Torostoros

Hello from a neighbouring Aussie

I've got Church Directory of Organisations and Leaders (CDOL) access; it's a global system. Just give me the name of the ward via PM (give me the Bishop's name that you have found by using Meetinghouse Locator also, just to be sure it's the right guy), and I'll find the number that you need to call/email address that you need to use.

I know, right? I hate the part where they scatter the flocks of trees.

Even if you are wrong on this point, if it stirs yourself, others, us, etc., up to repentance anyway, that's a good thing, right? :) No such thing as a bad time to be reminded of the need to repent :)

What MoE shared sounds completely right to me. Pam (and I think a couple of others) gave legitimate examples too. Poor choices can leave us with circumstances we're not fond of, even after we repent in the eyes of the Lord and regain good standing with the Church. At the most recent General Conference, Elder Scott even told us:

Interesting to see the varying viewpoints; I enjoy reading the things that I had never considered. I agree with points like not allowing them to choose something over God, or choosing a "lower law", one week and then allowing them to walk into the temple to make sacred binding covenants the next. I certainly consider the wisdom of those we sustain as the Lord's representatives to be much greater than mine, and I'm sure policy is there for a reason (or numerous reasons). I sustain the policy wholeheartedly, as well as the exceptions such as that in place in the United Kingdom for the reason already covered numerous times in this thread. Being one that enjoys a good loophole (for hypothetical reasons only, not in practice), I can't help but consider the following odd scenario pertinent to this policy: (1) A U.S. couple, completely worthy, choose and carry out a civil marriage, rather than a temple sealing/marriage. They move to England a week later, and want to go to the temple to be sealed immediately (I say move rather than vacation, as this means a transfer of records and a change in the Bishop and Stake President that would conduct the Living Ordinance - Sealing interview). Obviously, their Bishop and Stake President in the U.S. would not even consider holding this interview until close to the one-year mark, be it a plan to be sealed in an American or an English temple. Would they get the green light from their new Bishop and Stake President well before the one-year mark, seeing as they are now in England?

From CHI 1, 3.6.1 Sealing of Deceased Members This seems to indicate that what you are suggesting above would be OK (seeing as you indicated that the woman's children would perform this sealing AFTER she was deceased). This also seems to indicate that it would be OK. By that I mean it doesn't state the circumstance you explained (cancelling a sealing) as an exception. The last sentence indicates that even if divorced, sealings of deceased couples that were married can happen, so it's only the "Once a sealing is cancelled..." part of your question that could add a spanner in the works. The sealing policies sure seem to be a tough manage for widows, especially young widows still at ages where child-bearing is feasible, but had a marriage relationship where both husband and wife were happy and faithful to the covenant. They need to have the sealing cancelled to have another temple sealing (which a lot of men who are looking to get married and have children sealed to them will want). It's good to know Heavenly Father can be perfectly just, fair, merciful, and loving when all is said and done. As stated, sealings are (generally) not cancelled unless one of the parties is going to be sealed to somebody else. Interesting scenario in the OP, though. Even if, administratively speaking, it's possible, it seems like something one would want to make the subject of careful consideration and prayer. If it were me, I'd be consulting this with the Stake President and Temple President. Even those well-versed in Family History (consultants, High Priest Group Leader) and that have long family histories in the church may have come across similar situations in their own work and could then advise as to whether this is possible.

Interesting, so it won't appear on-screen but it will appear when the same record is printed? No wonder I never noticed it; I always preferred things on-screen and tried to minimise printing.

All over the world too! There's a Romney (originally from USA) that works the same temple worker shift as me every Friday night...here in Western Australia! Also a relation to the famous Romneys, but I can't remember in what way. I'll have to ask him (again).

