In the last two years I've discerned a palpable shift in overall Mormon attitudes about homosexuality. Alongside greater acceptance in society, there's been increasing openness in our church, as seen in yesterday's well-attended Gay Pride March in Salt Lake City. But judging from the way homosexuality is still treated in the Church Handbook of Instruction, we have a significant way to go.
I can't pinpoint a precise date when I started to recognize that instead of being part of a stubborn minority of Mormons who cared about GLBT rights, I was part of a growing community of faithful Latter-day Saints who long for equality for all people regardless of sexual orientation. But this transformation has indeed been happening -- not just in the media but on the ground, in the Mormon communities I see and know. Good Mormons who just a few years ago might have felt comfortable making homophobic judgments or remarks are expressing to me that they are rethinking this issue.
One dramatic sign of that is yesterday's March for Gay Pride in Salt Lake City, for which more than 300 Mormons dressed in their Sunday clothes to "send a message of love to Utah's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community by joining the annual parade" for the first time. According to the Associated Press, parade marshal Dustin Lance Black (see prior blog post on his new Mormon-themed film Virginia) tweeted that the sight over "over 300 straight, active Mormons" showing up to march moved him to tears.
But in my Facebook feed today, smack dab in the middle of such encouraging stories, is a discussion of a church policy I'd never even heard of before last month: that at leaders' discretion, some gay Mormons have a permanent annotation placed in their official church record if they have a history of homosexual behavior.
If it were standard policy to place such an annotation in the record of any church member who had confessed to any kind of sexual transgression that opposes LDS standards (including heterosexual fornication, adultery, etc.), that would be more fair than the system we apparently have per the 2010 Church Handbook of Instruction. However, the policy does not mention heterosexual sex as conduct that "has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church," instead lumping adult homosexual behavior with incest, sexual and physical abuse of children, and "predatory conduct":
6.13.4 Records with Annotations, pp. 70-71
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. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals.
When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he follows the instructions in the annotation. Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person’s membership record in any of the following situations:
1. The stake president or bishop submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action form showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), predatory conduct, or embezzlement of Church funds or property.
2. The stake president or bishop submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.
3. The stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal.
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.
In all cases, an annotation on a membership record is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president.
This revelation came up in the recent Mormon Stories interview with So You Think You Can Dance? champion Benji Schwimmer. A church leader had told him that because of his history of homosexual activity, an annotation had been placed in his record that stated he could never receive a calling in the Church that had him working with children. That's not because Schwimmer has ever had any kind of history of sexually abusing children, but because the ludicrous equation made possible by the CHI (Gay = Child Molester) in his case resulted in a permanent restriction on his ability to serve in the Church.
At first I was inclined to hope that what happened to Schwimmer was an isolated, unfortunate incident; local LDS leaders can sometimes act with a surprising amount of autonomy. This act did not represent the church of love that I am privileged to call my home.
But today I read the CHI policy for myself, and was saddened, even disgusted.
This needs to change. Adult homosexual behavior is not any more inherently predatory toward children than adult heterosexual behavior is. While it's important that the Church protect children against known child molesters, it's appalling that homosexuals are placed by default in the category of abusers.
That is not the gospel. We can do better than this.
The image of a gay couple holding hands is used with permission of Shutterstock.com.
Ronda | Jun 4, 2012 | 6:01pm
What to do? I’m at a crossroads - on one hand I’m reminded of a Mormon phrase when the evil one states something like, “We teach scripture mingled with the philosophies of men,” yet isn’t this CHI “doctrine” also the philosophy of men? Whose philosophy do I listen to? My heart says, “Do no harm,” and this CHI statement certainly does that. Leave, stay, be more vocal, shut up and put up . . . I taught the Gospel Doctrine lesson yesterday in church rather than attend the Gay Pride parade, and the lesson? Priestcraft - geez -
ckbigelow | Jun 4, 2012 | 6:47pm
What if the issue isn’t concern about actual sexual molestation of children but more the potential example of a demonstrated gay orientation to children. Sexuality and orientation are quite malleable at a young age, and children are quite subject to role models and examples. Parents need to protect their children. My personal policy is that my kids can be around a gay person, but not a gay couple, not because it’s disgusting but quite the opposite, because it might look attractive to some. But if the church sees fit not to have an individual who has persistently indulged in homosexual behavior teach impressionable children, I can understand and trust that. This is radioactive stuff we’re talking about.
oneadorablemom | Jun 4, 2012 | 8:35pm
It seems to me that “repeated homosexual activities (by adults)” is just that, repeated. If you’re a church member and repeatedly engage in homosexual behavior then something should be done to make note that you’re not following the teachings of the Church and by doing so are not only showing contempt and rebellion against the leadership but are obviously prone to not following other moral teachings the Church holds dear.
