Recommended Posts

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 there is an annotation, it will appear on the printed membership record (not the IOS). The membership record is supposed to be printed and given to the bishop each time a new member enters the ward, partly so the bishop can see if there are any annotations on the record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If there is an annotation, it will appear on the printed membership record (not the IOS). The membership record is supposed to be printed and given to the bishop each time a new member enters the ward, partly so the bishop can see if there are any annotations on the record.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

It would appear on screen if you looked at the print preview of the membership record. But you would have to open the print preview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not normally. Could it happen, sure. But having been forgiven of your sins removes the eternal consequences of your actions. It doesn't always remove the temporal consequences.

So are you saying that the sin can be forgiven and the eternal consequence removed allowing you to qualify for eternal life with the possibility to become like God but whilst here on mortality you could be limited to how you can be used due to a previous transgression? That doesnt quite add up. If that is the case then God seems more forgiving that the Church does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that the sin can be forgiven and the eternal consequence removed allowing you to qualify for eternal life with the possibility to become like God but whilst here on mortality you could be limited to how you can be used due to a previous transgression? That doesnt quite add up. If that is the case then God seems more forgiving that the Church does.

It doesn't always have to do with the church. I could think of one example. Let's say one was convicted of child abuse or molestation. One could be forgiven by the victim, have gone through the church disciplinary process, been forgiven by God but could also have a stipulation made by the courts that they can never work with children. That would be a temporal consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So are you saying that the sin can be forgiven and the eternal consequence removed allowing you to qualify for eternal life with the possibility to become like God but whilst here on mortality you could be limited to how you can be used due to a previous transgression? That doesnt quite add up.
It doesn't?

Consider the case of a repentant child molester. He's paid his price to society through jail time and parole and the felony conviction which will follow him for the rest of his life. He's released himself from the burden of his sins through the atonement. But even though he's clean, he has destroyed a family or two, and a handful of people out there must live their lives burdened by the permanent scars he caused.

If he were to be given a calling with the youth, this handful of people would be further hurt. And imagine what the church's enemies would do with the information that the church stuck a convicted child molesting felon in primary with the kiddos. And further imagine what would happen if this man, who despite being washed clean through the blood of the Lamb, still retains his awful leanings/tendencies/urges that caused him to molest in the first place, and he molests one of the primary kids in his stewardship.

It's not about forgiveness, it's about protecting innocents from known sources of harm. You can forgive someone and still keep an eye on them.

Forgiveness does not always equal forgetting. It does not mean turning a blind eye to a known danger. Yes, repentance changes people. But it does not remove their agency, nor does make them perfect.

If that is the case then God seems more forgiving that the Church does.
Perhaps you should reflect a bit more on what forgiveness means, and what it does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

"...sometimes our poor choices leave us with long-term consequences. One of the vital steps to complete repentance is to bear the short- and long-term consequences of our past sins".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Divorce is a tricky subject in the Church. Many notices have been sent out in error. Our leaders are only humans. The scriptures are full of Prophets that made mistakes. In the words of African American Speaker Darius Gray at times in the church we are governed by the policies of man, not God, such as denying black men the priesthood for over 100 years. God will fix their mistakes in the next world and make up for the errors.

There is a tradition in most places to avoid divorcees in leadership. This is false doctrine. I personally asked Elder Ballard and was assured divorce is not an unpardonable sin and should not prevent a man from being called a bishop. Many notices to the contrary have been written  by leaders that should be retracted. I am old and not physically able to be in higher leadership but it scares me how many times a person who was fore ordained to be a leader has been excluded in error. I spoke with the mission President and he said the only Temple items are to make sure parents with dependent children are not given calling that will interfere. The handbook uses 1 Timothy for a reference but if you listen to Elder Perry cover those scriptures he never mentions divorce in his lengthy description of what qualifies a man to be Bishop. Correctly translated the scripture would read a Bishop should be a man with A Wife not one wife.

