God May Forgive...But the LDS Data Base Never Will

[SmileyMcGee]

14 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?

 

Wait...I thought you were an Aussie too, Russell...where did I get that idea?

[Calm]

Russell is a Kiwi

Edited February 12, 2016 by Calm

[Duncan]

I didn't know he was Australian!!! I thought the flag was there because he likes Sheldon Cooper's "Fun with Flags" boy oh boy, you learn something new everyday

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

What's the matter, Johnnie? Are you upset that you didn't get one?

 

This is over the line.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Sick joke

Best kind.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Remember when teachers warned us what we did would go on our permanent record? Yeah, colleges didn't care about that stuff.

[mtomm]

Maybe it doesn't seem like a big deal.  Yet repentant soul may move into a ward where their father-in-law or another relative is the Bishop.  I could see this causing real issues for an indivdual and families. We are talking about someone who has repented and not hurt children.  Not cool. 

AND you may not even know it's there?? 

[Kemara]

6 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

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...

 

 I wish our American friends knew how funny your comment is.

[Kemara]

5 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 My OP is pointed to church procedures that maintain annotations on repentant sinners, particularly gays while excluding similar behavior among heterosexuals. 

What similar behaviour among heterosexuals is excluded? There is nothing similar about it at all. Male + female vs. male + male, I would have thought that the distinct difference would be rather obvious to everyone, I mean even young children watching Sesame Street can play, "One of these things is not like the other, which one is different, do you know?" The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, in the context of your post, is graphic, obvious and undeniable. Hence the difference in the annotation policy.

[Bernard Gui]

From a former bishop and ward clerk (me).... Some annotations can be removed upon repentance, rebaptism, and proper approval. In addition to a record annotation, when a member is under disciplinary restrictions, has a pending disciplinary council, or may be suspect of sinful activities moves to a new ward, there is a place on the membership record instructing the new bishop to contact the previous bishop. A new move-in is not to be given a calling unless the new ward has received the membership record without any restrictions or the new bishop has contacted the previous bishop.The purpose is to protect the new ward and its members from potential problems and to make sure the repentance process is completed. The only person who can know the reason for the annotation is the bishop.There are predators who take advantage of the system and find ways to work around it, but they would be rare if procedures are followed. I am personally aware of one such fellow who had been excommunicated, moved to a new area, and used a false name to get rebaptized. He was starting to groom new victims when his secret was discovered by an astute bishop's daughter. Perhaps zone leaders should ask for ID before baptisms.

This is not some sort of vindictive unforgiving Scarlet Letter scheme, but rather it is a way the Church protects its members and itself. We can rest assured that it has come about from sad experience.

[Avatar4321]

9 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

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. 

 

So is the problem that we do it or don't do it enough? Trying to figure out what is upsetting you.

[Johnnie Cake]

 

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

What similar behaviour among heterosexuals is excluded? There is nothing similar about it at all. Male + female vs. male + male, I would have thought that the distinct difference would be rather obvious to everyone, I mean even young children watching Sesame Street can play, "One of these things is not like the other, which one is different, do you know?" The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, in the context of your post, is graphic, obvious and undeniable. Hence the difference in the annotation policy.

Wow

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

From a former bishop and ward clerk (me).... Some annotations can be removed upon repentance, rebaptism, and proper approval. In addition to a record annotation, when a member is under disciplinary restrictions, has a pending disciplinary council, or may be suspect of sinful activities moves to a new ward, there is a place on the membership record instructing the new bishop to contact the previous bishop. A new move-in is not to be given a calling unless the new ward has received the membership record without any restrictions or the new bishop has contacted the previous bishop.The purpose is to protect the new ward and its members from potential problems and to make sure the repentance process is completed. The only person who can know the reason for the annotation is the bishop.There are predators who take advantage of the system and find ways to work around it, but they would be rare if procedures are followed. I am personally aware of one such fellow who had been excommunicated, moved to a new area, and used a false name to get rebaptized. He was starting to groom new victims when his secret was discovered by an astute bishop's daughter. Perhaps zone leaders should ask for ID before baptisms.