Before I joined the Church I had a brief homosexual relationship. One of those “college” things. I had to go through some extra steps at baptism, which at the time seemed really unfair to me. Once I was a member though I understood. Knowingly or not I had violated a sacred sexual system placed on earth by God designed to keep us safe and to keep families strong. Once I humbled myself enough to admit I had made a mistake (me, I made the choice, no one else) then I realized that it was OK, empowering even, to live with the consequences of that mistake.
eldermormondad4 | Jun 4, 2012 | 9:05pm
“Sexuality and orientation are quite malleable at a young age, and children are quite subject to role models and examples. Parents need to protect their children. My personal policy is that my kids can be around a gay person, but not a gay couple, not because it’s disgusting but quite the opposite, because it might look attractive to some. But if the church sees fit not to have an individual who has persistently indulged in homosexual behavior teach impressionable children, I can understand and trust that. This is radioactive”
CK..Sexual orientation is Not malleable! It is not a learned behavior. Straight parents have gay kids. Your children cannot learn to be homosexual. What do you mean by role models? Also are you concerned that your children being taught in primary or S
school by one who indulges in heterorsexual behavior, radioactive?
Try not to be so afraid or affected by ignorance. If your straight child is around a gay couple you have no worries that after his/her mission they will look back and say” gee my parents had friends that were a couple and gay. They were really happy, kind loving and loved Jesus outwardly. I think I will go through repairitive therapy,because I have O.S.A (opposite sex attraction) change who Heavenly Father made me and look for a same sex partner to love. That will not happen so be not afraid. But the love that they saw between this same sex couple might be an example to them as they move about life and find someone to love and cherish. I say this with love in my heart and I mean no malice toward you. I just would like you to really pause, and think about what you are saying. Many were where you are now. Many have broke through the ignorance. I remember hearing these same comparisons and fears by those opposed to interracial marriage. “It gets better”
eldermormondad4 | Jun 4, 2012 | 9:18pm
oneadorablemom,
If you had a homosexual fling in college and you are straight then that certainly was your choice. Why one would do that is beyond me. “one of those college things?”
And to the point no you should have not had to go through and “extra” step. Unless it was the time the church was telling those of us that were/are gay that we “must” change or be in some kind of a program to change to have our church status in order. Maybe they thought you were homosexual and it wasnt just a “college thing”
The Church has changed it’s policy as we know. One can be homosexual now and not be tortured as we were not long ago. Almost to the point of suicide. Or that we were told to get married, do what we are suppose to do and “it” will change.
If the Church is documenting anything it should all be on the same playing field. One should not be marked with a scarlet “H” on their membership records. By the way most pedifiles are heterosexual not homosexual as it is a crime of power not sex. If that is the fear.
“It gets better”
eldermormondad4 | Jun 4, 2012 | 9:35pm
On a more positive note! Thanks, thanks, thanks and more thanks to all those wonderful kind brothers and sisters that marched in the Pride parade in Salt Lake. I personally cannot tell you how I feel about that. I do not live in Utah but when I read what my bro’s and sisters in the Church did and watched it on youtube I had tears in my eyes.When I got divorced and came out, I was disowned by my siblings as were my children. All of my friends in church save a couple shunned me and my children. I had the horrible experience of losing a child in the midst of this and still the church I new and loved left us to ourselves. My sibling and family cut us off. No weddings, no Christmas, no Easter no nothing. What saved me was my faith,prayer, non member friends and my Book of Mormon. Once I stopped trying to be something I was not..asked Heavenly Father to show me my path..the pain lifted and I knew that I was not a “prodcuct” of my enviornment nor had I learned to be homosexual.Nor could I change. That thought is repulsive to me. I had always been what I was trying not to be and Heavenly Father knew it, I knew it and his loved poured out on my soul.
Thanks again for you kindness…and please please please teach your children not to be ignorant. Teach them as I have taught mine. Be who you are and nothing else. Be kind and love as Jesus did. Do one good thing every day and most importantly do not follow blindly men..follow the Savior and listen to Heavenly Father, as the spirit speaks..