When I was Ward Clerk (released about 3 years ago) obviously one of the functions of the calling was to make notes at Disciplinary Councils using the Church's special forms, then make electronic copies using the Church's record-keeping program (I believe the MLS program is in use worldwide for this). Once this was done, we were to dispose of the paper copies, and set a password for unlocking the "Confidential Report" which was kept in the aptly-named "Confidential Reports and Forms" section of MLS. I remember at one time the Bishop wanted me to access the record for a member's disciplinary council, but it had disappeared. I distinctly remembered having created it and certainly had no reason to delete it. A phone call to the relevant Salt Lake department led to them telling me that after about 30 days on the Ward/Stake electronic system, such confidential reports would disappear, "syphoned" to Salt Lake, if you will. Unless I'm completely unaware of where the notification would appear (an individual's IOS, the electronic directory of members, who knows), I'm not aware of anything that indicates an annotation to a member's record. I definitely never had the experience of having to get Bishop to log into anything because there was something that he could access that I couldn't (not on MLS anyway, which is the Church's record-keeping software; I'm aware there are certain segments of Leader Resources on LDS.org that even those that can see the Leader Resources page generally - like Clerks and Exec Secs - have to get a Bishop to log into). Then again, maybe there was just never a need. In addition, there are certainly also differences in rights between certain MLS accounts, so maybe it was something he never so much as discussed with me and just did when he used the computer on his own (there was only one username/logon for logging onto the computer itself, but each member of Ward Leadership had their own MLS account with differing levels of rights). If not a CES employee, Seminary Teacher is a Stake calling; CHI 2 specifically includes it in the Chart of Callings as a position: Recommended by: Bishop (may consult with seminary and institute personnel) Approved by: Stake presidency and high council Sustained by: Members in stake conference Called and set apart by: Stake president or an assigned counselor or high councilor This is for the calling of Stake Seminary Teacher. Of course, for all I know, the early-morning teachers are the CES employees in the USA. From what I can gather throughout this thread though, it seems early-morning teachers are what is reflected in CHI as Stake Seminary Teacher (the same as early-morning Seminary Teachers here, a calling), and those that teach as a school class during school hours are CES employees. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. The title of “Stake Seminary Teacher” can be misleading; at least over here in Australia. Early-morning Seminary is done on the ward level (or two wards together if the wards share the chapel). For all I know (again), early-morning Seminary could take place on a stake level in the USA with much bigger classes and geographically much smaller stakes given the higher concentration of members and meetinghouses. If I’m right in my assumption that the early-morning Seminary Teachers are not CES employees, then it is in the CHI 2 Chart of Callings as a calling needing Stake Presidency approval, calling, and setting apart as shown above. Both CES employees and called Seminary Teachers need to be temple-worthy, as per CHI 1; I can’t find anything in there with reference to needing to have never been divorced though. I have heard this floated around though (not that that means it necessarily has any legitimacy). Maybe, as some have speculated, it is a condition for CES employees only, or those holding the position as a calling only.

That's in Point 3.

A husband and wife who were married outside a temple may be sealed after one full year from the date of their civil marriage. However, this one-year waiting period does not apply to worthy couples in the following cases: 1. Both the civil marriage and the temple sealing take place in countries that do not recognize a temple marriage and that require a civil marriage. 2. The couple live in a country where there is not a temple and the laws of the country do not recognize a marriage performed outside the country. 3. A couple could not be married in a temple because one or both had not been a member of the Church for one year at the time of their civil marriage. They may receive their endowments and be sealed any time after at least one year has passed from the confirmation date of both members. If you're referring to it being global that one must wait at least a year to be endowed then that's correct.

CHI 1 specifically instructs that disciplinary councils should not be held to discipline or threaten members struggling with pornography, word of wisdom, or self-abuse issues. It's right near the top of the "When a Disciplinary Council is Not Necessary" section in Chapter 6. ALL types of formal church discipline (formal probation, disfellowshipment, and excommunication) require a disciplinary council.

Thanks all for the insights and responses. I guess at the heart of my OP is this: Can one, via request (no disciplinary action involved nor reason for it), become "unordained" from a Priesthood to which they had been previously been ordained, while maintaining Church membership in good standing? Basically undoing the ordination in the same way baptism is undone via name removal. Here's another one: Church Member A has sinned and is pretty much guaranteed excommunication, and knows this. He pre-empts this by completing the process of name removal by request before the disciplinary council is held. Seeing as he is now technically a non-member, and we are not to disallow non-members from taking the Sacrament, is he completely OK to be taking the Sacrament? Should leaders allow him to take it?

Just posting to clarify I'm not considering it personally ; just interested to see if there was a policy to deal with people that wanted to drop some covenants but not all. :) would be a strange contingency for leadership to deal with

Just a weird thought that randomly came to me while driving back from a meeting. We know people can request their names be removed from Church records, and are therefore no longer a member of the Church. Suppose a Melchizedek Priesthood holder were to request he no longer hold the Priesthood - being well-informed that while relieved of the obligations of the covenant, he would no longer, even when living righteously, receive the blessings (as he would no longer be in the covenant). Let's say in this hypothetical he makes this request because he has decided he is not able to live up to the obligations and therefore does not want the penalties for this failure. He is worthy, wants to remain a member, in good standing, etc., just does not want the Priesthood responsibility anymore, and asks to be "unordained" (or whatever else one could call it in this case). Can it be done? I've never head of such a thing so am wondering what would be the course of action if someone were to make such a request. Additionally, if someone were to have their name removed from Church records, then later decides to rejoin, are they re-baptised? Re-ordained? Is it some other ordinance a la restoration of blessings for excommunicated that return, in order to re-establish the covenants they had entered into at the time of name removal? How is it done?

I have a question about this because I truly don't know. I understand that it is not required; does anyone know if it is actively discouraged? I'm interested to know :)

Just call them and ask. My understanding was that it was being rolled out in English-speaking countries first, and we had it here in Perth (Pres. Hinckley: "Perth, Perth, the end of the earth" - you can't get any further from Utah than here) as of Wednesday 21 August - just two weeks after Utah rolled it out, so I imagine it would be in Washington D.C. by now. As for the video, I hated it the first time I saw it, for all the reasons I already knew about (long pauses, however I also thought some of the acting was a bit over-the-top). However, I was follower for that session and thus all the things I had to do after the session were on my mind, so the session eating up 12-15 minutes more of time probably had a big bearing on my feelings for it, and probably dictated a lot of my state of mind. Watched it just a couple days ago again, this time as a patron, and enjoyed it much more. I still prefer the old one though (it has a still image of a koala). Hope you enjoy it, mate! P.S. I notice the strategically-placed (BYU) Cougar that has about 5 seconds of screen time (doing a roll on its back) is absent from this one. So are the hyraxes (random animal that is the subject of a running joke in my family), so a small bummer. The Church is still true though.

Dimbulbz, I’d like to thank you for candidly pointing out the purpose of Church discipline. These councils are about LOVE – love and concern for the welfare of the soul of the transgressor. It’s horrible to think of a member using knowledge of Church disciplinary action to slander another, regardless of the history between the two. Breaching confidentiality of a disciplinary action decision is grounds for disciplinary action itself, but I think (Handbook-wise) this might apply only to those that were privy to the council. That said, if someone were to be heavily counselled to not disclose such facts by leaders, and then go around disregarding such counsel, they’d surely be getting themselves into quite dangerous territory. Unless they know their CHI 1 6.10.2 in which case they can easily put two and two together. If they have previously served on a HC, Bishopric or SP they'd have no real doubts either - then again, maybe Stake Pres would pick people he know haven't had this experience. Correct. Can be for non-Priesthood holding males, or for females, though, in some cases - e.g. where hostility and resentment for the Bishop and/or Bishop's Court is high; where counsel given as part of Bishop's court is ignored and the person just continues on in the serious sin; where the accused does not sustain the Bishop/Bishop's Court (in my experience this is usually manifest by complaints to the Stake President/formal appeals against the Bishop's Court's decision). As Stake Exec Sec I've organised plenty of Stake DCs and have never heard of a Bishop there as a brother's advocate, or even being invited (and I do the invitations). 15 High Priests, no exceptions, are required before the Council can begin. SP members that cannot make it are replaced by a High Councilman (Stake President has to be there, cannot be replaced though). HC members that cannot make it are replaced by a High Priest in good standing (and usually with previous SP or HC experience). In cases where the accused either denies the sin, or refuses consent for the Presiding Officer to use their communication with them in interviews as evidence in describing the sin, others that can provide evidence may be invited to the Council. They stay in a different room and only enter when invited to come in and give evidence, and leave immediately after. And to protect the innocent; the two reasons you've mentioned are the purposes used to separate six members of the HC from the other six though - as you described. Exec Secs are not on Disciplinary Councils at either level (at least not in the capacity of an Exec Sec). It's the Ward/Stake Clerk. Regarding the OP, it sounds like legal divorce but with the temple sealing still in place. In this case, I'd think that she'd absolutely have to be informed that the person to whom she is sealed is now excommunicated. I'd think she'd also be instructed to keep this confidential (especially if the accused has indicated a concern over this). Regarding the sealing, if she is faithful and in good standing, is she not still entitled to the blessings of the covenant, even though the other party is not? CHI 1 3.6.1 tells us that the excommunicated’s temple blessings are revoked, but that the sealing blessings of the innocent spouse and children born in the covenant are unaffected. This is what we teach - she can't be punished for the sins of another. Following that logic, and under the principle of "you can't have it both ways", I'd imagine that she'd still need to get a cancellation of sealing and a sealing clearance before being sealed to another man, even though the man with whom she entered the covenant before God is no longer a member of the Church. The covenant is cancelled for him, but not for her, the faithful member. We need to keep in mind that a possibility for the excommunicated is the “Restoration of Blessings” ordinance, by which all their prior Priesthood and Temple blessings are restored (bar being restored to the office of Seventy, Bishop, or Patriarch) by the laying on of hands, so the sealing is not automatically cancelled just because he is excommunicated.

Some interesting insights relevant to this topic Mormon Scholars Testify » Blog Archive » Valerie Hudson Cassler