"But the Wedding is Coming Up...!"...LDS Video of a Bishop's Interview

[Kenngo1969]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"The Miracle of Forgiveness" was notorious for causing more despair and abandonment of even attempting abstinence than promoting the comfort of forgiveness.

I believe it is out of print now.

I think, perhaps, that we ought not be so eager to throw President (then-Elder) Spencer W. Kimball and his work under the bus, metaphorically speaking.  It's still available as an e-book.  I realize that'll cause some to say, "Dang!" )   https://deseretbook.com/p/miracle-forgiveness-spencer-w-kimball-61027?variant_id=41962-ebook  Parts of The Miracle of Forgiveness are in correlated curriculum now. https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-4?lang=eng.  And here's some interesting back story on the book. http://scottwoodward.org/SpencerWKimball_miracleofforgiveness.html . 

[Analytics]

18 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

"To consider ending formal probation, disfellowshipment, or excommunication, a presiding officer where the person currently lives must convene a disciplinary council. The council should have the same (or higher) level of ecclesiastical authority as the council that took the initial disciplinary action. "

Handbook 1 6.12.1

On the stake level this would entail participation by the high council.

"All three members of the stake presidency, all twelve members of the high council, and a clerk participate in a stake disciplinary council. "

Handbook 1 6.10.1

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record. And I know is that the Elder returned to the mission field almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy. Perhaps the G.A. who was above the mission president was the one who cleared him to return to the field? Or maybe he wasn't really even formally disfellowshiped?

[ksfisher]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record. And I know is that the Elder returned to the mission field almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy. Perhaps the G.A. who was above the mission president was the one who cleared him to return to the field? Or maybe he wasn't really even formally disfellowshiped?

"When a mission president holds a disciplinary council for members or full-time missionaries under his jurisdiction, he appoints two Melchizedek Priesthood holders to assist him. A disciplinary council in a mission follows the procedures and exercises the authority specified for a disciplinary council in a stake, except that a high council does not participate.

A mission president must preside over disciplinary councils for full-time missionaries in his mission. Before doing so, he must receive authorization from a General Authority in the Missionary Department"

Handbook 1 6.10.1

[ALarson]

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record. And I know is that the Elder returned to the mission field almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy. Perhaps the G.A. who was above the mission president was the one who cleared him to return to the field? Or maybe he wasn't really even formally disfellowshiped?

I don't doubt your story at all.  Different leaders handle things differently....leader roulette is involved and some follow rules strictly and some make exceptions or it depends on who is involved (politics, etc.).  That's just the honest truth from my experience over the years.  I've known of many who have been disciplined and many who for whatever reasons have not (or are not disciplined as severely as others for the same offense or just receive a slap on the wrist).

Just a couple of years ago, a missionary assigned to a ward in my stake was caught late at night over at a married sister's house (her husband was out of town).  They were out in front of her house in her car (backseat) and didn't have much on when they were caught by a neighbor who was a member of the Bishopric (who was out for a late night walk).  The missionary was just transferred and not sent home (he was the son of a Stake President who personally knew the MP).  This caused quite the uproar in our stake, but he still was not sent home.

Another brother who I knew well had an affair with his secretary (he'd served a mission when younger, was married in the temple with 4 kids).  He ended up moving out, abandoned his family and lived with the secretary for a few years (he even bought her a house).  Then he came back home and wanted to repent and get his family back.  His wife was willing to try (half of his kids were pretty forgiving).  There was a new, very young Bishop that had just been called.  This older man went in and confessed.  The Bishop told him he needed time to pray about it.  Within a few days, the entire Bishopric came over to meet with the husband and wife.  The Bishop sat there and told them he was inspired to forgive this man since he was so filled with remorse over what he'd done.  That was it....no court was held...no excommunication and he wasn't even disfellowshipped.  The wife was not happy, but accepted the Bishop's judgment.  Many still shake their head over that one....if it ever comes up.

I could tell more (and one quite recent in my area).  Nothing really surprises me anymore actually.  This is what happens when we have lay clergy that are good men called who are really just doing the best they can most of the time, IMO.  I could list all the rules that have been broken or not followed strictly (as many are doing with your example), but that doesn't change the fact that rules are definitely broken and exceptions are made.

 

Edited December 26, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

"When a mission president holds a disciplinary council for members or full-time missionaries under his jurisdiction, he appoints two Melchizedek Priesthood holders to assist him. A disciplinary council in a mission follows the procedures and exercises the authority specified for a disciplinary council in a stake, except that a high council does not participate.