Jana Riess | Jun 4, 2012 | 11:38pm
eldermormondad4, I’m so sorry you have been through that kind of pain. Shunning arises out of fear, not the gospel. You seem to have a great attitude about it.
Here is a beautiful post by Marion Jensen, a heterosexual guy who marched in the parade yesterday: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2012/06/sunday-morning/
brettogden | Jun 4, 2012 | 11:51pm
What makes this policy even worse is that the CHI excerpt quoted refers only to “homosexual activities”. Homosexual activity is not defined in the CHI and as such is seemingly left to the discretion of the local leader. Local leaders could then define homosexual activities to be things as simple as kissing or holding hands.
In the case of Benji Schwimmer, if I correctly understood the podcast he had confessed to things that most of us would consider heavy petting which led to his “annotation”.
coltakashi | Jun 5, 2012 | 4:27am
The varieties of human sexual behaviors are only hinted at in the way that it has become obligatory to refer to not just homisexual, but also bisexual, and transgender persons to try to be more inclusive. Because sex is a fundamental driver of behavior, it can manifest in all sorts of ways. Our sexual feelings involve both conscious and unconscious processes that involve hormonal reactions to all sorts of environmental stimuli. Obviously the basic mechanisms are genetic, but are modified by poorly understood epigenetic factors that can be modified by our environment in the womb or as children or adults. Personal experiences, especially traumatic ones such as sexual assault at a young age can affect how we can give and receive affection. We cannot experiment ethically on human beings in ways that would resolve these uncertainties. We do know that twins raised apart have a higher likelihood to be both heterosexual or homosexual, but it is far from 100%. There are twins who were even raised together who diverge in their sexual orientation. Homosexual behavior by many women seems to operate in a substantially different way than male homosexuality. The category of “bisexual” may be a continuing behavioral ambiguity or a mark of variability between homosexual and heterosexual orientation in the individual.
There are different kinds of sexual abuse of non-adults. While there are otherwise heterosexual persons who abuse either sex of young children, some homosexual adult men have tended to become involved with teenage boys in a way that shades into relationships with older (18 and above) males. Many of the Catholic priest sexual abuse cases involved homosexual adults who did not observe the age distinction between a 16 year old boy and an 18 year old man. And there are homosexuals who commit rape and date rape just as there are heterosexuals who do so.
Then there is the problem of people who are the object of a homosexual person’s affection who are not homosexual. The object of affection may strongly resent such attention. When we are according legitimacy to the natural emotions of homosrxuals, we cannot tell heterosexuals not to feel what they feel.
Their is an organization called NAMBLA that exists to lobby for the legalization of homosexual relationships between adult men and boys. A self-identified portion of homosexual have adopted that behavior as part of their natural sexual behavior. Bishops are not specialists who can assess the behaviors and tendencies of homosexuals and determine what particular variety of sexual.behavior the member will indulge in. Those who indulge in harmful behaviors will conceal them. While.it.may offend a member who is solely homosexual with adults whom he is sure will not be offended by his attention, the parents of children would expect the bishop to err on the side of protecting their children from someone who is in the gray world of varieties of sexual attractions and behaviors. Similarly, if a heterosexual member is showing behavior that involves inappropriate intimacy with children, they should also be restricted from assignments with children.
An annotation on a membership record can be an alternative to disfellowshipping or excommunicating the member. Would the member rather be formally identified publicly to other members as.having restricted or no membership, or have private information seen only by the bishopric when extending callings that does not communicate negative information to other members. Not being called to work in Primary or with teenagers is not a significant deprivation. I have not had such a calling in almost 30 years.
Please understand that I am not asserting that the majority of anyone of any particular sexual orientation in the classic LGBT list is a predator. My experience as a prosecutor, however, has taught me that there are people of all sorts who can be sexual predators, and most importantly that predators always deny their offenses, meaning that people who are not predators must be treated with caution because of them.
lakatu13 | Jun 5, 2012 | 1:43pm
coltakashi-
Even if all your points were valid I do not see how it applies to this point. Would they not equally correspond to heterosexuals- they in the same way cannot be trusted with children and Bishops cannot discern among them who are predators? Should we not all then have annotations on our records?
Jana,
I think your concern here is very justified. From OT time to now, whenever someone is demarcated as other it is all to easy to permit atrocity and forget the humanity and love of the gospel. Why do we go out of our way to create divisions within ourselves when what we truly need is unfettered love and acceptance?
