Disciplary council, confession and permanent record

[estradling75]

45 minutes ago, Kelli said:

 I certainly don't want things I say about very personal matters written down, permanently stored and then referred to out of context by any leader 20 years later for ANY reason, whether another sin I commit or for a calling or for any reason.  The Lord forgives and forgets a repented sinner according to the Scriptures. Is the church doing that? 

 

Why would what you want matter?  Aren't you more interested in what the Lord wants?  Shouldn't you be more concerned about getting right with God the way he has set up for that to happen?  You sinned.. it happens to everyone.   You, like everyone else needs to repent the way the Lord asks us to.  You, like all the rest of us, do not get to pick and choose the consequence of your actions.  The fact that you don't like some of the potential consequence of your actions, puts you in exactly the same boat as everyone else.

Your choice is.... are you going to humble yourself and follow the process Christ setup through his church... Or are you going to let your pride drive you away?

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by estradling75

[Kelli]

My true intention is to understand the process, to repent, to be forgiven and to be a worthy and faithful member.  I need that.  I have a Bishop that has said some things that make me feel like a confession can follow me forever. They make me feel that I'm being judged.  He makes me feel like I can't ask questions.  That what I say can be used against me later.  He may not mean it to sound like that, but that's how it comes across.  So I'm just trying to understand why he says what he says.  And it does make an impact on how comfortable I am talking about details if I know it is all written down permanently.  

[Guest MormonGator]

 

10 minutes ago, Kelli said:

My true intention is to understand the process, to repent, to be forgiven and to be a worthy and faithful member.  I need that.  I have a Bishop that has said some things that make me feel like a confession can follow me forever. They make me feel that I'm being judged.  He makes me feel like I can't ask questions.  That what I say can be used against me later.  He may not mean it to sound like that, but that's how it comes across.  So I'm just trying to understand why he says what he says.  And it does make an impact on how comfortable I am talking about details if I know it is all written down permanently.  

Kelli, the fact that you want to repent and be forgiven in itself takes huge courage. We should be all so brave, really. 

I do not blame you for being uncomfortable with things being written down. I wouldn't want a record of my sins written down either. 

Edited March 18, 2016 by MormonGator

[BeccaKirstyn]

11 minutes ago, Kelli said:

My true intention is to understand the process, to repent, to be forgiven and to be a worthy and faithful member.  I need that.  I have a Bishop that has said some things that make me feel like a confession can follow me forever. They make me feel that I'm being judged.  He makes me feel like I can't ask questions.  That what I say can be used against me later.  He may not mean it to sound like that, but that's how it comes across.  So I'm just trying to understand why he says what he says.  And it does make an impact on how comfortable I am talking about details if I know it is all written down permanently.  

But there are people here who have clarified exactly what that process entails, including what is recorded, why it is recorded, whether or not it is pulled up for future reference, etc. 

There are also people who have offered a great word of advice: men are imperfect. Bring your questions to the Lord in prayer. He can offer you words of wisdom concerning this. The Savior's atonement is exactly meant for this type of fear and doubt. 

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Kelli said:

They make me feel that I'm being judged.

You do know, don't you, that one of the titles of a bishop is "judge in Israel".  His purpose is to judge, but it's not the bad kind of judging, it's the kind that leads to a correct determination of what to do next.

9 minutes ago, Kelli said:

That what I say can be used against me later.

This is not the police you're dealing with.  No one wants to use this against you (except Satan).  But we cannot be helped if we're not honest.

10 minutes ago, Kelli said:

And it does make an impact on how comfortable I am talking about details if I know it is all written down permanently

Are you worried that intimate or explicit details will have to be revealed?  Because I'm pretty sure they won't be (someone correct me if I'm wrong).  I'm pretty sure questions will revolve around why, when did it start, when did it end, do you understand the doctrines that make the behavior a sin, is your repentance sincere, what efforts have you already made to remove yourself from the sin, avoid temptation, repent, repair, etc.

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, Kelli said:

My true intention is to understand the process, to repent, to be forgiven and to be a worthy and faithful member.  I need that.  I have a Bishop that has said some things that make me feel like a confession can follow me forever. They make me feel that I'm being judged.  He makes me feel like I can't ask questions.  That what I say can be used against me later.  He may not mean it to sound like that, but that's how it comes across.  So I'm just trying to understand why he says what he says.  And it does make an impact on how comfortable I am talking about details if I know it is all written down permanently.  

The consequence of your action will follow you... confession is part of that consequence.  You are being judged, because once they judge you and your situation they can then prayerfully help you find your way out.   If you want to ask question of him then ask, you might not like/agree/understand his answers but ask anyways.

