14 February 2018
Presidents Hansen and Christiansen,
In meeting with President Westover last night, he raised the question of (name).
As you know, (name) was arrested, jailed and later pled guilty to a felony in a plea bargain for a crime involving a minor (sexting). Unfortunately, it’s a felony and now Justin is on 5 years of parole or probation, we’re not sure which (Justin says parole).
President Westover reports (name) has made some signifiant changes in his attitude and life and feels he is worthy to begin using his priesthood again. In fact, he has begun to administer the sacrament and accept a calling as teacher of the Gospel Principles class. He appears to be living an exemplary life and is already quite popular in the branch (i.e. others follow his lead).
It’s only natural that (name) is now asking if he can get a limited-use temple recommend.
I could only find the reference in Handbook 1, 10.3.14 that prohibits someone on parole or probation from being baptized until they have resolved all criminal action with authorities.
While the Handbook doesn’t appear to address worthiness restrictions on those who already are members of the Church, I would think that we should be very careful in what we allow Justin to do until his criminal obligation has been fulfilled. And yet we want him to have as many opportunities as possible to build on the changes he’s made subsequent to his court action. He knows he should not expect to be able to serve a mission. But should he be allowed to go to the temple with a limited-use recommend?
I would welcome your insights, experience or counsel on the matter.
You may remember that (name) of the (ward) was jailed for several years and when he returned home he was still under parole or probation restrictions (and is today), including checking in with a parole/probation officer, no driving, no drinking, etc. I don’t remember how long it was (at least 6 months, I believe), but as he worked closely with Bishop (name) he eventually was allowed to use his priesthood. His membership record shows he had a temple recommend issued in 2014 so that would have been AFTER his prison time. So we have somewhat of a precedent here, though I am beginning to wonder whether that allowance by us was appropriate or not. His recommend has since expired and, frankly, I don’t think he ever used his recommend, even when his son (name) was endowed.
I’m copying this to President Westover for any additional information he wants to contribute to the discussion.
I appreciate your counsel.
Thanks,
Crismon