August | Jun 5, 2012 | 3:20pm
The author states that “Adult homosexual behavior is not any more inherently predatory toward children than adult heterosexual behavior is.” I beg to differ. The evidence clearly points to homosexual men having a greater propensity to predatory acts towards children. Just take a look at the child abuse scandal in the Catholic church. There were several thousand boys sexually abused by male priests,yet very few young girls. If heterosexual men had an equal propensity to commit predatory sexual acts on children as homosexual men then there should have been ten times the number of girls molested, but there wasn’t. As is typical with faddish, worldly philosophies the author makes a claim with no evidence whatsoever to back it up.
Spencer | Jun 5, 2012 | 3:48pm
Dear Jana Riess,
Please go off and marry Joanna Brooks and stop representing LDS members. Both of you have such a loud voice while representing the smallest of minorities in our church. Your comments and articles do absolutely nothing for the work of the Lord. Thankyou
laker | Jun 5, 2012 | 4:02pm
Jana asserts the CHI makes a connection between homosexual behavior and child abuse. The actual language of the handbook makes no such association. There are valid reasons why a church leader should be informed of repeated homosexual behavior, like the consideration of certain callings. Church practice already generally protects against situations in which those prone to repeated heterosexual affairs are placed in callings which may lead to unhealthy relationships.
EW88 | Jun 5, 2012 | 4:06pm
As a Mormon who doesn’t entirely agree with Jana Reiss’ premise, I apologize for Spencer’s inappropriate comment, which is obviously less in accordance with the gospel than an annotation on gay behavior. I agree with the Church on this one: it is wise to not have someone who repeated homosexual behavior for general safety because statistics, such as we have, show that molestation is more likely in these circumstances, and children certainly are impressionable in so many ways. Of course it’s not fair. Life isn’t fair. Take that up with God. We all have different trials and we all learn things from them. Blaming the Church for problems isn’t going to get you anywhere. Remember what Elder Holland said at the most recent Conference? Forgiveness should be extended to all, including the Church itself. And someone else (Elder Baxter?) said that we can’t made it all add up because we don’t have all the numbers. Stop judging (Pres. Uchtdorf) and love and forgive.
Thanks for listening.
http://www.conservativemormonmom.blogspot.com
eldermormondad4 | Jun 5, 2012 | 4:40pm
EW88, I certainly agree with the love and forgiveness part. Trust me we try! I will not go into my story as there are many like it. Quite frankly the “church” has not apologized for what they did but my testimony grows. I had typed a long response to the brother quoting incorrect data but of course when I sent it it got lost in space. I would suggest that you move out of the area of stereotypes about gay /homosexual brothers and sisters. It will help you grow in your testimony. Oh by the way the church hasnt apologized to my sweet wonderful exwife for counsiling us to get married and stay married in spite of the fact I am gay. We did as we were told. When we did divorce my children suffered the most. WE WERE CUT OFF!!! Even when my child was killed. So please safe the advice to forgive Boyd K Packer and any other Brothers who have said hateful misleading nonsense. Tell the child who blows his brains out to so easily forgive. It is a long process and as you sit in sacrament meeting you think about that. You feel the pain of the brothers and sisters, who love the Gospel but have no place at the table or are subject of in correct stereotypes as you mention and as did the other brother. I forgive the Church everyday. They have not followed the path of repentence. They must apologize, correct promise not to do it again and move forward. Is the Gosel true? You bet it is and inspite of what our family has gone through my testimony is stronger than ever. I love the Savior and I love the Prophet Joseph. Please stop your judging.
Below is a bit of data:
“Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority’s most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization “Save Our Children,” and warned that “a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children” (Bryant, 1977, p. 114)”
“Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.
To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men’s sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men’s abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don’t implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.”
“The distinction between a victim’s gender and a perpetrator’s sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don’t really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes”
.
eldermormondad4 | Jun 5, 2012 | 4:45pm
cont:
“Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual “(Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147).
“In scandals involving the Catholic church, the victims of sexual abuse were often adolescent boys rather than small children. Similarly, the 2006 congressional page scandal involved males who were at least 16 years old.
These are cases in which the term pedophilia – referring as it does to attractions to prepubescent children – can cause confusion. Rather than pedophilia, the accusations stemming from these scandals raised the question of whether gay people shouldn’t be trusted in positions of authority where there is any opportunity for sexually harassing or abusing others.
