California LDS Cops Engaging in Surveillance?

[_Trevor]

Note that it simply says "homosexual activity," which, one assumes, could include activism.

Quite possible... in Palin Country.

[_silentkid]

When I was executive secretary, the CHI did contain instructions to annotate the records of members who had been disciplined for homosexual sins. At least, this is what I recall, and I was very shocked at the time to learn this.

Is masturbation considered a homosexual sin, since Spencer Kimball's exhaustive research in Miracle of Forgivess concludes that touching one's genitialia inevitably leads to touching one's same-gender friend's private parts? If so, was my membership record annotated when my teenage self confessed to my concerned bishop of certain bishop-choking behaviors?

[_rcrocket]

Fortunately, Trevor, you are wrong. All disciplinary matters which lead to formal discipline require annotation, homosexual conduct or otherwise. The annotation reveals nothing about the circumstances for the discipline and, as I have noted elsewhere, annotation is used for non-disciplinary purposes as well.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Is masturbation considered a homosexual sin, since Spencer Kimball's exhaustive research in Miracle of Forgivess concludes that touching one's genitialia inevitably leads to touching one's same-gender friend's private parts? If so, was my membership record annotated when my teenage self confessed to my concerned bishop of certain bishop-choking behaviors?

Why do you feel the need to use such a touching book as a beating stick? Does it stroke your ego that you might be able to punish your bishop for handling your record in such a way?

It's posts like this that could make me go blind...



Freud, who?

[_Danna]

Fortunately, you just have it wrong. Annotation is not the same thing as the report.

Where did I conflate report and annotation?

This looks like a wonderful example of doublespeak and dissembling.

From the CHI extract provided by Mr Scratch, reports are sent to SLC and the record is annotated to the effect that a report has been made.

So the membership record contains a 'note' to say "check out this guy with SLC". So there is a measure of deniability "no, there is no mention of homosexuality at all on the membership record" "Absolutely we do not record that type of information on membership records".

It is the collection of reports forwarded by Bishops and SPs accumulating in SLC that sounds quite interesting. A clever intelligence organisation would not have these directly linked to membership records. A series of intermediary encoding processes would allow the information to be ostensibily be filed for some other purpose, but enable what is effectively a dossier on one person to be extracted from a variety databases.

Should a person want to see any and all information held on them outside of their membership record, I would bet that they would be told that there is no information stored under their name or member number.

And the scary thing is that it looks like anyone who was ever on the membership records may have information on any activity considered harmful to the church collected, even after resigning.

[_rcrocket]

You're just wrong; the records don't work that way and never have. I've been in them too long, and have dealt with homosexuals and their struggles, to know the facts.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

A record is annotated if a member is disciplined for child abuse, even if reinstated, and in that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake."

A record is annotated if a member is disfellowshipped and it hasn't been resolved, and in that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake."

A record is annotated if a former bishop merely wants to talk to the new bishop for any reason whatsoever (could be, a child with a disability who needs special care; could be, a member who needs particular welfare assistance). In that case, all the record says is "call Salt Lake" or the former bishop.

You forgot to mention that Church headquarters will automatically annotate a member's record when his/her stake president or bishop submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action showing that the member was disciplined for, among other things, "repeated homosexual activities (by adults)." There is no similar automatic annotation for repeated fornication or adultery by heterosexual adults.

And, the D&C requires the Church to maintain a "clipping service" of anti-Mormon publications, and it does so.

That is utter bullcrap. The D&C does not require the Church to play "Big Brother" to the members and keep tabs on their perceived "dissent."

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Fortunately, you just have it wrong. Annotation is not the same thing as the report.

But a Report of Church Disciplinary Action reflecting any one of certain offenses brings automatic annotation.

[_Danna]

You're just wrong; the records don't work that way and never have. I've been in them too long, and have dealt with homosexuals and their struggles, to know the facts.

Enlighten me:

1. What (do you think) happens to reports forwarded to SLC?

2. Should someone's membershp record say "call SLC", does the person on the other end of the line have access to additional information about the person that is not contained on their membership record?

[_harmony]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the CHI mandate that a member's record be "annotated" if homosexuality is discovered?

When I was executive secretary, the CHI did contain instructions to annotate the records of members who had been disciplined for homosexual sins. At least, this is what I recall, and I was very shocked at the time to learn this.

I wonder if holding hands and kissing in public (or private) is considered homosexual sin.