Don Bradley wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:07 am
Marcus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:23 am
it absolutely is not.
Again, not accurate.
What membership and/or excommunication records have you attempted to look at, and with what success?
The church makes it impossible even for spouses to access each other's ordinance records via FamilySearch, makes disciplinary records
permanently inaccessible, even at any time distance from the death of the person disciplined. I know this from direct experience. I first tried to access such records in 1987. And I've had the church repeatedly deny access to disciplinary records from as far back as 1850 despite allowing me to see literally everything else I asked for.
On what---if any---experience are you basing your opinions?
Don
if any? Such a rude beginning to our interaction! But, i will assume that's just you being you, i.e. an immature and rude person, and ignore it the way you ignore a child who tantrums. What else can you do with grown men who act like this?
I'll start with your first comment:
Marcus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 7:23 am
Don Bradley wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:48 am
The church is extremely fastidious with its privacy rules.
it absolutely is not.
I have a letter I received, wherein an lds member was thrilled to tell me that my name had shown up on a “Do Not Contact” list, which was distributed by the bishop in a meeting, asking people if they knew anyone on the list. She was very straightforward in telling me that my name, address, and phone number were all on this list that was distributed to everyone, even though it was also noted next to my name that I had requested no contact.
When she told the bishop she knew me, he asked her to contact me, even though I had requested no contact.
So, in other words, the lds church is NOT “extremely fastidious with its privacy rules.”
I also have a letter from a local bishop, which I received after I called both the local mission president and the SLC number they gave me to complain about being hounded by missionaries.
In this letter, which I shared with the SLC number when I called them back, he actually stated he would NOT be respecting my request to not be contacted, because God had made him the person in charge of my eternal well-being. In other words, he had absolutely no intention of being “ extremely fastidious” with any lds “ privacy rules.”
I also showed this letter to a friend of mine who is a lawyer; he said if anyone contacted me again, I had a rock-solid case for harassment and stalking in my state.
Someone must have given this bishop the same advice (maybe those SLC people i spoke to) because he never contacted me again.
Moving on to your second point:
Don Bradley wrote: ↑Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:49 am
Family members, even if they have had leadership callings, would have absolutely no access to your membership records.
Again, not accurate.
But, we’ll save that for the Next post.