Here again, there is no inherent connection between an adult’s sexual orientation and her or his propensity for endangering others. Scientific research provides no evidence that homosexual people are less likely than heterosexuals to exercise good judgment and appropriate discretion in their employment settings. There are no data, for example, showing that gay men and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual men and women to sexually harass their subordinates in the workplace. Data from studies using a variety of psychological measures do not indicate that gay people are more likely than heterosexuals to possess any psychological characteristics that would make them less capable of controlling their sexual urges, refraining from the abuse of power, obeying rules and laws, interacting effectively with others, or exercising good judgment in handling authority. As explained elsewhere on this site, sexual orientation is not a mental illness nor is it inherently associated with impaired psychological functioning.
Gay men and lesbians function effectively in a wide variety of employment settings. The research literature doesn’t reveal any differences between heterosexuals, bisexuals, and homosexuals in job performance or ability to properly exercise authority in supervisory roles. As indicated by workplace policies around the United States, a large and growing number of private and public employers do not perceive a problem with hiring gay and bisexual people as employees or managers. Many corporations, educational institutions, and local governments have adopted policies that prohibit discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of those organizations provide benefits such as health insurance for employees’ same-sex partners. Indeed, one widely cited reason for offering such benefits is that they enable a company to remain competitive by attracting high quality employees who happen to be gay, lesbian, or bisexual.
Thus, there is no factual basis for organizations to avoid hiring homosexual or bisexual people, simply on the basis of their sexual orientation, for positions that involve responsibility for or supervision of others, whether children, adolescents, or adults.”
eldermormondad4 | Jun 5, 2012 | 5:03pm
Jana,
Back to reality.. Please accept my thanks for your post and again on a positive note the kindness of all the brothers and sisters who truely see and feel the Saviors love and extend it out to us. What an example to your children and the community. As a dad, a grandpa and a citizen of the community we all live in. Thankyou.
There will always be ingnorance. There will always be those that refuse to see the Vision that Joseph had and that the Savior lived. I’m not so sure he was a card carrying Conservative..lol!
Bless Pres Monson as he seeks knowledge from Heavenly Father. Our leaders are human just like us. They make mistakes just like us. Joseph did and we LDS Mormons tend to put him on the G-d pedestal. He was a boy that had a vision and brought it forth into adulthood.
Its interesting before the revelation that gave all Heavenly Fathers children the possibility of the priesthood those of us who questions were told to be silent or risk excommunication or disfellowship. Funny it is the same today. Same arguments inregards to gay brothers and sisters. Same fears ...same accusations.. Church leaders said many incorrect things about Civil Rights back then. About Martin Luther King etc…about Blacks..The scriptures and mans prejidice are used to scapegoat and hurt people and to justify our own prejidcue. The Bible needs to be read in context and in correctness. Still it is used for hate but of course as we see to mask ones ignorance. We are not, to blindly follow our leaders. We are not a cult!!! We cannot hide behind incorrect statements they make and marginalize anyone. We, all will be held accountable to your Heavenly Father.
“It gets better”
markclayco | Jun 5, 2012 | 7:15pm
Regarding the comment by August and similar comments that homosexual adults have a greater propensity for sexual molestation of children. You cherry pick anecdotes or narrow statistics that support your position and then apply them to an entire community. You may believe that homosexual behaviour is wrong, but it is equally wrong to engage in false teachings in order to shame both individuals and a community. You are doing to the gay community what the anti-mormon community does to you every day.
esplinlin@cox.net | Jun 5, 2012 | 10:39pm
Jana,
The CHI quote you printed is private information, and only available surreptitiously. By using it, you are stepping over a boundary of civility. “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.” The church’s policies about homosexual behaviors are not going to change, but individual attitudes toward all people are changing for the better. By using underhanded means to push your cause, you push it backwards. Find a better way.
eldermormondad4 | Jun 6, 2012 | 2:19am
Jana,
Thankyou for bringing this into the “light” After listening to Benji’s story discussing this is certainly appropriate. What are some of you afraid of?.
The
Corporate Church should always be about “light” as is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To mark ones personal church records for life and actually eternity is ugly and I am sure the Savior would be quite vocal to the contrary. If one has broken church law, repents and moves forward but then is marked Again with a scarlet “H” and kept from teaching primary, being a scout leader etc then I hope the “light” of the Gospel shines brightly on the sin that the men in the “corporate” church are choosing to commit. This decision is man made and has Nothing to do with endangering anyone.It has nothing to do with the Gospel and in fact is embarrassing. It is ignorance and misunderstanding…Shame on the church for this.
caspian | Jun 7, 2012 | 7:03pm
Jana, thank you for bringing this policy to public attention. I regret having to respond anonymously. This policy does indeed equate homosexual activity with pedophilia, and the sad irony is that it also leaves to a bishop or stake president’s judgment the use of annotations with heterosexual offenders. A married man who has affairs multiple times (a serial offender against women) is not required to have such an annotation. A gay or bisexual man whose only offenses have been with adult men is required to have an annotation proscribing against any contact with children. There’s no other way to interpret that policy.
