Cobalt-70 Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 It is not just a clerical act. It is not just treated the same as excommunication it is excommunication by your own request. A court is held and membership is revoked and along with it goes the blessings associated with that membership. It is not just taking a name out of a database. As has been stated above it is removing your name from the Lamb's book of life at your own request and is not done without the Bishop contacting the person and making sure they understand that.Technically, no. It isn't excommunication. No church court is held. Legally, the church can't do that anymore, and they don't. Moreover, if you send the letter the right place and say the right words, no bishop can contact you to try to change your mind. It is purely a clerical act.Also, how is it that the church's computer database is the "Book of Life"? Does that mean that if the church's computers malfunction, they can unbaptize you or un-seal you? What if the church's computer gets infected with a virus? 1
Libs Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 This is a slightly different question, but in the same general category.Is there any advantage to keeping your name on the rolls, if you are never again active in the church?
Storm Rider Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Technically, no. It isn't excommunication. No church court is held. Legally, the church can't do that anymore, and they don't. Moreover, if you send the letter the right place and say the right words, no bishop can contact you to try to change your mind. It is purely a clerical act.Also, how is it that the church's computer database is the "Book of Life"? Does that mean that if the church's computers malfunction, they can unbaptize you or un-seal you? What if the church's computer gets infected with a virus?Cobalt, ERayR was referring to the sealing power; that which is sealed on earth is sealed in heaven. Also, it is not "purely a clerical act". To remove one's name from the records of the Church is to literally remove one's names from the Lamb's Book of Life; the blessings are severed that were received while a member i.e. from baptism to sealing become as if they were never done. As far as being "legal"; the government has nothing to do with it. I think you are addressing an entirely different issue rather than the topic of the OP.
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 It is not just a clerical act. It is not just treated the same as excommunication it is excommunication by your own request. A court is held and membership is revoked and along with it goes the blessings associated with that membership. It is not just taking a name out of a database. As has been stated above it is removing your name from the Lamb's book of life at your own request and is not done without the Bishop contacting the person and making sure they understand that.There is no "court"- letters are sent to the individual to confirm his wishes, and then a form is sent to the First Presidency and that is it.
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 ....if you send the letter the right place and say the right words, no bishop can contact you to try to change your mind ....I know this totally incredible, but the letter does not magically change the laws of agency. The bishop can do whatever he finds best according to his judgement and the spirit.The reality is, the person has probably been burdening the rolls for years and has requested no contact, though contacts have probably been attempted. After awhile, one gets the idea that one's visits are not exactly welcome, (after getting thrown off the porch a few times ) so it is not likely that another contact will in fact be made. But it is certainly not true that "no bishop can contact you". I know of a case where in fact a bishop contacted a relatively new member who had requested name removal after reading anti-Mormon literature, and he was able to "turn around" the request. It happens.
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 This is a slightly different question, but in the same general category.Is there any advantage to keeping your name on the rolls, if you are never again active in the church?Have you ever heard of Pascal's Wager?
Cobalt-70 Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 There is no "court"- letters are sent to the individual to confirm his wishes, and then a form is sent to the First Presidency and that is it.So that's the heart of the matter: the First Presidency "receives a letter." But they don't shake the dust off their shoes, they don't make a voodoo doll and stick pins into it, and they don't burn the member's effigy. What began with a solemn priesthood ordinance is seemingly erased (or is it really?) through the U.S. Postal Service and a few key strokes on a computer. There is no "ordinance" at the end. You can reject your baptism and lose your faith, certainly, but what does that have to do with the physical process of deleting bits off a hard drive? Isn't it really just the loss of faith that marks one's removal from the Book of Life? 1
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Isn't it really just the loss of faith that marks one's removal from the Book of Life?Yes- your point?We should have a funeral for the loss? All gather together and have a moment of silence while contemplating the nature of agency and why people go astray? It's sad- but in most cases it has been years since faith was lost.
Calm Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 So that's the heart of the matter: the First Presidency "receives a letter." But they don't shake the dust off their shoes, they don't make a voodoo doll and stick pins into it, and they don't burn the member's effigy. What began with a solemn priesthood ordinance is seemingly erased (or is it really?) through the U.S. Postal Service and a few key strokes on a computer. There is no "ordinance" at the end. You can reject your baptism and lose your faith, certainly, but what does that have to do with the physical process of deleting bits off a hard drive? Isn't it really just the loss of faith that marks one's removal from the Book of Life?Just as the act of baptism is an outward expression of faith, the removal of one's name as a member is an outward expression of lack of faith and has the same type of consequences.
Calm Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 This is a slightly different question, but in the same general category.Is there any advantage to keeping your name on the rolls, if you are never again active in the church?If you truly don't believe and know yourself well enough that you are certain you will never come back, then the only advantage I can see (besides family dynamics, if you are in a job where they care you are LDS and you need time to look for another job, or if you are at a church school and are willing to lie about your belief status in order to continue receiving the subsidy given by believing members to members they think are believers in order to help them) is if you want on occasion to have members to contact you so you know that somewhere someone is thinking about you....whether you want them to or not.