A mission president must preside over disciplinary councils for full-time missionaries in his mission. Before doing so, he must receive authorization from a General Authority in the Missionary Department"

Handbook 1 6.10.1

I've personally known of several missionaries sent home without the disciplinary council held for them while out in the mission field.  Note the word "when" at the beginning of the first paragraph.  I believe the second paragraph is specifying that "when" one is held in the mission field, the MP "must preside" over it.  The ones I have been involved with were held back in the missionary's home stake after they were sent home.

Edited December 26, 2017 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I think, perhaps, that we ought not be so eager to throw President (then-Elder) Spencer W. Kimball and his work under the bus, metaphorically speaking.  It's still available as an e-book.  I realize that'll cause some to say, "Dang!" )   https://deseretbook.com/p/miracle-forgiveness-spencer-w-kimball-61027?variant_id=41962-ebook  Parts of The Miracle of Forgiveness are in correlated curriculum now. https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-spencer-w-kimball/chapter-4?lang=eng.  And here's some interesting back story on the book. http://scottwoodward.org/SpencerWKimball_miracleofforgiveness.html . 

My comment was

Quote

 

"The Miracle of Forgiveness" was notorious for causing more despair and abandonment of even attempting abstinence than promoting the comfort of forgiveness.

 

Sure it was a great book.   My statement does not say otherwise. 

Being logical has its drawbacks 

Parts is parts. 

 

[rongo]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

The disciplinary council to consider reinstatement would have been back at home, in the home stake (where the elder was sent home to). He would not have been shipped back to Argentina for the mission president who disfellowshipped him to reinstate.

This is the first red flag. Assuming for the sake of argument that the home stake president moved very quickly (i.e., within two or three weeks or so of him coming home) to reinstate, he would still need to convene a disciplinary council at the stake level (because he held the Melchizedek priesthood). He cannot have done this with a wave of his hand on his own, as you assumed. He would need to convene a formal one with the twelve high councilors, his two councilors, and the stake clerk present. A letter would have needed to have been delivered in person to the boy by two authorized witnesses. Typically, this takes at least a week or so, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that he moved very quickly and put one together almost as soon as he got off the plane. The council would then be held, and for the sake of argument, let's say that all fifteen men involved (the clerk is silent, and only takes notes) unanimously agreed that the boy who was just disfellowshipped and just got home, should be reinstated.

The second red flag is that this went through. In the first place, in the deliberation and discussion phase, the stake president would have gotten a lot of pushback from his counselors and the high councilors about immediately reinstating him. This is simply unheard of. ALarson and others mention anecdotes of people who should have received discipline, but did not (yes, this happens all the time), but in this case, the boy was disfellowshipped. This goes to Salt Lake via application with minutes and proceedings that are reviewed by the office of the First Presidency, and if approved, the annotation of disfellowshipment is placed on the membership record and paper letters are sent to the stake president and bishop. These letters take 1-2 months to arrive. Your story requires us to believe that his disfellowshipment was lifted before it was even recorded. I am confident that Salt Lake would not have approved the lifting after only 2-3 weeks for sexual transgression while on a mission. A member of the Seventy would have called the stake president and chewed him out and explained that the action of the stake disciplinary council was not approved. While I, myself, have reinstated a disfellowshipped member after six months (with stake president approval), the handbook says that disfellowshipment "usually lasts one year." Reinstatement after 2-3 weeks under any circumstances is going to be rejected by Salt Lake for the very reasons you want to use this story for: damage to morale and testimonies resulting from the reaction to it. Once you cross the Rubicon and formally discipline, it isn't simply lifted after no time at all. This is sure to raise scrutiny from Salt Lake.

And then your story requires us to believe that this boy, after being reinstated after only 2-3 weeks, was then back in the mission field in another mission after only a week or so after the supposed reinstatement. These reassignments simply don't happen that quickly ---- doubly or triply so in a weird case like this where there was upper-level discipline (disfellowshipment or excommunication). I don't believe it would have happened at all, but certainly nowhere near this head-spinning timeframe.

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record.

Did she have a copy of her membership record to show you? Were you a clerk in her ward? This is another weird detail. What were the circumstances of you seeing her membership record?

Quote

And I know that the Elder returned to the mission field almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy. Perhaps the G.A. who was above the mission president was the one who cleared him to return to the field? Or maybe he wasn't really even formally disfellowshiped?