Annotations exist to protect the church, but the reality is that they are still subject to the interpretation of bishops and stake presidents in many cases. Further, to have a life-long annotation on one’s membership record seems to imply that some sins can never be repented of. Is homosexual behavior really in that category?
coltakashi | Jun 7, 2012 | 9:15pm
To Caspian: A heterosexual man who is an LDS Church member who is found to have comitted adultery repeatedly will not have his record annotated, because he will be excommunicated. I have been involved in High Council membership disciplinary hearings in those circumstances, and even though the information was brought forward by the husband, in a confession to both his wife and the Church about his misconduct, it was clear that his conduct was deliberate and that he needed to undergo the sanction of excommunication in order to continue the process of repentance.
A member who commits sexual assault on a child will generally be excommunicated.
Placing annotations on a membership record are an action short of disfellowshipment (withdrawal of religious participation) or excommunication (termination of membership). It is similar to disfellowshipping the individual. It communicates to the new bishop or to the bishop of the member’s new ward that the member needs special attention and support in living the gospel. It is not a kindness to place any person into a situation where they are tempted to violate commitments they have made, to themselves, to God, and to the Church. And there are lots of ways that a member can serve his or her fellow church members without spending time with people who may (depending on the circumstances) subject him or her to that temptation.
There are other rules the Church has set to reduce temptations for heterosexual persons, including insisting that a man not travel to a distant church meeting with a female member who is not his wife, and instructing that home teachers visiting single female members not go on visits by themselves. Those rules and practices reduce opportunities for heterosexual misconduct, but they obviously do not work if the temptation involves someone who is homosexual. A bishop is not going to know that a member needs special counsel and consideration in church assignments, in order to avoid temptation, if there is no record that alerts him to the issue. Again, any annotated record should be private, not shared with other members of the ward.
Let me make one other point. The Catholic priest child sexual abuse problem involved a FAILURE to identify and record and act upon allegations of sexual misconduct. It has not been that long in the past that some Mormon bishops failed to take seriously the likelihood of repeated offenses when sexual misconduct of that kind was involved. Most Mormon men do not deal with sex offenders on any recurring basis, and it has been difficult for them to shift from accepting a member’s statement that he has repented, to being reserved and appropriately skeptical about the ability to resist temptations toward sexual misconduct. Being more alert about members’ sexual activities outside marriage is something bishops have needed to do for some time, precisely to protect other members from abusers. I would not like to see us retreat to a time when bishops would ignore evidence of sexual abuse because of a perceived duty to let the member determine how his own case should be treated.
Just as with any responsibility entrusted to a bishop, the authority to make record annotations should not be abused or misused. It must be constrained by due regard and love for the member whose record it is, balanced with the safety of other ward members.
neal.douglas.3 | Jun 8, 2012 | 12:37am
Jana,
Thanks for posting this. I ran into this policy in the Handbook while working with a user group of gay LDS folks, and it was particularly disturbing to many. My research showed that this annotation is automatic, can only be reversed by the First Presidency, and the annotation reads ‘No callings whatsoever with children’
In the user group the most nagging question was ‘why?’ So, being the die-hard that I am, I decided this issue needed to be addressed directly be a General Authority. As luck would have it, an Apostle was going to be speaking in an upcoming Stake Conference, and I happened to know this man personally. I shot a letter to my Stake President and asked if he would inquire about this policy for me when he met with the Apostle. He agreed to bring it up, and indeed had a 15 minute discussion on the topic. Bottom line - the Apostle said that policy was in place to protect the Church from situations like those that made headlines with Catholic Priests abusing children. In other words, gay people are indeed being ‘profiled’. He did mention that they are considering some sort of committee that would review the petitions of those who want the annotation removed, and thus shift that burden from the First Presidency. That doesn’t really make it better, in my opinion.
