Church Discipline

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Now that's just nonsensical. You can dispute the philosophy behind disfellowshipment if you wish, but the idea that the church wouldn't want a person guilty of serious sin (by whatever interpretation) leading a congregation is hardly paranoia.

Like Saul of Tarsus for example.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by exUte

There are plenty of leaders out there in Mormondom so that the Church doesn't have to call leaders from a pool of serious sinners.....even though they supposedly have repented.

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.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like Saul of Tarsus for example.

See my clarification, peanut boy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

See my clarification, peanut boy.

See Adam's clarification, dumbass.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

See Adam's clarification, dumbass.

Yes, they are marked in Salt Lake, not in local records. And I'm quite certain Adam's friend was an exception, as there are bishops who serve who have been disciplined.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=33

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Yes, they are marked in Salt Lake, not in local records, idiot. And I'm quite certain Adam's friend was an exception, as there are bishops who serve who have been disciplined.

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showpos...2&postcount=33

Makes no difference to me, if they wish to narrow the leadership pool.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Sure the records kept by the local units have no notation, but the ones on the First Presidency computer are annotated with lots of info.

Possibly. I don't know what information they have access to and I'm quite sure you don't either. We've discussed this before ... for legal protection it's wise that the church keep tabs on such things. However, generally speaking it doesn't affect a person's ability to serve except in extraordinary cases.

For example, if a person was convicted (civilly) of child molestation, then excommunicated and at some point rebaptized, it is wisdom to not have that person serve in a bishop's calling. But no local annotation is made to that effect on the local record.

On the other hand, I personally know a bishop who served long and faithfully, despite having a one-night stand decades earlier for which he was excommunicated.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Like Saul of Tarsus for example.

or Alma or Ammon and his brothers or Corianton or Enoch or Nephi or Moses

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Possibly. I don't know what information they have access to and I'm quite sure you don't either. We've discussed this before ... for legal protection it's wise that the church keep tabs on such things. However, generally speaking it doesn't affect a person's ability to serve except in extraordinary cases.

For example, if a person was convicted (civilly) of child molestation, then excommunicated and at some point rebaptized, it is wisdom to not have that person serve in a bishop's calling. But no local annotation is made to that effect on the local record.

On the other hand, I personally know a bishop who served long and faithfully, despite having a one-night stand decades earlier for which he was excommunicated.

Child molestation and willful rape are reasons to keep that info, but then again with the sex offenders registry, maybe the Church could just reference that.

[Tex]

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.

Then I suppose we just have to let the debate rest with the judgment of First Presidency, since the policy is clearly ... unclear.

What is clear however is that for day-to-day operations of a ward and/or stake, a formerly disciplined person carries no asterisk next to his service, has access to all the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel, and can participate in very nearly every conceivable way a person can.

PS. Out of curiosity, how did your friend know he was being submitted for the position of a bishop? Was his stake president so unwise as to issue the call before receiving the clearance?