This is much more likely in this scenario --- that he was simply sent home with no formal disciplinary action. I still think under the circumstances that he would not have been reassigned to a different mission, formal discipline or no. 

 

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by rongo

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

I know for sure it’s not always the president of the missionary involved that disciplines them (maybe now, but not always at least).

My first cousin fooled around with an 18 year old girl in one of the wards he was assigned to on his mission.  He was sent home, released as a missionary and then disfellowshipped by his own local leaders.  It was a pretty awful experience for him and his family.  But he didn’t follow mission rules and there are consequences.

So in his case, it wasn’t his mission president that disfellowshipped him.

Edited December 27, 2017 by JulieM

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know for sure it’s not always the president of the missionary involved that disciplines them (maybe now, but not always at least).

Correct.  And, that's not a red flag in this story, as it appears Analytics does not know for sure when and where the elder involved was disfellowshipped (or if he was).  If I'm understanding him correctly, he's only sure that the sister was actually disfellowshipped and they were only told that the elder was.  That makes the most sense since the elder went right back out into the mission field.  Stranger things have happened and for whatever reasons, the local leaders may have chosen to handle that situation in this manner.  I don't doubt what Analytics related.....it's not even close to some of the things I've witnessed regarding issues like this one.  

Again, this is just a consequence of having lay clergy (who are mostly doing their best but the human aspect enters in).  Many call that "leadership roulette" and that is a good description, IMO.

Edited December 27, 2017 by ALarson

[Exiled]

20 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't doubt your story at all.  Different leaders handle things differently....leader roulette is involved and some follow rules strictly and some make exceptions or it depends on who is involved (politics, etc.).  That's just the honest truth from my experience over the years.  I've known of many who have been disciplined and many who for whatever reasons have not (or are not disciplined as severely as others for the same offense or just receive a slap on the wrist).

Just a couple of years ago, a missionary assigned to a ward in my stake was caught late at night over at a married sister's house (her husband was out of town).  They were out in front of her house in her car (backseat) and didn't have much on when they were caught by a neighbor who was a member of the Bishopric (who was out for a late night walk).  The missionary was just transferred and not sent home (he was the son of a Stake President who personally knew the MP).  This caused quite the uproar in our stake, but he still was not sent home.

Another brother who I knew well had an affair with his secretary (he'd served a mission when younger, was married in the temple with 4 kids).  He ended up moving out, abandoned his family and lived with the secretary for a few years (he even bought her a house).  Then he came back home and wanted to repent and get his family back.  His wife was willing to try (half of his kids were pretty forgiving).  There was a new, very young Bishop that had just been called.  This older man went in and confessed.  The Bishop told him he needed time to pray about it.  Within a few days, the entire Bishopric came over to meet with the husband and wife.  The Bishop sat there and told them he was inspired to forgive this man since he was so filled with remorse over what he'd done.  That was it....no court was held...no excommunication and he wasn't even disfellowshipped.  The wife was not happy, but accepted the Bishop's judgment.  Many still shake their head over that one....if it ever comes up.

I could tell more (and one quite recent in my area).  Nothing really surprises me anymore actually.  This is what happens when we have lay clergy that are good men called who are really just doing the best they can most of the time, IMO.  I could list all the rules that have been broken or not followed strictly (as many are doing with your example), but that doesn't change the fact that rules are definitely broken and exceptions are made.

 

I can echo the fact of leadership roulette and special treatment for some.  In my mission, a missionary son of a G.A. had sex with a woman and was merely transferred to another area.  These things happen and who is to say that the "punishment" isn't just as each case is different?  It looks questionable though and perhaps more rigorous punishment guidelines are in order?   

[rongo]

24 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I can echo the fact of leadership roulette and special treatment for some.  In my mission, a missionary son of a G.A. had sex with a woman and was merely transferred to another area.  These things happen and who is to say that the "punishment" isn't just as each case is different?  It looks questionable though and perhaps more rigorous punishment guidelines are in order?   

Which would run counter to the spirit of the OP and supportive comments by some. If they are really sorry and confess, shouldn't that be enough?   I'm shocked at the calls for "more rigorous punishment guidelines" on the part of people who took issue with the bishop in the video not rubber stamping the sealing to spare the couple from embarrassment. Absolutely shocked!