This is not some sort of vindictive unforgiving Scarlet Letter scheme, but rather it is a way the Church protects its members and itself. We can rest assured that it has come about from sad experience.

The church has every right and I dare say responsibility to protect its members and the children from serial molesters, my OP made this clear.  My OP was directed to those members who have repented, received forgiveness from God,  but still have that annotation mark in their membership records , some for life and others until they go through a very bureaucratic process to have it removed and that's if they even know its there...most wouldn't since this procedure is not common knowledge....is a  that fair? is that right? Should past sin follow you for life?

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Kemara said:

What similar behaviour among heterosexuals is excluded? There is nothing similar about it at all. Male + female vs. male + male, I would have thought that the distinct difference would be rather obvious to everyone, I mean even young children watching Sesame Street can play, "One of these things is not like the other, which one is different, do you know?" The difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals, in the context of your post, is graphic, obvious and undeniable. Hence the difference in the annotation policy.

All you're really saying here is that you are repelled more by one than the other. What does that have to do with sinfulness? 

[Ahab]

14 hours 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 

and computers are operated by people following policy

No I get it and you are missing the point and have the wrong idea about it. Forgiving and forgetting sins doesn't mean we forget about the weaknesses of others.  We should remember the weaknesses of others enough to help them avoid committing the same kind of sin again. 

It's a good policy.  Unfortunate, but still good.

The idea that everybody should just totally forget that others have certain weaknesses that have caused them to sin certain sins before is not only foolish and imprudent but it doesn't help you to help that person avoid committing the same kind of sin again. 

[smac97]

14 hours 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 

and computers are operated by people following policy

Oh brother.

I was going to provide a substantive response to the OP, but I won't bother.  I am growing less inclined to take you seriously when you resort to such over-the-top nonsense.

I hope you have a change of heart.  This bull-in-a-china-shop schtick is getting old quick.

-Smac

Edited February 12, 2016 by smac97

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The church has every right and I dare say responsibility to protect its members and the children from serial molesters, my OP made this clear.  My OP was directed to those members who have repented, received forgiveness from God,  but still have that annotation mark in their membership records , some for life and others until they go through a very bureaucratic process to have it removed and that's if they even know its there...most wouldn't since this procedure is not common knowledge....is a  that fair? is that right? Should past sin follow you for life?

Even if someone has repented and received forgiveness from God, do we want to put them back in a situation where they may eventually give in to a temptation and sin again?  The asterisk helps protect the repentant member from this.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Even if someone has repented and received forgiveness from God, do we want to put them back in a situation where they may eventually give in to a temptation and sin again?  The asterisk helps protect the repentant member from this.

I'm not sure I follow. How is an asterisk going to accomplish that?

[Danzo]

25 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I follow. How is an asterisk going to accomplish that?

I don't understand where you are coming from, Are you  in favor of letting people with a history of child abuse have callings that deal with young children?

(Because that is what the asterisk accomplishes, it serves as a warning to a bishop to keep them from calling such people to callings that deal with children)

 

 

[rongo]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 Perhaps zone leaders should ask for ID before baptisms.

We did in Germany in the mid 1990s. I was surprised (and still am) that no ID verification is done in the U.S. I once interviewed a man who claimed to be an Israeli citizen, which was forbidden and was going to require First Presidency approval, but his passport was German. When asked about this, he admitted that he had claimed to be Israeli because he thought it would make the missionaries like him better, and he didn't dare tell them the truth later. I gave him a stern talking to about honesty, the 10 commandments, and the fact that he had gone into his baptismal interview under a lie, the disconnect there, etc. After calling the mission president to tell him "false alarm" on calling the Office of the First Presidency, I approved it. But, we wouldn't ever have known without checking ID, which was mandatory on my mission.

[ksfisher]

32 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure I follow. How is an asterisk going to accomplish that?

There is also a note with a number to church headquarters that the bishop can call.  The bishop calls the number and is told that the member, while in good standing, shouldn't be given a calling that involves children (for example).  No one in the ward but the bishop needs to know anything more.

[ALarson]

15 hours 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 is an adult who had repeated homosexual encounters will likely have an annotation. 

Thanks for posting these specifics, Smiley.