This is a situation where policy is being decided by Church lawyers and the feelings of the people it affects are not even on the radar. Disheartening.
kendall | Jun 8, 2012 | 9:22pm
I feel like I need to share the following experience -as horribly awkward and vulnerable as it may be- to illustrate the immensely damaging effects myths and policies about homosexuality in the LDS Church can have on the souls of gay members. Lest anyone attempt to deny that the insidious messaging embedded in this policy really exists in Mormon teaching, culture, and perceptions of homosexuals - I feel I should share my own experience bearing witness to the contrary. Much of the fear and self-loathing I experienced early in my process of coming to understand and accept my sexuality came from my having assimilated the false notions I acquired in my church community that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. As I found that I simply could not deny my homosexuality, the fear overwhelmed me that this must mean that I too was a pedophile, though nothing in my personal history would substantiate it. As I was coming to fully understand my experience of sexuality, I made a clear decision that if I were to also find that the myth was true and I was also therefore attract to children, I would immediately kill myself. From that moment on I was petrified to even play or get near my nieces and nephews who were young children at the time. I remember very clearly declining to get on the floor and play with them or touch them or allow them on my lap. My heart was breaking. I felt I was losing my mind. I was afraid and disgusted by the thought of what I might be. While the idea that I could do anything to harm them in any way or that I could have any attraction to them felt so disgusting and completely foreign to me, the message I felt I had received from my religious community (albeit subtle and insidious) was that it was possible if not inevitable. Needless to say, this was one of the lowest moments of my life, consumed by an impenetrable despair. And though I was naturally afraid of death, I felt the only appropriate thing to do would be to kill myself. Fortunately I was blessed to begin meeting with a therapist (a Mormon bishop, no less) who help me begin the very slow process of overcoming the years of self-doubt and distrust. He urged me to allow myself to engage with life fully and to learn what was true for me from the inside out rather than the other direction. I distinctly remember the first time I consented to allowing one of my nieces to sit on my lap. I only allowed her to sit on my knees - keeping a “safe” distance. As she sat there content and totally unaware of the significance of the moment, I cautiously and keenly observed my reaction to the experience, bracing myself for the horrid possibility that I might react inappropriately. Though I felt nothing but love, I would not let myself even enjoy the emotion as I had to be sure there was nothing inappropriate to it. Learning to truly know and trust oneself can be a slow and confusing process. Thankfully I felt nothing inappropriate and the next time I allowed a niece or nephew to sit on my lap I did it with a little less reserve and apprehension, trusting that the love-of-an-uncle I felt for them was normal and appropriate and good. And so on it went from there as I trusted myself and let go of the myth equating homosexuality with pedophilia and the consuming fear that this applied to me. I even learned to let go of the notion bound up in this church policy that ‘we need have extra-caution on the off chance that they just might turn out to be connected’.
I’ve known of the annotation policy for over a year now and in that time have come to believe that when the time came that it was exposed to the light of day, outrage would ensue and it would be revoked. I hope this belief is made a reality.
caspian | Jun 13, 2012 | 2:17pm
To coltakashi: thanks for some clarification. I don’t want to drag this out, but an annotation occurs not instead of (well, it theoretically could be instead of), but after disfellowshipment or excommunication—after one’s reinstatement to full fellowship or membership—and is a permanent part of a membership record. It’s a lifetime reminder of one’s sins, unless one is willing to petition the First Presidency via the stake presidency. As Neal points out, it is not left to the church leader’s judgment but is required. There is no “due regard” for the member in question.
I fully understand the need to annotate in the case of child abuse and those who clearly are a danger to children. But in the case of adult men/women who have only acted with other consenting adult men/women, for example, the annotation still is required to specify no activity with children because of the assumption that gay = pedophile. As neal points out, it is still profiling. Such profiling gives people the false assumption that all pedophiles are gay, when they are just as likely to be straight.
Finally, I wish it were true that heterosexual repeat offenders were always ex’d, but I know of far too many cases in which they are not. That is still left to the church leader’s discretion.
Timothy | Jun 21, 2012 | 10:35pm
Seems like the Mormons like to keep a myth/lie alive.
The National Institutes of Health as conducted a survey on homosexual and heterosexual pedophile attacks on children.
A child is 11 times more likely to be sexually assaulted by a heterosexual.
Common lies and misperceptions are to be expected from a closed minded community who listen like lackies to everything their Supreme Leaders say.
Timothy | Jun 30, 2012 | 4:19am
Homophobic Mormons like to believe, and repeat, the myth that homosexual make up the majority of pedophiles.