As for understanding... there are lots of things we don't understand.  That is what faith is about.  Faith is about acting without necessary having an understanding.  So while there is nothing wrong with trying to understand do not let that stop you from exercising faith and doing what the Lord would have you do even though you don't know why.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by estradling75

[NeedleinA]

Okay, a little clarification about what is written down during a DC so that this doesn't turn to further misunderstanding. 
 

1. When you speak with your Bishop, you may speak on a highly detailed level. (This is not recorded by anyone, NOR does the Bishop write it down anywhere).
2. No visit with a DC is audio recorded. It all comes from the notes of the Ward or Stake Clerk. The Clerk takes down "general" notes. He is not there to write a book or a love novel about an affair. Nor does he have the time to do so. His job is to write down a couple of key things:
a. General nature of the sin
b. What "in general" led to the sin
c. What church restrictions are in place, if any
d. Timeline for those restrictions
e. What counsel has been give to help the individual person avoid/repeat the same mistake (see item "b")
f.  What counsel has been given to help the individual heal/repent/feel the Savior's Love, etc. 

All of the items take up about 1 sheet of paper at best, and the smallest item usually is item "a", the item you are way too focused on.
While individuals in the room may hear "details", the clerk's job is to record in general terms. 

 

Edited March 18, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Guest MormonGator]

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Okay, a little clarification about what is written down during a DC so that this doesn't turn to further misunderstanding. 
 

1. When you speak with your Bishop, you may speak on a highly detailed level. (This is not recorded by anyone, NOR does the Bishop write it down anywhere).
2. No visit with a DC is audio recorded. It all comes from the notes of the Ward or Stake Clerk. The Clerk takes down "general" notes. He is not there to write a book or a love novel about an affair. Nor does he have the time to do so. His job is to write down a couple of key things:
a. General nature of the sin
b. What "in general" lead to the sin
c. What church restrictions are in place, if any
d. Timeline for those restrictions
e. What counsel has been give to help the individual person avoid/repeat the same mistake (see item "b")
f.  What counsel has been given to help the individual heal/repent/feel the Savior's Love, etc. 

All of the items take up about 1 sheet of page at best, and the smallest item usually is item "a", the item you are way too focused on.
While individuals in the room may hear "details", the clerk's job is to record in general terms. 

 

Thanks for the info. 

[zil]

9 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Okay, a little clarification about what is written down during a DC so that this doesn't turn to further misunderstanding.

Thank you!

[BeccaKirstyn]

I hope that brings some clarification and comfort to the OP. As zil stated earlier, we are strangers to you but we want to help you as much as we can. We're all brothers and sisters through this gospel. We want to see you be happy and there are a lot of people here who have a deep faith and trust in the repentance process, so please know that these words shared by these strangers today are truth and out of love. 

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Okay, a little clarification about what is written down during a DC so that this doesn't turn to further misunderstanding. 
 

1. When you speak with your Bishop, you may speak on a highly detailed level. (This is not recorded by anyone, NOR does the Bishop write it down anywhere).
2. No visit with a DC is audio recorded. It all comes from the notes of the Ward or Stake Clerk. The Clerk takes down "general" notes. He is not there to write a book or a love novel about an affair. Nor does he have the time to do so. His job is to write down a couple of key things:
a. General nature of the sin
b. What "in general" lead to the sin
c. What church restrictions are in place, if any
d. Timeline for those restrictions
e. What counsel has been give to help the individual person avoid/repeat the same mistake (see item "b")
f.  What counsel has been given to help the individual heal/repent/feel the Savior's Love, etc. 

All of the items take up about 1 sheet of page at best, and the smallest item usually is item "a", the item you are way too focused on.
While individuals in the room may hear "details", the clerk's job is to record in general terms. 

 

About twenty years ago when I serve as a Ward Clerk that was pretty much exactly what I did.  I can't image that it has changed a whole lot

[Sunday21]

Seriously chill. I was inactive for 20 years. I went to my Bishop to confess. He rolled his eyes and said, oh for heavens sakes you were inactive! Very short interview. Since then I have been offered a cornucopia of callings: young women's president (I was undergoing treatment for a nasty illness and said no) relief society presidency a couple of times, I served faithfully, teaching positions, still serving. No one has mentioned my past sins and I doubt very much that my sins are recorded anywhere. Frankly once you repent no one could care less. If you sat me next to a rock, I guarantee that would find the rock to be a more interesting companion. I repeat, once you repent, no one could care less. Think of Lot's wife. Don't look back.

[Jane_Doe]

@Kelli

Let's take the focus away from you for a moment, to a hypothetical example.  Say a member molests a child, do you think a record should be kept permanently of that?  Of course!  While the Lord forgives sins which are repentant of, such a person should not be a primary teacher ever (avoid temptation of them, and horrible trauma in case they relapse).  That is why permanent records exist.  

Now, back to you: for adultery to desired result is for the person to go and sin no more.  Once repentance is done, the whole thing is not detailed in your active records at all.  Yes, there is a record stored in the dusty dusty basements of basements in Salt Lake where no one goes.  Or there may be no record at all (depends on the particulars of your situation).  IF (IF) there is a record kept in the dusty dusty basement, the only reason it would be called for if you do sin again, and it becomes relevant.  Call me crazy, think re-commitenting adultery is probably the LAST thing you desire.  And if you do fail, I doubt a dusty old record is going to be your foremost concern.

[Anddenex]

As I have read some of your thoughts, I can understand why you might feel hesitant -- no wants past transgressions to be remembered. The reason we confess, if the transgression (sin) is serious (such that membership might be affected), is that we do not seek to "hide" or "cover" our sin. Whether the sin is recorded by human, by angels, or by some other means matters not. There are two main factors of repentance -- confession and forsaking the sin. When we have repented and the atonement is truly upon us, we care very little about what a priesthood holder with keys might think if they are able to read the record.

When serving in a bishopric, having been apart of these disciplinary councils, the spirit always impressed upon my heart how much the Father loves the sinner who was confessing their sin.

However, it would appear your hold up pertaining to confessing your sin is a misunderstanding of scripture. The Lord "remembers no more" doesn't mean records are deleted or removed.  Our works are written, and in the end all will be known from recorded records, and for the wicked it will bring remorse (gnashing of teeth), but for those who loved the Lord and confessed their sins the records will not bring remorse as they will understand and speak the same words as Nephi, "I know in who I have trusted."

Let's look at an example from modern day scripture, Corianton, who fornicated with a harlot.  We know Corianton repented, and yet his act was not only recorded, but was put in scripture by which every member of the Church (and non-member) who reads the Book of Mormon will know about his decision.  How is that for record keeping? If Corianton remained faithful, I don't think he will be despondent, nervous, fearful about how other people think. He will be like Nephi, "I know in whom I have trusted."

What about Alma the younger and the sons of Mosiah?  All of us can read about their decisions.  When we truly come unto Christ we are less concerned with records and more concerned about repentance and coming unto Christ that we may be worthy of the Father's inheritance.  May the Lord bless you to be concerned with his love -- the atonement -- and less about record keeping.  It would have done Corianton no good to ponder -- what if my Father records this and billions of people will read about it.  At least, in your case, in this life, it will only be priesthood leaders who hold keys.

Edited March 20, 2016 by Anddenex
Coriantumr to Corianton, correct name

[mordorbund]

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Let's look at an example from modern day scripture, Coriantumr, who fornicated with a harlot.  We know Coriantumr repented, and yet his act was not only recorded, but was put in scripture by which every member of the Church (and non-member) who reads the Book of Mormon will know about his decision.  How is that for record keeping? If Coriantumr remained faithful, I don't think he will be despondent, nervous, fearful about how other people think. He will be like Nephi, "I know in whom I have trusted."

Corianton did repent, and his repentance is duly noted in scripture:

Quote

there was continual peace among them, and exceedingly great prosperity in the church because of their heed and diligence which they gave unto the word of God, which was declared unto them by Helaman, and Shiblon, and Corianton, and Ammon and his brethren (Alma 49:30).

 

 

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Corianton did repent, and his repentance is duly noted in scripture:

 

Hehe, I should have made sure I had the right individual -- Coriantumr was a little off -- Corianton is the correct name of Alma's son. They shouldn't have had two people in the Book of Mormon with so close of names.

[NeedleinA]

10 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 the Book of Mormon with so close of names.

At least there isn't a story about 5 Nephi repenting, otherwise we would all be lost.

[NeedleinA]

I'm in the middle of getting ready for church, listening to MoTab Choir on Pandora. I was thinking about this thread, and grateful that Kelli posted here about her concern. I believe all the answers and thoughts here are also beneficial for anyone who has ever wondered, "Am I being passed up for callings because of my record". Perhaps an Elder, who thinks he will never become a High Priest or a Sister who feels she is only good enough to be a primary teacher. (PTs are wonderful by the way). Thank you to everyone for sharing your thoughts. 

As I listened to MoTab, on came the song: Be Still My Soul. I thought instantly about Kelli or anyone else worried about confession and these words stood out to me:

"Be still, my soul: The Lord is on thy side; ...
Thur thorny ways leads to a joyful end...
When disappointment, grief, and fear are gone,
Sorrow forgot, love's purest joys restored.

Meeting with your Bishop to repent is simply helping an individual to have love's purest joys restored.

Edited March 20, 2016 by NeedleinA

[simpledays]

I don't often contribute on chat boards but the lawyer in me had to chime in.  I've been a member all my life and held many callings, although none as a Bishop.  Some of what discussed is completely new to me and I would bet to a lot of members in general.  If I understand correctly, contributors have noted that the Church is keeping permanent records of confessions, such that a member's permanent record somewhere in SLC will allow a priesthood holder in authority to access that record years down the road and determine if the member was subject to discipline and why.   I am assuming all these records are electronic.  

So, a members record will note that he/she was disfellowshipped/excommunicated/etc. for adultery/fornication/same-gender relations/embezzlement/etc.  I'm going to make a guess here and assume that for 99% of the cases, the ONLY written record that exists of these infractions is in the church databases.  No individual would normally write these things down, and the bulk of them don't rise to the level of legal or judicial involvement.  

There is well-known joke in data privacy circles about the two best ways to protect extremely sensitive data from every getting into the public domain.  Rule 1:  Don't write it down  Rule 2:  Refer to Rule One.  A second favorite is A.  Don't own a computer and B.  If you do, don't turn it on.  I don't mean to be blithe about sensitive topics, but isn't it very dangerous to keep such records on members, particularly without their consent or knowledge?  I asked two good friends that would have reason to know about these records, and both could only guess that the church keeps these records permanently and both confirmed that members certainly aren't explicitly told this is happening when a council is held and most probably wouldn't know or be happy about it. 

Here is my thinking.   I can't think of any other place in the world that damaging and compromising information of this nature would be kept in electronic form AND be attached to names, addresses, contact emails and phone numbers, family members, etc.  If this information was to get into the public domain, the damage to members involved in this disciplinary process would be unimaginable.  As someone who has dealt with data security breaches professionally, I can attest that nothing is truly safe from prying eyes forever.  Very simply, it's private information only until it's not.    If you believe that data breaches of this nature don't happen, look up JP Morgan, US Operations of Personal Management, Target, Ashley Madison and most recently, the Federal Reserve.  And those are just public ones.  Thousands of cases happen every year where blackmailed victims simply pay up to keep it all out of the press.  

Both the Church and the individuals in these files would make very ripe targets for hackers if this information was accessed.   If this info were accessed and released, the Church would face massive legal claims, tens of thousands of members would face very public humiliation and for what - just so the church knows if some member committed adultery 20 years down the road.  Not clear what the church sees to accomplish by compiling a database on members like this.  

[NeuroTypical]

Just to remind folks why the church keeps annotations on member records about this stuff:

Church discipline is for three reasons: Help members repent and come unto Christ, protect the flock, and protect the good name of the church.  Consider for a moment - How would you feel if you were raped by a man you see serving in Cub scouts?  Or if your small business collapsed after someone stole all the money, and you see the guy in the clerk's office handling the tithing?  Or if your husband cheated on you and left you, and they made him bishop?

Protecting the flock is important.  It means you don't put convicted pedophiles in nursery - even if they give every reason to believe they've fully repented.  

Protecting the good name of the church is important.  It means you don't put criminal embezzlers in charge of the money.  Or spouse abusers behind the desk of a Judge in Israel.

Other churches do expensive background checks for this sort of thing.  We do annotations on permanent member records.  

[simpledays]

But for every sin Neurotypical just named above, there would be a public legal record attached to it as it constitutes a crime - rape, pedophilia, fraud.   Are we equating an affair to those crimes?  Public records for rape, pedophilia and fraud aren't difficult to access and fall into a cross-over area between a moral sin and a legal infraction.  In Kelli's case, i.e. an affair (which is not uncommon in today's world) does not constitute either (a) an on-going moral safety concern for other members to be protected against or (b) a crime.  And I'd hazard to guess that the vast majority of recorded confessions do not constitute crimes or reasons to protect other members, but are more generally representative of, plain and simple, human frailty and weakness.    It's those members, who have committed no legal crime yet still have a written record about sensitive moral misgivings that I'm referring to, as their mistakes are only recorded on church records.  

[Just_A_Guy]

On 3/18/2016 at 11:19 AM, Kelli said:

I certainly don't want things I say about very personal matters written down, permanently stored and then referred to out of context by any leader 20 years later for ANY reason, whether another sin I commit or for a calling or for any reason.  The Lord forgives and forgets a repented sinner according to the Scriptures. Is the church doing that? 

It might be worth noting, in passing, that "discipline" need not be something to be dreaded.  Discipline is merely the process through which disciples are made.

Re the two scenarios you post here:  There's pretty decent authority in LDS teaching that if I am forgiven of a sin, and then repeat it--that's an indication that my repentance for my first offense is not yet complete, and that first offense "springs back", as it were, into the Lord's memory.  So it's perfectly logical that, if I find myself facing a council for a particular offense, any prior discipline for the same offense should also be brought to my council's attention.

And, re the possibility of being perpetually ineligible for certain callings:  As far as I'm concerned, that'd be a silver lining.  But if I'm not a predator, and if my services are needed desperately enough--either by the Lord, or by the other people in my congregation--then the calling will come, regardless of what's on my membership record.

Beyond that - it sounds like there's a lot of uncertainty amongst a lot of board members here about precisely what is recorded, where that information is stored, and who can re-call it for future use; and the folks here are a pretty well-informed bunch.  So do consider the possibility that--in spite of your bishop's worrisome statements--he might actually not be very clear on that sort of info, either.  The handbooks to which he has access talk about the procedures he's supposed to follow; not about the procedures that the bureaucracy back in Salt Lake are supposed to follow.

[NeedleinA]

2 hours ago, simpledays said:

to keep such records on members, particularly without their consent or knowledge?  

 

On 3/17/2016 at 4:19 AM, Kelli said:

 I'm told that is how it works by my Bishop 

Appears Kelli was not only told, but was told prior to a council. 
 

[simpledays]

24 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Beyond that - it sounds like there's a lot of uncertainty amongst a lot of board members here about precisely what is recorded, where that information is stored, and who can re-call it for future use; and the folks here are a pretty well-informed bunch.  So do consider the possibility that--in spite of your bishop's worrisome statements--he might actually not be very clear on that sort of info, either.  The handbooks to which he has access talk about the procedures he's supposed to follow; not about the procedures that the bureaucracy back in Salt Lake are supposed to follow.

Spot on Just_A_Guy - it does sound like local leaders aren't told how to handle it, therefore all the uncertainty.  In Kelli's case either she asked or the Bishop unprompted told her.  In legal parlance, a person subject to legal "discipline" has the standard Miranda protections and thus knows there will be a record of what they say kept.  In the Church, doesn't sound like a similar concept exists and it is up to a Bishop to either think to tell a member or have the member ask and then stumble around trying to figure it out. 

None of this addresses my point, though, about what the Church is going to do if any of these records ever gets out into the public domain.   Saying it can't happen doesn't cut it, IMHO.   If someone has committed a crime that endangers other members, the judicial system will also be involved, and thus no need for a church record as well if the concern is other member's safety.  If it's an affair, well then, why write all that down and risk exposing members somewhere down the road.  That will really destroy lives.  

 

 

[NeedleinA]

6 hours ago, simpledays said:

1. None of this addresses my point, though, about what the Church is going to do if any of these records ever gets out into the public domain.
2. If someone has committed a crime that endangers other members, the judicial system will also be involved, and thus no need for a church record as well if the concern is other member's safety.

1. Appears you'll have to speak to CHQ about that one.
2. Simply because the judicial system might be involved, how does that in any way negate the need for a church record down the road? Is the judicial system following each convicted person around for the rest of their life and informing/alerting all their future Bishops? If that person moves, or moves to a different country, who is watching out for the flock then and how, if not for the member's church record?

10 hours ago, simpledays said:

Some of what discussed is completely new to me and I would bet to a lot of members in general.

There are many aspects of the Church that members in general might find "new", however, I hope that no one tries to give off the impression/infers that these matters are some how secret. Perhaps the "bureaucracy back in Salt Lake" (CHQ) is not common knowledge, however, disciplinary councils and the fact that records are kept is open to any person on planet earth with internet access, assuming they care to read it. 

I share the following quote, not directed at anyone in particular, just an observation I tend to agree with:
”It is a paradox that men will gladly devote time every day for many years to learn a science or an art; yet will expect to win a knowledge of the gospel, which comprehends all sciences and arts, through perfunctory glances at books or occasional listening to sermons. The gospel should be studied more intensively than any school or college subject. They who pass opinion on the gospel (insert: policies) without having given it intimate and careful study are not lovers of truth, and their opinions are worthless“ - John A. Widtsoe

Here are some starter links, open to anyone interested:
Church Disciplinary Councils and the Restoration of Blessings - Elder Ballard, lds.org
Handbook 2: 17.1.7 - "disciplinary councils...including the requirements for submitting reports"
tech.lds.org - Run a search on "disciplinary" in the forums 

Edited March 21, 2016 by NeedleinA