Not really, but I think it illustrates the need for the Church not to "just let things go" in order to spare people from embarrassment that is the natural consequence of their choices and actions. The "hardliners" in this thread agree that "rigorous punishment guidelines" are necessary for some things, even when people are really sorry and have confessed. To do otherwise is to inflict damage on individuals and on the Church, as people's outlier, weird anecdotes illustrate.

[rongo]

10 hours ago, JulieM said:

I know for sure it’s not always the president of the missionary involved that disciplines them (maybe now, but not always at least).

My first cousin fooled around with an 18 year old girl in one of the wards he was assigned to on his mission.  He was sent home, released as a missionary and then disfellowshipped by his own local leaders.  It was a pretty awful experience for him and his family.  But he didn’t follow mission rules and there are consequences.

So in his case, it wasn’t his mission president that disfellowshipped him.

Missionaries can be sent home to be disciplined by the home ward, too. But even then, the likelihood of a transgressing missionary being sent right back out is remote. Think about it:

Stake president: "Hello, missionary department? This is President LaVell of the Little Cottonwood Canyon Stake. I have a missionary who was just sent home from the Canada Alberta Mission, and we need to get him back out into another one."

Missionary department: "Was the missionary excommunicated or disfellowshipped?"

SP: "No, just sent home."

MD: "Health reasons?"

SP: (being cagey) "No, not health reasons. He just had some things he needed to sort out. He's got them sorted out, and he's good to go!" 

MD: "Well, let's see. We could send him out to the Arkansas Little Rock Mission in less time than it would take to recover from an appendectomy. Will that work for you?"

SP: "Say, that would be fantastic!"

MD: "We'll send out a letter with instructions and details about reporting."

-----

The circumstances surrounding his premature return are going to come up (they are unavoidable), and I remain skeptical about Analytics' representation that this happened "almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy." That doesn't even happen when missionaries come home for health reasons. 

As I mentioned, the only second-hand experience I had with this was when my wife's sister's boyfriend was sent home from his mission to Montana for inappropriate activity with a girl (it didn't reach the point of sex. It was more repeatedly being alone with her and improper communication). He wasn't disciplined, and when he sought to go back to another mission, he met with a member of the Seventy, who told him he would never be able serve a mission again at this stage in his life. This was also in the early 1990s (Analytics' timeframe), and I don't believe that this elder was sent out in a matter of weeks after far worse things. The story is ridiculous.

[rongo]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record. 

Again, what were the circumstances of you seeing her membership record? 

Whenever anyone tries to print a membership record, you have to click through a couple of windows with a warning:

"Official Church membership records should not be shown or given to members. Nor may they be copied for members. Under no circumstances may membership records be given to anyone other then the bishop or the clerk. Members are encouraged to have copies of the Individual Ordinance Summary for themselves and for any dependent children living at home.

Are you printing this record for a bishop or clerk?

If you choose “No,” the IOS will print."

The difference between a membership record and an IOS is that a membership record contains annotations (disfellowshipment, call Salt Lake regarding this member [usually because of child abuse or molestation, but also things like embezzlement from the Church. This is how leaders know not to put members in certain situations or callings], while an IOS is missing all of the notes. For you to have seen her membership record (with the note of disfellowshipment) would have been in violation of several policies (she shouldn't have had it, you shouldn't have seen it, you shouldn't have been discussing it with her, etc.).

[JulieM]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

Missionaries can be sent home to be disciplined by the home ward, too. But even then, the likelihood of a transgressing missionary being sent right back out is remote. Think about it:

Oh, I agree.  My cousin didn’t go back out (at all).  That’s why I agree that in Analytic’s story the Elder most likely was able to go back out because he wasn’t formally disciplined for whatever reason.  Strings are pulled for some and I’ve seen that too, but I don’t know if that’s what happened here.  But it’s strange the sister was punished and he wasn’t! 

[Danzo]

22 hours ago, Analytics said:

Thanks for the reference--I don't know very much about formal disciplinary proceedings. Can you confirm that in cases such as this, it is the mission president himself who formally disfellowships the wayward missionary?

About the story I told, I know that the Sister was in fact formally disfellowshipped because I saw her membership record. And I know is that the Elder returned to the mission field almost as quickly as he would have had he been sent home for an appendectomy. Perhaps the G.A. who was above the mission president was the one who cleared him to return to the field? Or maybe he wasn't really even formally disfellowshiped?

 

I think it is quite likely that there are details that are missing from the story either because you weren't privy to all the details or due to the passing of time.