We must understand the Church is true but our leaders are subject to many errors. I remember an Apostle sending out an article saying women could not give opening prayer in sacrament, only to have retract it. Notices on Cokes and many other things have come out and all we as divorcees can do is wait for the day when the Lord says enough and an official policy of non discrimination against divorcees is established. Currently leaders even at high levels  have been misinformed at high levels, making divorcees one of the most discriminated against groups. We must do like African Americans and realize Heavenly Father does not discriminate and some day this will be corrected. Stake Presidents have been warned to themselves quit watching pornography, you would think they would be ask to immediately confess to the appropriate authority. We must overcome the flaws of earthly leaders as hurdles that hurt our testimonies. I have done everything I can do to draw attention to the tradition of false doctrine that is even sent to leaders in writing. The Church is true but leaders fall victim to deception and tradition. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Today we divorcees are last and yes ignored for things we were fore ordained to do.  In the end we will be rewarded for keep our faith in Heavenly Father in spite of the countless errors of leaders. We should expect this. Satan is real, look at the scriptures.  Bishops have succumbed to child molesting, adultery, stealing offerings and other leaders have gotten by with much. In my limited knowledge I know of two buildings that were built because  of falsified attendance numbers. My favorite speaker over 30 years ago, a member of the Seventy, was excommunicated and charged with child molestation. We are only responsible for what we do and remember the Lord will return or all will be lost. Lucifer and his demons are making those days closer and closer.

Every hurdle brings you closer to Heavenly Father. I have no doubt we will receive our reward for being worthy even if we were denied to chance to serve. Never feel the simple act of divorce makes you  unworthy in any way. Just because of the misinformed. You can touch the sacrament with your left hand, you can pass the sacrament without a white shirt if necessary, You could have hair, and etc...... each person has what the Lord expects and no one can judge you eternally. I know many were excommunicated years ago that would  not be today. Time will cure all the mistakes of others.               Heavenly Father looks down on us and says where did they come up with that one.    We say we should not praise a man even at his funeral, only to open Sacrament with the poem written for the prophets funeral , then converted to a Hymn..... Parise to the Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 hours ago, john4truth said:

Correctly translated the scripture would read a Bishop should be a man with A Wife not one wife.

Thank you.  I was going to mention that.  Let me expand on what you wrote.

1) The Greek/Koine word which has been translated as "husband" is sorta correct.  It really means man "in the context of being a husband."  I know.  That's kinda roundabout way of saying "husband'.  But not really.
2) The Greek/Koine word translated as "one" is actually μία (mia).  That word is problematic.  In modern Greek, it means the indefinite article (which is sometimes translated as "one").  But in Koine they supposedly did not have an indefinite article.  Yet μία is the word that is used in the epistle.  So, what are we to think?  Apparently, they did have an indefinite article.  But those who translated it were unaware of it and used "one" instead.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john4truth said:

...it scares me how many times a person who was fore ordained to be a leader has been excluded in error.

Could you share exactly how you came to know someone was foreordained to be a leader?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Could you share exactly how you came to know someone was foreordained to be a leader?

 

14 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Could you share exactly how you came to know someone was foreordained to be a leader?

Yes I know of one case personally and have learned of others where a person was called to be a bishop  or higher calling but the name was withdrawn due to divorce. There is not absolute way to know who if any are fore ordained but it reasonable in this case to assume and with the high percentage of divorcees in the church, leaders being told to exclude them(without first seeking inspiration). With extreme numbers it would be statistically foolish to think it does not happen also.. I have know many cases where last knowledge of divorce has led to the exclusion of inspired pics. There is a reason the scriptures say whether chosen by man or God it is the same ... at times God's choice does not make the list. We should still support a leader no matter what. I have served in the high council twice for several years and in 4 bishoprics so I know we are all just human and we all make errors, even in callings There is no way to prove who is fore ordained but the circumstancial evidence is undeniable. Nothing Spiritual can be proven but I have known many cases where before and after it appeared obvious.

