Do Gays Really Get an Asterisk on their Membership Records?

[_Cicero]

My wife and I recently listed to the Mormon Stories podcast interview of Benji Schwimmer (available here: http://mormonstories.org/350-352-dance-champion-benji-schwimmer/). His claim to fame is winning a reality show dance competition 6 years ago. I can't really recommend the podcast (among other things, it is way too long), but one thing that did catch my attention was Schwimmer's claim that the church recently instituted a policy whereby any member that is ever formally disciplined for homosexuality is forever branded with an asterisk on his or her formal membership record, and that any member having such brand is banned for life from any calling involving primary or the youth.

I told my wife that I highly doubted this was true because I thought such a policy would have gotten a lot more negative press (since it essentially equates homosexuality with pedophilia). However, Mormon Stories does not offer any corrections on its website, so I thought I would post this question here to see if anyone else has heard of this.

[_Shulem]

********************
********************
********************

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqDCvLWiDao

Paul O

[_Cicero]

An automatic annotation is made in certain cases for various serious sins. Such an annotation can only be removed by permission of the First Presidency and upon request by the Stake President.

I already knew that. What Schwimmer claimed was that the annotation could never be removed if the sin related to homosexuality.

[_son of Ishmael]

Schwimmer's claim that the church recently instituted a policy whereby any member that is ever formally disciplined for homosexuality is forever branded with an asterisk on his or her formal membership record

An automatic annotation is made in certain cases for various serious sins. Such an annotation can only be removed by permission of the First Presidency and upon request by the Stake President.

(since it essentially equates homosexuality with pedophilia)

Depending on which data you look at, 25-33 percent of pedophilia cases are homosexual so there is a direct correlation.

So that means that 67-75 percent of pedophilia cases are heterosexual. so a child has a three times better chance of being molested by a heterosexual than a homosexual. With that kind of logic, the church would be better off requiring all primary teachers to be gay.

[_Equality]

Back to the OP:

Why would the church ever need to put an asterisk on anyone's membership record? They have the gift of discernment. Surely, the Bishop knows before he calls someone (having confirmed it by prayer) whether that person will be a threat to the children. Right? Or do the Mormon authorities not believe their own doctrine re: the gift of discernment?

[_Shulem]

The Church is out of step with science and medicine. Pretty soon it will only be the Mormons who gay bash and no one will let the missionaries in.

We gays have the right to marry. The supreme court will see to it.



Paul O

[Guest]

I already knew that. What Schwimmer claimed was that the annotation could never be removed if the sin related to homosexuality.

There is no such provision only that which I described. However it is essentially permanent unless there is true repentance, homosexual or not. Who deleted my post?

[_Yoda]

I already knew that. What Schwimmer claimed was that the annotation could never be removed if the sin related to homosexuality.

There is no such provision only that which I described. However it is essentially permanent unless there is true repentance, homosexual or not. Who deleted my post?

(Moderator Note) No one deleted your post. However, all discussion involving the comparison of homosexuality to pedophilia has been moved here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=25096

For the record, BC, Equity is not a Moderator here. His name is lit up in blue because he has a blog. Moderators names are lit up in Green. Since Shades is an Admin, his name is in red.

This was MY call, No one else's. I feel that it is unfair to categorize all homosexuals as being more apt to commit such a horrendous crime as pedophilia. And, yes, I do see it as an attack since we do have a homosexual poster, Paul, on our board. Paul is a good father, andd has several children. He would NEVER do anything like that to his children. And to suggest that homosexuals are prone to that type of behavior is hurtful and attacking in nature. If you disagree with my stance, please feel free to speak with Shades. Chap has also recently gone over my head to discuss another ruling I made. As I stated to Chap, if Shades does not support my decision and overturns my ruling, I will support his final call since he is the board founder and administrator, and I moderate for him, and through his direction.

[_dblagent007]

My wife and I recently listed to the Mormon Stories podcast interview of Benji Schwimmer (available here: http://mormonstories.org/350-352-dance-champion-benji-schwimmer/). His claim to fame is winning a reality show dance competition 6 years ago. I can't really recommend the podcast (among other things, it is way too long), but one thing that did catch my attention was Schwimmer's claim that the church recently instituted a policy whereby any member that is ever formally disciplined for homosexuality is forever branded with an asterisk on his or her formal membership record, and that any member having such brand is banned for life from any calling involving primary or the youth.

I told my wife that I highly doubted this was true because I thought such a policy would have gotten a lot more negative press (since it essentially equates homosexuality with pedophilia). However, Mormon Stories does not offer any corrections on its website, so I thought I would post this question here to see if anyone else has heard of this.

I read somewhere else (MDD or Facebook most likely) that the Church does this because some parents sued the Church for not telling them that their child's leader (or teacher) had confessed to the Bishop that he engaged in homosexual activity. The parents felt like the Church had a duty to tell them if the person was homosexual so they could decide whether to keep sending the child to the class. The lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim so the Church decided to throw in the towel and just put an asterisk on the record of anyone who confessed to such activity and ban them from working with the youth.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I read somewhere else (MDD or Facebook most likely) that the Church does this because some parents sued the Church for not telling them that their child's leader (or teacher) had confessed to the Bishop that he engaged in homosexual activity. The parents felt like the Church had a duty to tell them if the person was homosexual so they could decide whether to keep sending the child to the class. The lawsuit survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim so the Church decided to throw in the towel and just put an asterisk on the record of anyone who confessed to such activity and ban them from working with the youth.

The language in Handbook 1 is certainly broad enough to permit this. Section 6.13.4 in Handbook 1 provides for mandatory and discretionary annotation of a member's record. A record is automatically annotated for the big stuff (i.e., a member who is disciplined for incest, sexual offense, abuse, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), predatory conduct, or embezzlement of Church funds or property). However, other language in that section indicates an annotation may be placed on a member's record for any conduct perceived as "threatening the well-being" of other persons or the Church. For example,

In areas authorized by the First Presidency, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church.
...

In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person's membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.
(Emphasis added).