This isn’t the case. The National Institutes of Health released a report that shows for every one homosexual pedophile, there are ELEVEN “normal” heterosexual pedophiles.
This probably explains the high incidence of child sexual abuse by Bishops, Sunday School teachers, Missionaries, Boy Scout Leaders, and even Relief Society women. Just google mormon sex abuse to get informed.
Timothy | Jun 30, 2012 | 4:28am
Maybe a list of the Top Mormon Sex Offenders - Most held the Priesthood
But this is just a quick thirty minute list - the tip of the Mormon Iceberg of Sexually Abusing Children.
Lon Harvey Kennard, Mormon Bishop, sexually abusing up to six children
Eneudo Petit, Mormon Bishop, taking lessons from Joseph Smith, flees the jurisdiction, leaves the U.S. to avoid arrest for sodomy against a child and aggravated sexual abuse.
Timothy McCleve, Mormon Bishop, guilty of sexual abuse of children
John Baysen, Mormon Missionary, sentenced to 180 days in jail for molesting a girl and a young woman in his Ward.
Jack LaHolt, most notorious Mormon Scout Master for molesting boys, still has the record for the most molested.
Timur Dykes, Mormon Boy Scout leader, plead guilty to molesting 17 boy scouts.
Frank Curtis, Mormon Boy Scout leader and a Sunday School teacher, from 79 - 91 molested multiple boys in his leadership position in the Mormon church.
and let us not leave out the Relief Society
Susan Brock, sentenced to 13 years, along with her Relief Society daughter, for molesting (performing unwelcomed oral sex) on a 13 year old boy. I guess the boy wasn’t into the mother-daughter scenario.
But this list is long, and showed another problem.
Who is more dangerous as babysitters? Catholics or Mormons? Remember ALL the Mormon MEN on this list were Mormon priests.
Art Phillips, Mormon Sunday School teacher, fondling 15 year old girl, trying to take nude photos for child pornography.
Eric Patrick “Ricky” Avant, Mormon Boy Scout Leader, sentenced to 26 years for molesting boys over multiple years.
Richard Kenneth Ray, two different Mormon Bishops KNEW of Ray’s past child sex crimes, but did not notify the Ward, or limit Ray’s access to children. Sentenced to 61 years in prison, and the Mormon church settled out-of-court for it’s knowledge and coverup.
Ryan Whitaker, Mormon Sunday School Teacher, sex with a 9 year old girl on Mormon Church property.
Way too easy, and you say the Mormons are PERFECT NEIGHBORS, that aren’t sex molesters, and that Mormon Bishops are not covering up the sex crimes within the Mormon church.
No reports of any of these Mormon Priesthood holders, and holding offices in the church as being homosexual. So this heterosexual list of attacks on children shows a problem which isn’t homosexuals at all.
FazaPops | Jul 21, 2012 | 5:12pm
I’d be curious to know from posters above how they maintain or where they document that homosexuals have more of a disposition towards pedophilia than heterosexuals.
I can see why the church would need to annotate certain individuals records to make future leaders aware of former actions, but in this case, I do have to agree with Benji Schwimmer. It is a sentence.
sam | Aug 14, 2012 | 3:08pm
Jana:
Based on the above article, you come across as judgmental of church leaders. In future articles, please reference specific individuals that you disagree with. It will carry more weight if you say, “President Monson, Bishop Smith, President Packer, Stake President Hanson are wrong and not inspired and failed to fulfill their duty for the following reasons:” I believe these individuals desire the best for you and me and Benji, but your article brings that in to question. I would be very interested to see you write, “Elder Richard G. Scott does not understand people,” or “Elder Oaks either wants to hurt others or is negligent in his duty as a Prophet.”
Finally, can you also explain how you are justified in publicly judging church leaders when my Gospel understanding is to not judge, sustain church leaders, and resolve matters in private? I suspect you have not been to the temple. I encourage you to meet with your local leaders - although that may be difficult considering the above article - and attend the temple and enjoy the inspiration it provides.
Thanks,
Beitiedia | Oct 21, 2012 | 7:46pm
8. Medical Marijuana has been legalized in 14 be used by is the group pipes 12 within neurochemical effect on pain. product do for their work come but when a marijuana, East and situation so as to prevent legal charges. vaporizer At any time after smoking marijuana they will be best in specific range of temperature and humidity. Quitting is constantly associated with depression in order break legal rules as well in a place where you live. However, 16 states in America have been that use highs and maintaining use around the procuring and consumption of weed.