I spoke to a man last night to a man who the Stake President told,, because he was divorced, his name will never be submitted for bishop. This is happening all over the US due to a faulty tradition. Common sense says the widespread discrimination is bound to result in fore ordained being denied, only a few miracles make it past the false traditions.  Men and women can be innocent divorcees.  Asking for absolute proof about any inspiration or revelation can not proved but it is real, and discrimination is aa very reasonable conclusion given the evidence.

 

15 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you.  I was going to mention that.  Let me expand on what you wrote.

1) The Greek/Koine word which has been translated as "husband" is sorta correct.  It really means man "in the context of being a husband."  I know.  That's kinda roundabout way of saying "husband'.  But not really.
2) The Greek/Koine word translated as "one" is actually μία (mia).  That word is problematic.  In modern Greek, it means the indefinite article (which is sometimes translated as "one").  But in Koine they supposedly did not have an indefinite article.  Yet μία is the word that is used in the epistle.  So, what are we to think?  Apparently, they did have an indefinite article.  But those who translated it were unaware of it and used "one" instead.

I do not blog on my on behalf, but rather on the future with hopes the words or M. Russell Ballard told me personally that divorce should be forgiven and forgotten and it is not. There is a permanent record attached if divorced.  I do not know Greek nor Hebrew and my only question was over the word" one" . I was informed of this error by an non bias genius with a PHD and who could personal speak the language. The meaning of words depend on context. Even this does not matter. My information did not come from a book or PC program translator. It came form a person who could speak the language fluently. We can not use books or programs especially if you dissect the statement.

 

I ask everyone to first listen to Elder L Tom Perry's qualification for bishops and if you choose to disagree with an Apostle you have that agency. It is not an error that he never mentioned divorce when it can easily be assumed without an Apostle''s explanation,

Edited by john4truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not wish to debate the topic of divorcees in leadership. I do know for a fact divorcees are excluded for consideration for callings, there is a permanent record on all divorces records, divorcees are a huge part of the Church membership. Apostle M. Russell Ballard and the General Bishopric of the Church in a direct answer to my question in a meeting said divorces were not unforgivable sins, they should be remembered no more and divorcees can be Bishops. This contradicts the traditions and even written instructions sent out I believe in error. Nothing can be proven but I sincerely believe that in these the last days we should listen to the Lord when reviewing list for callings and the list should not discriminate against divorcees based on what I was personally told by an apostle while he was in Houston Texas. I am not apostate I simply am aware of the facts. The first African Americans given the Melchezidek Priesthood was ordained by Joseph Smith only to have this contradicted by leaders after his death, I believe to keep white men happy at the time, and this was confirmed when the speaker  was questioned.

"When you realized that the basis for the denial of the priesthood and temple blessings to Africans and those of African descent was based in something less than doctrine, and, in fact, racism, what kind of a wrestle did that create inside you as a black Latter-day Saint? "He said he had accept that a times the desires of man ignore the true doctrine. I personally heard Mr Gray a Church representative give the answer, and my son asked questions that confirmed, also at times in the Lord allow ideas of man to be used. I expect  the eternities, divorce, racism, and other non doctrine,  will take care of everything. If the Lord remembers no more a divorce who then can change that. I will comment no further because it is not my desire to cause discord only with hopes that future generations will not see the discrimination. We are a perfect Church staffed by imperfect men.

 

When a spouse dies we flock to the support of the survivor, in a divorce there is limited support. According to a Church employed psychologist divorce is more traumatic for members than death. Our only goal should be to do things asking the question, What would Jesus Do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, john4truth said:
19 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Could you share exactly how you came to know someone was foreordained to be a leader?

Yes I know of one case personally and have learned of others where a person was called to be a bishop  or higher calling but the name was withdrawn due to divorce.

Ok, I call foul.  I think this might be half a case of semantics, half just someone assuming something that may or may not be true.

From what I understand and have personally witnessed, it is common for several different members to be considered for callings to bishop or other senior calling.  It's more involved than being called to the nursery.  There are meetings with the stake, and general authority or authorities.  Background checks.  Lots and lots of praying.  After all that is done, then a calling is extended.