I understand this being necessary and of extreme importance for "a person who has harmed children".  Children must always be protected.

I also see some reasons for anyone who's had "a transsexual operation" (for temple or Priesthood ordination reasons and discussions, etc.).

But all of the others, I feel are unnecessary and wrong to do (if the person has repented).  

I especially question doing this to someone just because they are gay and have been involved in "repeated homosexual encounters".  That strikes me as being very discriminating unless member's records are annotated for being involved in "repeated heterosexual encounters" too that involved the need to repent.

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I don't understand where you are coming from, Are you  in favor of letting people with a history of child abuse have callings that deal with young children?

(Because that is what the asterisk accomplishes, it serves as a warning to a bishop to keep them from calling such people to callings that deal with children)

 

 

Sure, definitely applying it to people who have abused children is wise. In fact, people like that should not even be welcome to enter ward buildings, for the same reason you wouldn't hire a convicted child molester to be janitor at the grade school. 

But it appears that the asterisk is being applied more broadly, and I'm not sure how it's helpful in other cases. Especially in the case of a gay member of the church. 

Edited February 12, 2016 by Gray

[SmileyMcGee]

6 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for posting these specifics, Smiley.

I understand this being necessary and of extreme importance for "a person who has harmed children".  Children must always be protected.

I also see some reasons for anyone who's had "a transsexual operation" (for temple or Priesthood ordination reasons and discussions, etc.).

But all of the others, I feel are unnecessary and wrong to do (if the person has repented).  

I especially question doing this to someone just because they are gay and have been involved in "repeated homosexual encounters".  That strikes me as being very discriminating unless member's records are annotated for being involved in "repeated heterosexual encounters" too that involved the need to repent.

Let me preface this with saying that, after several experiences on this board, I now try my best to stay away from discussions regarding the morality of the church's policies and teachings. I think that it is for each person to decide whether these policies and teachings work for them and I don't feel that I can provide anything of value in helping them make that decision. That said, I don't really understand most of the policies towards homosexuals. For whatever reason the Church feels that homosexuality is a practice that needs to be called out specifically and dealt with more severely than other behaviors that appear very similar but involve different genders. I don't understand why gay marriage is considered apostasy and heterosexual adultery isn't. Perhaps the church sees one as a greater threat or act of defiance or something that needs special attention to assist those involved. I personally think the primary motive for many of these policies stems from a belief that society's increasingly favorable view of homosexuality will pose a threat to freedom of religious practice. I think that risk is largely exaggerated, and, if it indeed exists, can be mitigated in a way that won't materially affect the religious practices and rights of church members. At the same time, I don't believe that the motivation for the policies is some dislike for or hatred of gays. I don't get that from the Brethren and I don't get that from local leaders. There may be some leaders, even high up, that may harbor those feelings, but I don't think the policies reflect those feelings. I think the church genuinely feels that homosexuality is a sin, perhaps a threat, and that homosexuals should be treated with kindness and compassion. In addition, I think that anyone who condemns the church as categorically wrong in its beliefs and policies towards homosexuals is committing a gross error in that they can no more prove their own morals "right" than they can prove the church's morals "wrong." I think people often unknowingly mistake the general evolution of modern societal beliefs and attitudes for progress towards some absolute moral truth, which results in beliefs that were once mainstream being pushed to the "fringe," thus becoming very unpopular and being labeled as "discriminatory" (which they are, but not in the way that you appear to be using the word). But I think that is what the church's policies now are: unpopular, not "wrong." 

Edited February 13, 2016 by SmileyMcGee

[rongo]

28 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said:

 I don't understand why gay marriage is considered apostasy and heterosexual adultery isn't. Perhaps the church sees one as a greater threat or act of defiance or something that needs special attention to assist those involved. 

I think this is it exactly.

Cohabiting homosexuals are on a similar plane with cohabiting heterosexuals, so far as church discipline is concerned, I think. Transgressors may or may not be subject to a disciplinary council at the leaders' discretion. I think that gay marriage, on the other hand, is an act of defiance and apostasy in a way that simply committing homosexual acts is not --- and I think that's why it is specifically singled out as "apostasy" in the new policy (triggering a mandatory disciplinary council).