I sound like you got most of your details from the sister, who obviously had a romantic relationship with the elder.  I long ago have learned to take stories about the ex spouse or ex girlfriend (or boyfriend) with a grain of salt. Lots of emotions involved (doubly so  because the church discipline involved).

Even when I am paid to believe the party, I often have to point out that the Judge is paid to basically disbelieve everyone's story and we shouldn't tell a story about how bad the other person was without a lot of evidence to back it up.

 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Oh, I agree.  My cousin didn’t go back out (at all).  That’s why I agree that in Analytic’s story the Elder most likely was able to go back out because he wasn’t formally disciplined for whatever reason.  Strings are pulled for some and I’ve seen that too, but I don’t know if that’s what happened here.  But it’s strange the sister was punished and he wasn’t! 

Not so strange. Analytics is disaffected from the Church, and he reports that this lady has left the Church. There are all sorts of details that are wrong or "Paul Dunned" in this version. Both the lady and Analytics have motives to paint the Church in a negative light. The purpose for sharing the story in the first place was to back up cinepro's claim that usually boys are let off the hook, while girls are punished to the fullest extent (which is numerically and anecdotally not true at all, and can only be claimed by sharing "atrocity" tales). 

I am confident that the truth of the matter, what actually happened, is different from either the lady's story or Analytics' recitation here. 

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

Again, what were the circumstances of you seeing her membership record? .

I had recently moved into a new ward where I was going to graduate school. The bishop called me into his office and said he received my family's membership records and had a question. He showed me my wife's membership record and said, "we just got this in from Salt Lake City and there is something in it that doesn't make sense. It says that your wife has been disfellowshipped for the last three years and still is disfellowshipped. Yet, it also shows that she married you in the temple 6 months ago. Of course you can't get a temple recommend if you are disfellowshipped. Yet it looks like your wife did just that. Do you know what's going on here?"

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

Not so strange. Analytics is disaffected from the Church, and he reports that this lady has left the Church. There are all sorts of details that are wrong or "Paul Dunned" in this version. Both the lady and Analytics have motives to paint the Church in a negative light. The purpose for sharing the story in the first place was to back up cinepro's claim that usually boys are let off the hook, while girls are punished to the fullest extent (which is numerically and anecdotally not true at all, and can only be claimed by sharing "atrocity" tales). 

I am confident that the truth of the matter, what actually happened, is different from either the lady's story or Analytics' recitation here. 

So you’re accusing one of them of lying?  That’s kind of crummy of you, in my opinion.  Especially considering how erratic and not uniform disciplinary stories have been that are shared here (and others I’m aware of).  Do you really doubt him just because he’s no longer active?  

Have you a history with Analytics on here not being truthful?

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So you’re accusing one of them of lying?  That’s kind of crummy of you, in my opinion.  Especially considering how erratic and not uniform disciplinary stories have been that are shared here (and others I’m aware of).  Do you really doubt him just because he’s no longer active?  

No, I doubt him because of the details in his story (as I've pointed out in great detail here). I simply brought up the point that he and his wife (whom he identified as the lady in the story) are disaffected with/have left the Church because they want to paint the Church in a bad light.

Have you a history with Analytics on here not being truthful?

No, none at all. Like I said, I'm just going by the details in the story, which are myriad in their problems.

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I had recently moved into a new ward where I was going to graduate school. The bishop called me into his office and said he received my family's membership records and had a question. He showed me my wife's membership record and said, "we just got this in from Salt Lake City and there is something in it that doesn't make sense. It says that your wife has been disfellowshipped for the last three years and still is disfellowshipped. Yet, it also shows that she married you in the temple 6 months ago. Of course you can't get a temple recommend if you are disfellowshipped. Yet it looks like your wife did just that. Do you know what's going on here?"

So the lady is your wife? 

That explains how you could have seen it. But, why did the bishop show you her record and ask you to explain it? Why didn't he ask her? Or both of you? And if the bishop showed you her record, why did you say that *she* had shown you her record?

How were you sealed if she was still disfellowshipped? The process for living ordinance recommends is meticulous, and that disfellowshipment (whether reinstated and not recorded or not yet reinstated) would have to have been cleared up before any temple would have performed the sealing.

Are you still a member, or have you removed your name as well?

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

No, I doubt him because of the details in his story (as I've pointed out in great detail here). I simply brought up the point that he and his wife (whom he identified as the lady in the story) are disaffected with/have left the Church because they want to paint the Church in a bad light.

 

 

No, none at all. Like I said, I'm just going by the details in the story, which are myriad in their problems.