I do not believe all that was done, and a calling given, and then after that, someone said "oh wait this guy is divorced never mind".  More likely, IMO, is someone divorced was called in for some of these initial meetings, and then was not given the calling.  Perhaps someone gave divorce as a reason, perhaps not and the person just assumed it.

The Lord's house is a house of order, and your notion that humans are just haphazardly tossing around callings and then unrighteous culture gets imposed by some higher-up, doesn't reflect what I've seen and heard.

 

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, john4truth said:

I do know for a fact divorcees are excluded for consideration for callings, there is a permanent record on all divorces records, divorcees are a huge part of the Church membership.

Ok, now I know this is false.  The annotation that can be made on a permanent record, is for serious stuff like felony convictions and child abuse and whatnot.   I have handled permanent records of divorced folk, there was no annotation.

I have also personally been in a ward led by a bishop who had been divorced.  I was his executive secretary.  

john4truth, I submit that you don't know everything you're claiming to know here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 5:07 PM, john4truth said:

In the words of African American Speaker Darius Gray at times in the church we are governed by the policies of man, not God, such as denying black men the priesthood for over 100 years.

Darius Gray is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2018 at 7:07 PM, john4truth said:

In the words of African American Speaker Darius Gray at times in the church we are governed by the policies of man, not God, such as denying black men the priesthood for over 100 years.

As a side note, Brother Gray has stated, "The priesthood restriction was not imposed by God, but was allowed by him". This seems to jell with what I believe @john4truth is trying to say. Brother Gray states he was given permission by the First Presidency to share what he considers his own "personal revelation" on the matter.
At a minimum it is worth a listen since (if correct) the First Presidency didn't automatically/instantly shut him down based on the 22 pages he submitted for review.

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Brother Gray states he was given permission by the First Presidency to share what he considers his own "personal revelation" on the matter.

Brother Gray's personal revelation is of no more moment to me than my next-door neighbor's personal revelation. Both are inferior to my own personal revelation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

Brother Gray's personal revelation is of no more moment to me than my next-door neighbor's personal revelation. Both are inferior to my own personal revelation.

This is true. I simply enjoy hearing his opinion as much as I enjoy hearing the opinions of those members here on the forum.
Opinions and personal revelation still do not trump official doctrine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a friend who served as a Bishop and then as a counselor in our stake presidency who had been divorced.

I know of a stake president (my brother's stake) who had been divorced.

 

Edited by Rhoades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elder L Tom Perry covered the what should be the official doctrine on being bishop, he explained it fully. Regretfully we let our on opinions creep in no matter our own calling. No difference than drinking Coke or letting a woman say opening prayer in sacrament. The truth comes from the pulpit and scriptures and is spelled out in the Handbooks.... not from memos and secret discussions. If an error is made from the pulpit sooner or later it gets retracted. We can be happy knowing this is a test, it is only a test, even leaders make mistakes and it test us. Be happy this life is but a moment in time. In the end we will all learn we know almost nothing only then will we be able to receive the fullness of knowledge.

True wisdom is realizing how little we know, especially me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:23 PM, NeuroTypical said:

sorry neor  there was a Clerk that said you do not see everything when you read the annotations, he said divorce is on there and not being clerk I could not question. I do know divorce is not forgotten, our stake president recently informed a brother of that. For every argument there is a disputing fact . I don't know anything but what I have seen and been personally told. Stake Presidents say this information is at there access and is used. I will never know what they can see that I cannot and it does not matter to me. I only have account for my efforts not my leaders. Leaders are men and as time is fulfilled we will see the Church have problems from within. Questioning opinions of leaders is not apostate it is necessary. I sustain my leader, obey my leaders with a smile even if I disagree. I tell them my opinion and this ends my responsibility.  I then sustain them. What we are discussing here is things that have not been made doctrine one way or another but the fact that there is an inconsistency demonstrates a need for discussion. For most of my life leaders have told me a divorcee could not be a bishop, but this is not true. Clerks say if you read a record then print it you often find it says two different things. I had the chance to ask an apostle and did and the answer disputed stake leaders words and some say they have memos that dispute the words of the Apostle. What I say I know, I know, and pray you will seek out the truth.