Mark Beesley Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 This is a slightly different question, but in the same general category.Is there any advantage to keeping your name on the rolls, if you are never again active in the church?That's an interesting question. It probably should be asked in conjunction with one to the effect of, What is the advantage of remaining under covenant if one intends to violate that covenant on an ongoing basis?I think it may come down to what is in one's heart. I know that the many years I was inactive and a firm resident of Babylon, I also knew, deep in my heart, that I was in need of repentance and hoped that I would one day find the courage to come back. That attitude hasn't changed much, even though I am now "back."
Duncan Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 That would be a mostly correct understanding. The faithful spouse is "technically" sealed to the offending spouse and S/He cannot be sealed to another person without a cancellation of sealing but the blessings of the original sealing are still in effect.MWI am wondering though if one spouse is active and the other isn't or the couple got divorced but didn't get the cancellation of the sealing and am wondering if God honors the sealing regardless of the couple's feelings towards each other and activity-I know a few couples that they would be SO much better off getting a divorce and I don't know but would God say sorry you are stuck together for eternity-that doesn't sound like happiness to me!
mfbukowski Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 Yes- your point?We should have a funeral for the loss? All gather together and have a moment of silence while contemplating the nature of agency and why people go astray? It's sad- but in most cases it has been years since faith was lost.In retrospect, this was pretty cold.I really shouldn't post when I am grumpy after a hard day. But actually it is an administrative decision by the Bishop to remove the name. To some degree it is definitely "just a form filled out" but on the other hand, that form represents years of attempted visits and refusals, discussions, cajoling, unanswered knocks on doors while the tv was blaring, etc.To be technical about it, the results of a disciplinary council are also just as much an administrative action and an entry into a computer when it is all over, but that does not mean that entry does not represent years of heartache on both sides of that unanswered knock at the door, and the final letter requesting name removal.
Libs Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 That's an interesting question. It probably should be asked in conjunction with one to the effect of, What is the advantage of remaining under covenant if one intends to violate that covenant on an ongoing basis?I think it may come down to what is in one's heart. I know that the many years I was inactive and a firm resident of Babylon, I also knew, deep in my heart, that I was in need of repentance and hoped that I would one day find the courage to come back. That attitude hasn't changed much, even though I am now "back."Yeah, I understand what you're saying. I am 99% sure that I will not return. I guess it's the 1% of me, that is not sure. That small part of me wants to maintain my membership in the church. I wouldn't say I have broken all of my covenants. But, definitely, I have not been faithful to "the church". I have written "the letter" (resignation letter) a couple of times, but just couldn't send it.
Libs Posted May 12, 2012 Posted May 12, 2012 (edited) Another question, though. Does removing your name (thus, your baptism and all other ordinances) release you from the covenants you made? (per LDS doctrine, I mean?) Is it like you never made them? Or are you still bound and in sin? Edited May 12, 2012 by Libs
altersteve Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Another question, though. Does removing your name (thus, your baptism and all other ordinances) release you from the covenants you made? (per LDS doctrine, I mean?) Is it like you never made them? Or are you still bound and in sin?I would think it would be as if you broke those covenants.
Log Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 I would think it would be as if you broke those covenants.That's my guess as well.
mfbukowski Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 (edited) Suppose you made an agreement to do something with someone.Suppose that person was lost at sea, and presumed dead.You did not fulfill your bargain because he was dead- and as such, he could not fulfill his part of the bargain, so it was no longer a two-way deal.But then suppose he was found alive and came back after you for not performing on your deal.Would it be just for him to hold you responsible for NOT performing, while you thought he was dead and was therefore unable for him to perform his part of the bargain?I don't think God would hold anyone responsible for what they agreed to while they were believers, if they honestly and sincerely thought afterwards that God did not exist. It would be much as the case just described. Edited May 13, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
Cobalt-70 Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Yes- your point?We should have a funeral for the loss? All gather together and have a moment of silence while contemplating the nature of agency and why people go astray? It's sad- but in most cases it has been years since faith was lost.The point is that I'm asking why the moment you are removed from the "Book of Life" isn't the moment you lose your faith, rather than the moment your record is deleted from a hard drive in the Church central mainframe? And if so, why do we think that "having your name removed" has any actual eternal consequences?
Cobalt-70 Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 Just as the act of baptism is an outward expression of faith, the removal of one's name as a member is an outward expression of lack of faith and has the same type of consequences.But having your name deleted from a database is not an ordinance, nor is the act of writing and sending a letter to church headquarters. How can a non-ordinance nullify a priesthood ordinance that was bound and sealed in heaven?
Calm Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 But having your name deleted from a database is not an ordinance, nor is the act of writing and sending a letter to church headquarters. How can a non-ordinance nullify a priesthood ordinance that was bound and sealed in heaven?Adultery isn't an ordinance either, but it can sure nullify the ordinance that forms the covenant of marriage.
Cobalt-70 Posted May 13, 2012 Posted May 13, 2012 To be technical about it, the results of a disciplinary council are also just as much an administrative action and an entry into a computer when it is all over, but that does not mean that entry does not represent years of heartache on both sides of that unanswered knock at the door, and the final letter requesting name removal.Excommunication is a clerical act as well, but the most dire result is that you are barred from taking the Sacrament (i.e., the "Communion"). Moreover, your name is not actually taken off the records of the church. So I don't think they are quite the same thing.
Recommended Posts