Ok, I understand where you’re coming from.  But in my opinion his story isn’t any more bizarre than others I’ve read about on here or even personally know about when it comes to how inconsistent church discipline can be.  That should be factored in too I think and also just giving people the benefit of the doubt that they’re telling the truth.  But it’s good to question and get answers to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

 Do you really doubt him just because he’s no longer active? 

 

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Are you still a member, or have you removed your name as well?

Analytics routinely interacts with Church members in online forums such as this as one who is not or who is no longer a member of the Church, calling it "your church" and such.

Whether or not this reflects any formal name removal, I can't say.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

So the lady is your wife? 

That explains how you could have seen it. But, why did the bishop show you her record and ask you to explain it? Why didn't he ask her? Or both of you? And if the bishop showed you her record, why did you say that *she* had shown you her record?

How were you sealed if she was still disfellowshipped? The process for living ordinance recommends is meticulous, and that disfellowshipment (whether reinstated and not recorded or not yet reinstated) would have to have been cleared up before any temple would have performed the sealing.

Are you still a member, or have you removed your name as well?

Everything I've said in this thread is the straight-up truth. Clerical mistakes happen. People deal with them. I'm not going to subject myself to this public cross-examination of my personal life to satisfy your misplaced skepticism on this story. If you really want to know and you think this is really any of your business, send me a PM with your IRL contact info. I'll then tell you in private all of the details you want to know.

Believe it or not. I don't really care.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Analytics routinely interacts with Church members in online forums such as this as one who is not or who is no longer a member of the Church, calling it "your church" and such.

Whether or not this reflects any formal name removal, I can't say.

Which is none of our business unless Analytics chooses to share that information with us.  This is a discussion board and as far as I know, members and nonmembers are welcome here as long as they follow the rules set up by the moderators.

Also, his stage of membership has nothing to do with whether or not he is being truthful here and I think it's wrong to question his honesty when other's (the very active members) honesty is not.

I have no problem believing what Analytics has related.  I have personally seen so many different lapses of judgement or a lack of consistency regarding church discipline that what he relates is really quite minor in comparison.  When humans are involved, mistakes happen....also it many times comes down to who you know, what family you come from, what connections you have and so on.  That could be the case here or it could be that this elder was never formally disciplined and the SP felt it was best for him to just get right back out and finish his mission. Also, it was most likely that 2 different Stake Presidents were dealing with the sister involved and the elder involved (were they from the same stake?), so her SP may have been more stringent or felt he had to disfellowship her and handled things differently than the other SP. 

Stranger things have happened than what has been related by Analytics and I've personally witnessed much stranger.

Edited December 28, 2017 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Which is none of our business unless Analytics chooses to share that information with us.  This is a discussion board and as far as I know, members and nonmembers are welcome here as long as they follow the rules set up by the moderators.

I'm only pointing out what information has been available from messages posted publicly in the past. I thought it worth noting, as JulieM seemed to be laboring under the assumption that Analytics is an inactive Mormon, when, based on Analytics's own posting history and his level of candor, it apparently has long ago gone beyond that to the point of separation from the Church, whether or not that has been formalized with name removal. You can take that information or leave it; I don't care.

By the way, if I recall correctly, Analytics has in the past identified himself as Unitarian Universalist.

Quote

Also, his stage of membership has nothing to do with whether or not he is being truthful here and I think it's wrong to question his honesty when other's (the very active members) honesty is not.

I was merely endeavoring from personal observation to answer rongo's question. Each reader may determine for him/herself whether that is germane to the subject at hand.
 

Quote

 

I have no problem believing what Analytics has related.  I have personally seen so many different lapses of judgement or a lack of consistency regarding church discipline that what he relates is really quite minor in comparison.  When humans are involved, mistakes happen....also it many times comes down to who you know, what family you come from, what connections you have and so on.  That could be the case here or it could be that this elder was never formally disciplined and the SP felt it was best for him to just get right back out and finish his mission. Also, it was most likely that 2 different Stake Presidents were dealing with the sister involved and the elder involved (were they from the same stake?), so her SP may have been more stringent or felt he had to disfellowship her and handled things differently than the other SP. 

Stranger things have happened than what has been related by Analytics and I've personally witnessed much stranger.

 

The trouble with anonymous anecdotes is that there is no way to definitively verify or falsify them. So in evaluating them, one is obliged, as rongo has done, to look for internal clues that bear on their credibility.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd