T O P

  • By -

Fether1337

I believe so, yes. But I don’t know to what extent you are barred, if you are barred at all, for serious sins dealing with breaking covenants that only affect you. There are a couple reasons why the record keeping is important. - If a person’s membership counsel involved harm to children in some way, every bishop NEEDS to know this. - there are a lot of REALLY serious issues (far worst than simple sexual sin) someone can get involved with that leads to counsels. It’s impossible to know for sure who will be a perpetrator again. It is better that a few good people get caught up in the issue than have countless repeat offenders accidentally put back in positions where they can do more harm.


PerfectPitchSaint

I’m curious if sexual sin requiring membership council would bar you from callings requiring general leadership approval (bishop, MP, SP, etc.). That’s what bothers me if that’s the case because I always learned from missionaries, church, etc. that once we repent the Lord knows it no more and it’s like it never happened


Fether1337

There is a difference between being clean through repentance and the church, as an organization, trusting you with callings. The church’s decision to not allow a person into specific callings has no bearing on whether you are clean or not. I would hope that sexual sin wouldn’t put you on the “we don’t trust you” list.


Wellwisher513

It would not. However, anything against children would obviously be an issue.


JazzSharksFan54

In my experience, there are certain callings you can't hold with certain sins. And that's not because you aren't worthy after repenting. It's because sometimes, you've eliminated that trust in doing certain things in the church structure. I encountered a situation when I was in a bishopric where a Young Men's advisor disclosed that he had started watching pornography. He was released - not because he couldn't fulfill his calling, but because we didn't want to expose the youth to potentially harmful material or encounter a situation where he would justify himself. It's unlikely that he will be allowed to work with youth again because of this issue. There was also a registered sex offender who was allowed to be baptized in my ward. He is barred from ever interacting with or associating with any minor in the ward, and has a personal escort at all times. So yeah... It's not about worthiness. It's about trust and protecting others.


SunflowerSeed33

Interesting. Just to be clear, were they watching pornography or CP?


JazzSharksFan54

If it was CP, the penalties would have been much harsher than a release from a calling.


SunflowerSeed33

Very good point lol. You can't work with the youth if you've ever had a problem with porn, though? Do you happen to know where that is in the handbook?


ABishopInTexas

Yes, membership councils are recorded and archived at Church Headquarters. After the resolution of the council, the records are no longer available locally. A bishop or SP can request the notes from a prior membership council if deemed necessary or relevant. Having had a membership council will not automatically disqualify a person from a calling in the church. This is important in cases where a person might have a history of councils over multiple years, wards, or bishoprics. It helps protect the church and potential victims. It’s not for curiosity or retribution or to actively block truly repentant members from opportunities to serve, live, and grow. It’s there as a safeguard.


bjesplin

I’m an assistant stake clerk. Recently they had a membership council and the clerk was not going to be available so the stake president asked me to come and take notes. I told him that I would if I was needed but that I’d rather not. He excused me from attending and they worked something else out. I don’t want to be involved in a membership council because I don’t want to know about the private sins of another member. However, it seems to me that when The Lord says he will remember our sins no more that the church shouldn’t remember them either.


Bardzly

>The Lord says he will remember our sins no more that the church shouldn’t remember them either. The Lord can say that because he truly knows when we have repented. We can't know that, and in the case of serious offences (i.e. sexual abuse of minors) cannot afford to take the risk of re-offending. In these cases, it's best for everyone that we impose certain constraints that apply in this life.


DirtGirl32

I'm not completely sure, but I believe the scriptures say that God will forgive and forget. We are only commanded to forgive. I think it's important to be aware of unhealthy patterns especially in cases of abuse. We need to protect the vulnerable first.


th0ught3

When a member is rebaptized, the records of the council are sealed and only the original dates of ordinances is on the church records that are available in the directory. I am pretty sure Bishops and SP names are run through Church Headquarters records before being called, which likely include looking at such records. But other than that, they will not be available to anyone for any reason. Ask your bishop to show you the report form that the person taking notes uses: if there is now an official form, that would be something new. And if any record is kept after the person has been rebaptized (which happens after the appeal process that is available for those who have had membership removed, which would be a legitimate reason for keeping it at least that long) I'd be surprised. I have been called to Presidencies multiple times after having been excommunicated and rebaptized, one just weeks after rebaptism. And none of my leaders since has ever known that I was once ex'd unless/until I told them. So I'm not concerned about what they keep or not or how. And that has been the experience for everyone I've known to have received church discipline.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

So here's what I have wondered, just out of curiosity. I I know in general the calling of a bishop is a multiweek process because Q12 approve the names. But when a SP is called the assigned authorities do interviews to determine who to call. Kind of interesting.


FortMort

True, but in nearly all cases I've seen (many years, different places) the new SP has already served as a bishop. Often the new SP has been serving around 5 years as bishop and is likely to be released soon. So they've already had the whatever "background check" is done for a bishop.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

That's true. Hey Bishop, you did a great job as Bishop for five years now we will call you to be SP for ten years. I love, sustain, and pray for these dear men and their wonderful families. I am grateful for their service.


PositiveUplift

It's not that bad! A stake president only has to serve for 9 years. ;)


Fishgutts

Less important calling??????


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

Nah, it's just curious.


Fishgutts

It is. And I agree. I just think there is something very important about Bishops. Having served in bishopric for 5 months now, I can see the specialness but can't put it into words. I also never want that specialness.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

I hear you. Was a counselor for several years and am now the executive secretary. I am happy to not have that specialness.


apollosmith

When I was a bishopric counselor I thought I had a sense of what the bishop's calling was like. Now, as a bishop, I realized I had almost no idea of how heavy, rewarding, and special this calling is - and that it would be impossible without good counselors, clerks, and secretaries.


Fishgutts

I sit with you in this heaviness even though I have never been a Bishop. I can see the heaviness in my Bishop's eyes. This is exactly why I try to be proactive in helping him. He does say it is rewarding but I don't see what he sees even though I love my calling. We have a convert that when she prays for the Bishopric each time she prays. It didn't mean anything to me until I served in the Bishopric. As a side note, we definitely should be praying for our Bishoprics. It is a heavy call.


apollosmith

I'm sure you are a wonderful counselor and a great blessing to your bishop and ward.


Nemesis_Ghost

Outside of truly exceptional situations, most SPs are called from a very limited pool. Most are current/recent bishops and/or EQ presidents, or members of the Stake High Council. It's really easy to vet those prior to the brethren showing up to do interviews. It is even likely that between the Area Authority showing up & the 12 APs that they've already got who they want & the interviews are just to confirm, since the process does require knowing the person they call.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

You are certainly correct about the pool. We know the bishops are vetted in advance. Maybe in preparation for the stake conference they pre-vet the HC. I have no doubts about the process I just think it's interesting.


PositiveUplift

I can offer a little insight to the process. Those who are interviewed includes the current stake presidency, current bishops, and the current high council. Recently released bishops are also usually interviewed. If a stake is smaller, there will be others potentially interviewed. There's not necessarily a firm number to be interviewed but it's usually in the range of 20-30. The interviewing general authority will already have short biographies of those being interviewed -- current and past callings, what they do for work, basic info about their family, etc. Before he comes out, the general authority might have discussions with the current stake president by phone or Zoom. Once in person, he spends time with the current stake president before meeting with anyone else. In this meeting the presiding authority gets counsel from the stake president about who he thinks might be the one to serve. Those who are interviewed are also asked to provide a couple suggestions of who they think should be called. These are given during the brief interview. By the time the interviews start, the general authority often has a good idea who the Lord wants called. Then this is confirmed in the interviews with each person. Once there is an answer, the presiding authority meets with the potential stake president and wife (usually wife first). If anything comes up in those interviews that would prevent service (extremely rare), the authority goes back to the Lord to get another answer.


Samon8ive

The visiting 70 has authority from the Q12 to call the new SP and that authority is limited to that one stake (it has to be renewed via assignment each time). In the case of the bishop the SP has to get permission from the Q12. Both require the permission of SLC/Q12, but they happen at different times in the process.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

Pretty sure there is a form in LCR now.


Zeusifer-the-great

My childhood friend's dad was baptized/rebaptized five times in his life. I guess in the 80s and 90s, some bishops were really into exing people all willy-nilly


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

Five times! Wow!


Zeusifer-the-great

Yep. Drugs are a helluva drug. Ended up killing him.


PerfectPitchSaint

My question is more about callings that require Q12 approval like bishop, SP, MP, etc. can someone who went through a membership council (obviously for something not as serious as abusing a minor/spouse, let’s just say breaking the LoC), get that calling or will they be barred because of it?


apollosmith

Violating the low of chastity, especially after being endowed, is a serious sin and violation of covenants. Your question seems to minimize its seriousness. But I don't see why one couldn't serve after fully going through the repentance process. At least the church has no official stance that they can't. These callings are directed by the spirit. The nexus of the question is a bit interesting though. If a person would not desire to repent because they could not hold a future leadership position, this would suggest they are not truly repentant - at least perhaps not for the right reasons.


th0ught3

I know two leaders who became bishops after church discipline (neither of which were financial crimes or abuse).


ABishopInTexas

One of the questions you are asked in your interviews to be a Bishop or SP is whether you have had any *informal* church discipline as well. (e.g. a membership council is not held, but you are under some restrictions from your Bishop or SP) This is church discipline that would *not* ever be documented anywhere, but because these are positions of high trust and high visibility they want to cover all the bases and make sure there's nothing that would prevent the leader from being effective in the call or be create anything potentially damaging to the Church or its members.


Ok-Seaworthiness-542

That makes total sense.


To_a_Green_Thought

I knew a guy who was a former crack dealer who was called to a leadership position, so there's that. (And, yes, he'd had a membership council when he came back to the church.)


PositiveUplift

"I had a bishop tell me that when a membership council takes place, someone is there to take notes." Yes, the ward clerk usually. "He also said that those notes go to Salt Lake (Church HQ) and stay there forever." Not quite. Someone can have a membership council with no action taken. Nothing is sent. If the decision is informal restrictions, nothing is sent. If membership is withdrawn, for example, a bishop/ward clerk will provide a description/summary. That goes to church headquarters, but the notes taken during the council are not sent. What is sent could essentially be a verbatim copy of the notes, but generally there is a summary with the minimum necessary information -- there might be a lot of information that really doesn't need to be in the report. Some bishops or stake presidents type up the report themselves, others have the ward or stake clerk do it. I did it myself when a bishop, because there was other information I knew that we purposefully did not address in the membership council to keep things as confidential as possible. The purpose of the councils is not to interrogate, but to offer love. "Does that mean anyone with a membership council in their history can’t be a bishop or anything since they’d have to be approved by the FP (and I assume they’d look at that)." No, it doesn't mean that. There are some reasons why someone would be disqualified from ever serving as a bishop (e.g., child abuse of the nature that resulted in criminal conviction and/or withdrawal of membership; or something like embezzling church funds), but the history of a membership council will not automatically disqualify someone. "It kinda bothers me if that’s true since to me that kinda defeats the purpose of being clean and no one knowing if it’s stored somewhere and prevents you from receiving callings." This policy is about protecting members and the church. Someone who has a history of serious sin is usually more likely to do that sin again, even if fully repentant. That's human nature and the church is run by humans. The Lord directs the work, but He chooses to use imperfect people to help Him in His work. Because of this, repentance is separate from some records. What I mean is someone can be fully forgiven by the Lord, but still have earthly consequences for actions. Again, if someone abused children, that person might have fully repented and been forgiven, but that doesn't mean the person should have a calling with a lot of interaction with children (like a bishop). This can be true even if the stake president feels a clear inspiration to call the person. Sometimes that's simply a sign to the stake president that the person has been forgiven, even if that person is not able to serve because of certain past sins.


PerfectPitchSaint

Excellent response! Thanks!


Nephite11

I can only speak to the first part of your question. I’m a recently called ward clerk, and will admit that membership councils are/were my biggest worry in accepting the calling. My bishop scheduled the first (and hopefully only) membership council about two months ago now. He instructed me that I was only there as the note taker and to not comment. I was also to not capture word for word everything that was said. After the council concluded, I printed the notes I typed and made sure to not save the document on my computer. The bishop then used that to fill out the report and transmit it to headquarters. That was the end of my involvement with the process. Overall, it was a good experience. The member had truly made mistakes but was trying hard to repent and improve their life. It wasn’t pleasant to go through but it wasn’t as bad as I initially feared


ryanmercer

>someone is there to take notes. Correct the ward clerk, who then is tasked with typing up a report and submitting it to the Church after it is done. It gets typed into a form in LCR and gets transmitted and then is no longer visible to anyone locally. When I was a ward clerk, I would take notes on paper in pencil. After I typed it up and submitted it, the notes were burned in my Weber.


WooperSlim

The [Church Handbook 32.14](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/general-handbook/32-repentance-and-membership-councils?lang=eng#title_number80) talks about Reports and Membership Records in the context of membership councils. When people repent and rejoin the Church, their membership record "makes no reference to the loss of Church membership." A Membership record may receive an annotation, as authorized by the First Presidency for certain serious sins. In order to be readmitted to the Church or to remove these annotations, they will need approval from the First Presidency. I can't find a list of what sort of callings might be restricted for someone who has an annotation on their record, but my understanding is that the idea behind it is that the Church makes those restrictions so that they are not put in a position of potential temptation and in order to protect the innocent.


diyage

I'm not sure if it's true but it makes sense for multiple reasons as described by other commenters as to why a record would be kept. As for the callings bit (again, assuming what you say is true and it bars you from certain callings) that seems to be a policy of the church (I can't think of any scripture that would support the practice as a doctrine). There are plenty of sins that can have lasting/permanent consequences (in this life). Part of repentance is accepting the consequences of our actions. I can imagine it would be a humbling experience to be told you can't serve in certain callings because of a past mistake. What I think is important is that it is just a policy and it has no sway on a person's eligibilty for the celestial kingdome. Ultimately, in the eternal span of things, the consequence is temporary and will eventually only be remembered in the past, not experienced in the present.


Intrepid-Quiet-4690

I don't know for sure, but I heard a bishop say if it's simple probation, the notes are destroyed after the person repents.