Church Discipline

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

The man I knew had been ex'ed for getting blow jobs from women not his wife on business trips. 20 years later he was denied by the First Pres. from becoming a Bishop.

I thought President Clinton helped clarify that blow jobs don't constitute sex.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

The call wasn't actually issued, but it was made clear it was coming in an interview.

Bet he didn't make that mistake twice.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Tex

Bet he didn't make that mistake twice.

Having never been a SP/Bishop, I still would think it might be wise to float the idea before making the call, to get an idea of personal circumstances that I might not know about. It's my understanding that the week before Stake Conference, they call in several "candidates" for interviews.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Having never been a SP/Bishop, I still would think it might be wise to float the idea before making the call, to get an idea of personal circumstances that I might not know about. It's my understanding that the week before Stake Conference, they call in several "candidates" for interviews.

Well, bishops aren't typically released and called during stake conference, but sure, there is a vetting process. But being a candidate under consideration, and being told you are the prohibitive favorite (and then being told the FP killed it), are two very different things.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

It's my understanding that the week before Stake Conference, they call in several "candidates" for interviews.

Not necessarily. I suspect this varies significantly from stake to stake.

[cougarobgon]

Originally Posted by Tex

Well, let me clarify. The tone of ER's post suggested to me that he meant present tense (someone who is currently disfellowshipped). Assuming that the person has repented and been fully reinstated, then with rare exception I have no problem with them serving in leadership.

We've been over this already. The church does not notate previous transgressions on local unit records once the term of discipline is complete. Ask any ward clerk. This is no great secret.

It has been a while since I have seen a membership record, but, I don't recall ever reading one with a notation describing a past transgression. There were some records that were flagged with a notation asking the bishop to contact SLC for information regarding an individual's membership status. I don't know all the transgressions the Church leaders have determined to warrant anotations on a membership record, but, I know for sure that transgressions against children warrant an anotation.

The Church has to be very careful, in particular now with all the sex abuse litigation and more importantly, to protect our children, to not allow individuals with past transgressions against children to serve in callings, including leadership positions in the primary and YM/YW. The only way a bishop can identify such an individual is for membership records to be flagged. Individuals are made aware that their records will be flagged, to protect children from harm and them from being put in situations that may lead them to transgress again. I recall an individual going through the repentance process until his blessings were restored many years after the transgression. Although the individual was allowed to return to full fellowship in the Church, he was told he would not be able serve in callings involving children and that his record would be flagged. I assume most on this board would not have any problems with such an individual's record being flagged.

Cougarobgon