It depends on where and who is stake president how a divorcee is treated. I know little but what I say I know I do.  I am sure thousands of people can confirm this, open mindedly seek the truth  I look forward to the day when we all can learn what is really  true.                                                                                                                                                              

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quote

sorry neor  there was a Clerk that said you do not see everything when you read the annotations, he said divorce is on there and not being clerk I could not question.

So, I am a clerk.  I have years of experience, spanning decades, receiving and printing new member records.   I have trained other membership clerks in their duties.  Yes it is true that the special annotation does not appear on the IOS (individual ordinance summary), or the family sheet.  The Bishop/branch president should be the only person who can see it.  But no, it's not for "this guy is divorced".

But don't take my word for it, see for yourself:   Mormonnewsroom - How Mormons Approach Abuse

Quote

Membership record annotations:
Every member of the Church has a membership record, which includes important information like baptism date, marriage, children, and so forth.
The Church places an annotation on the membership record of any member who has previously abused children. This record follows them to any congregation where they move, anywhere in the world.
When a bishop sees the annotation, he calls the Church and is given clear direction that an individual who has abused children should not be given a position with children.

Yes, prior spouse information is included in a membership record.  Yes, there are ways to find out if a member has been divorced previously.  No, it is not in the Annotation section, and no, being divorced not automatically disqualify someone from any particular calling.  

Quote

Clerks say if you read a record then print it you often find it says two different things.

Well, there are different reports for different occasions.  The IOS is handed out to members, often during tithing settlement.  There are other member records for bishop's eyes only.  We take privacy very seriously, and limit the sensitive data in a member's record to only those with stewardship and a valid reason to see it.   Any member has the right to see the whole thing.

 

Quote

For most of my life leaders have told me a divorcee could not be a bishop, but this is not true.

I can't comment on what people have told you.  You are correct, it is not true that a divorcee can't be a bishop.  Again, I've had a divorced bishop in the past.  

 

Quote

What I say I know, I know, and pray you will seek out the truth.

Well, here's something you said you know: "I do know for a fact divorcees are excluded for consideration for callings, there is a permanent record on all divorces records, divorcees are a huge part of the Church membership."

It is false, that the annotation is used to record divorce information.  If you think you know that, you are wrong.  I think we're disagreeing mostly about semantics here.  Yes, a member's record contains information on prior marriages.  No, that information is not contained in the special annotation section, which a Stake President must receive GA approval before it can be made, and requires first presidency approval to remove.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎11‎/‎2013 at 9:40 AM, NeuroTypical said:

It doesn't?

Consider the case of a repentant child molester. He's paid his price to society through jail time and parole and the felony conviction which will follow him for the rest of his life. He's released himself from the burden of his sins through the atonement. But even though he's clean, he has destroyed a family or two, and a handful of people out there must live their lives burdened by the permanent scars he caused.

If he were to be given a calling with the youth, this handful of people would be further hurt. And imagine what the church's enemies would do with the information that the church stuck a convicted child molesting felon in primary with the kiddos. And further imagine what would happen if this man, who despite being washed clean through the blood of the Lamb, still retains his awful leanings/tendencies/urges that caused him to molest in the first place, and he molests one of the primary kids in his stewardship.

It's not about forgiveness, it's about protecting innocents from known sources of harm. You can forgive someone and still keep an eye on them.

Forgiveness does not always equal forgetting. It does not mean turning a blind eye to a known danger. Yes, repentance changes people. But it does not remove their agency, nor does make them perfect.

Perhaps you should reflect a bit more on what forgiveness means, and what it does not.

Child Molesters and Divorcees should not be compared I would say this is an example of the discrimination

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now