac97 said: What "some sin" do you have in mind? As I understand it, such permanently annotated files arise from situations involving sexual misconduct (generally toward a child or vulnerable person). There also may be an annotation arising from misappropriation of Church funds, but I'm not sure about that. Are you suggesting that sexual misconduct toward a child or vulnerable person is not "grievous?" I think there are other You are not accurately describing the policy. None of the situations you describe here would trigger an annotation. Again, you are not accurately describing the Church's policy. An annotation can be removed upon request of the individual's stake president and by the approval of the First Presidency. First, see the link above. Second, our society is much more transient than it used to be. People move all over the place all the time. An annotation helps reduce the risk of a transient person moving around and catching the Saints unawares. Third, nobody knows about the annotation except the bishop and stake president (sometimes the individual isn't aware of it). So this isn't a Scarlet Letter or a Pink Triangle or a Yellow Star of David or anything like that (given your recent outrageous calumnies leveled against the Church earlier today, I just want to nip such suggestions in the bud). Thanks, -Smac You're Wrong. The annotation is applied to a variety of infractions including homosexual activity.... None of which have anything to do with protecting children, which I've already stated is necessary. It is true that the asterisk can be removed but only after a lengthy appeal process to the 1st presidency.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 11, 2016 Posted February 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're Wrong. The annotation is applied to a variety of infractions including homosexual activity.... None of which have anything to do with protecting children, which I've already stated is necessary. It is true that the asterisk can be removed but only after a lengthy appeal process to the 1st presidency. Call for references, please. 1
Ahab Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 Oh the horror. An asterisk on a membership record. And no, unfortunately, computers do not forgive BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPUTERS!!! And I'm glad computers are not people. That would be devastating. 2
ksfisher Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 The church's policy is designed to protect members who from being placed in a church situation where they may be tempted to sin again. It is both a blessing to the repentant sinner and a protection for the church. The policy seems to be wise, sensible, and prudent. 4
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Oh the horror. An asterisk on a membership record. And no, unfortunately, computers do not forgive BECAUSE THEY ARE COMPUTERS!!! And I'm glad computers are not people. That would be devastating. You're missing the point. It's a scarlet letter, a reminder to any future leader of the past sin of that member, even after repentance and computers are operated by people following policy 1
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said: Call for references, please. Check your church handbook...it's in there
Russell C McGregor Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Check your church handbook...it's in there Page number, please.
Avatar4321 Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 having been a membership clerk with I can say I've never seen any such thing. Either I lived with angelic saints or this policy isn't as broad and/or existent as the op claims
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 18 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Page number, please. Read this. He confirms. http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/420-smac97/
Russell C McGregor Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 7 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Read this. He confirms. http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/420-smac97/ What "he confirms" contradicts your assertion. Here's the link he posted: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/child-abuse And here are the relevant excerpts: Quote Since 1995 the Church has placed a confidential annotation on the membership record of members who previously abused children. These records follow them to any congregation where they move, thereby alerting bishops not to place them in situations with children. And: Quote Even if a person who abused a child sexually or physically receives Church discipline and is later restored to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism, leaders should not call the person to any position working with children or youth unless the First Presidency authorizes removal of the annotation of the person's membership record. The CFR remains unsatisfied.
Russell C McGregor Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 40 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: You're missing the point. It's a scarlet letter, a reminder to any future leader of the past sin of that member, even after repentance You're ranting. But never mind, Johnnie. The test series is starting; your team's best chance to redeem themselves. I'm sure your mood will improve once we see a few Australian cricketers with hundreds next to their name other than for their bowling performances... 1
Duncan Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 If you've been disciplined then I don't see why that shouldn't be on your record, if you've been re baptized then the record would also show that also. If you've repented and are in full fellowship with the Church and Lord then that is all that matters. I had a Bishopric counselour once who had been exed, I didn't like the guy but he was in full fellowship. I know a guy who should be exed...but that is another matter. There is a lady in my ward who has been exed twice now and she got rebaptized and gave a nice talk about stuff awhile ago. You don't get to heaven by the callings you have or don't have, you get there by repenting and keeping the commandments 3
SmileyMcGee Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: Page number, please. Book 1, 6.13.4-8. It's not as simple as "hey you hooked with a dude and you're a dude, so...annotation." Basically a person who has harmed children, embezzled church funds, been a polygamist, had a transsexual operation or is an adult who had repeated homosexual encounters will likely have an annotation. Edited February 12, 2016 by SmileyMcGee spelling 4
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: What "he confirms" contradicts your assertion. Here's the link he posted: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/public-issues/child-abuse And here are the relevant excerpts: And: The CFR remains unsatisfied. They took away my access to the handbook. I referenced that other post as confirmation of the annotations. He's wrong with respect to the extent of the annotation policy. It is not only restricted to abusers of children. So disbelieve if u like but I speak truth
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: Book 1, 6.13.4-8. It's not as simple as "hey you hooked with a dude and you're a dude, so...annotation." Basically a person who has harmed children, embezzled church funds, been a polygamist, had a transsexual operation or are an adult who had repeated homosexual encounters will likely have an annotation. Oh and no annotation for serial hetro adulters Edited February 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake
Guest Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I know I've been a somewhat active poster today...but I've had a lot on my mind. I'm curious what others think about the church policy of placing an "*" asterisk on the membership records of every member who has confessed to some sin that the church considers grievous. Now don't get me wrong, a child molester should have appropriate restrictions placed in their records...but what of the young mad who has a homosexual experience or the young woman who has a lesbian encounter or the high priest who has an affair...BUT REPENTS...Why does the church place an asterisk on their membership that remains until the day they die? Why not after full reinstatement can't this Mark be removed? Or why is it needed in the first place? anyone have insight into this question? thanks If it is a sin against children, this will help to make sure any new Bishop will keep them from being in callings in Primary or Young Men or Women organizations. If the person committed violent crimes against women, the same applies. We once had a member move into our Ward from Florida who quickly moved away when rumors started to surface. In our Ward he quickly got in Young men's org, where he sought out young men who were having troubles at home. His contact was not limited just to these type young men. My son told me (I was in the Bishopric at the time) that something about him just was not right. When the "brother" found our he gathered a group of boys and rolled our yard with bath tissue. When his behavior came into question he moved to AZ...it was there he was excommunicated and arrested for a number of sexual assaults against some young men. It took us as a Bushopric to track down his new Ward. Because he kept putting the membership clerk off on where the records were at last. Sadly, he had already done these things...had we know from his previous Ward, that "*" might have saved a few young men from such a predator.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: If it is a sin against children, this will help to make sure any new Bishop will keep them from being in callings in Primary or Young Men or Women organizations. If the person committed violent crimes against women, the same applies. We once had a member move into our Ward from Florida who quickly moved away when rumors started to surface. In our Ward he quickly got in Young men's org, where he sought out young men who were having troubles at home. His contact was not limited just to these type young men. My son told me (I was in the Bishopric at the time) that something about him just was not right. When the "brother" found our he gathered a group of boys and rolled our yard with bath tissue. When his behavior came into question he moved to AZ...it was there he was excommunicated and arrested for a number of sexual assaults against some young men. It took us as a Bushopric to track down his new Ward. Because he kept putting the membership clerk off on where the records were at last. Sadly, he had already done these things...had we know from his previous Ward, that "*" might have saved a few young men from such a predator. As I've stated earlier in my OP the church should take every step necessary to protect children. My OP is pointed to church procedures that maintain annotations on repentant sinners, particularly gays while excluding similar behavior among heterosexuals. Edited February 12, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
Russell C McGregor Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'll refer you board rules...and give you an opportunity to delete What board rule in particular? It was a joke, Johnnie. Do Australians only understand jokes at other people's expense?
Johnnie Cake Posted February 12, 2016 Author Posted February 12, 2016 2 minutes ago, Russell C McGregor said: What board rule in particular? It was a joke, Johnnie. Do Australians only understand jokes at other people's expense? Sick joke
Russell C McGregor Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said: Sick joke How was it "sick?" You were complaining that the list of sins requiring annotations wasn't long enough. I was just wondering whether you were feeling left out.
SmileyMcGee Posted February 12, 2016 Posted February 12, 2016 32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Oh and no annotation for serial hetro adulters If that "hetro" (shouldn't that be "hetero") adultery involves a child or polygamous relations then yes. Otherwise it doesn't appear so. I'm just the messenger, bro. I don't really care about how the church's morals clash with your morals.
Recommended Posts