Question About Having Your Name Removed

[Cobalt-70]

Do you have any reference for your position that the Church of Christ plays no part in salvation or specifically the covenant being made? Also, could yo differentiate for me your views on the Kingdom of God and the Church of Christ? Just curious.

I didn't say that the church plays no part in salvation. The church provides and governs the priesthood officers who may perform the Mormon sacraments, and thereby seal them in heaven. But the sacraments themselves are not covenants with the church--they are outward signs of covenants directly with God.

I think the issue of the Kingdom of God vs. the LDS Church is a little off-topic, but here is the difference: the Kingdom of God is the political theocracy that will, according to Smith, become the world government on earth during the Millennium. The church is a separate ecclesiastical body, which relates only to Mormons.

[Storm Rider]

Do either of you have any references for baptism just a public witness?

[Log]

Do either of you have any references for baptism just a public witness?

I don't know why you feel the need to throw "just" in there - I suspect a "gotcha" of some sort, and not an actual intent to discuss with an eye to learning - but here're the references from the Book of Mormon.

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

35 They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter.

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I don't think that magic words need to be said when someone's name is removed from the church rolls. I'm just wondering by what mechanism a clerical action nullifies an ordinance that was sealed in heaven. Why is it that the second prior to the instant when a data entry person presses the "enter" key to delete your name from the church rolls, you can enter the kingdom of heaven merely by renewing your faith, but the second after that "enter" key is pressed, you can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through rebaptism?

Also, baptism is not merely a covenant. It is the sign of a covenant between the individual and God (not the church), which is sealed in heaven. If the covenant is broken, why is the baptism not rescinded at the moment the covenant is broken? Why does the rescission have to wait until some data entry person in Salt Lake City presses an "enter" key?

The same way the ordinance magically becomes valid when he hits the computer key. (In other words- neither are made valid by the computer)

Dude- you're not getting this. It is neither the ordinance nor the administrative action that does anything in heaven- it is what is happening in the heart.

I don't know why you can't see that- but this is the last time I am going to try to explain it. Good luck.

Edited May 17, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I don't know why you feel the need to throw "just" in there - I suspect a "gotcha" of some sort, and not an actual intent to discuss with an eye to learning - but here's the references from the Book of Mormon.

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

35 They were desirous to be baptized as a witness and a testimony that they were willing to serve God with all their hearts; nevertheless they did prolong the time; and an account of their baptism shall be given hereafter.

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

Too subtle I fear. I added emphasis for you!

[Damien the Leper]

But the point is, if you don't believe it, what difference does it make to you?

The Catholic Church has a kind of "self-excommunication" which occurs when you leave the church and are baptized into another church. I have self-excommunicated myself from that church, and all the sacraments I received there are now null and void.

But guess what? The reason I left was that I didn't believe they were "valid" in the first place! So if one has his name removed- it should make no difference to them whatsoever, imo.

It makes a difference if that faith is all you've ever known. I'm in the process of remaking and redefining myself without all the LDS characteristics that were once part of who I am.

My reason for leaving is the same except that I did believe at one point. So as not to get the Mods on my case, I won't divulge my specific reasons for leaving.

[Cobalt-70]

Do either of you have any references for baptism just a public witness?

It is not "just" a public witness. The earliest-translated parts of the Book of Mormon (including the citations provided by Log) describe baptism as a public witness of faith. Around June 1829, the Book of Mormon translation began to refer to baptism as a means of spiritual regeneration, as well. Then in 1830, baptism took on an additional role as a witness of, or embodiment of, a (new and everlasting) covenant. So this triune meaning of baptism was carried into later Mormonism, and that's what we have today.

[Cobalt-70]

Dude- you're not getting this. It is neither the ordinance nor the administrative action that does anything in heaven- it is what is happening in the heart.

But if it is "happening in the heart," then why is what happens in a computer so important, or even relevant at all? Why isn't the moment you leave the faith "in your heart" the moment when your name is stricken from the "book of life"?

I can envision a quite different church policy. I'm not saying that this is a better church policy, but I don't see any doctrinal reason it could not be this way:

1. The church resumes practice of the ordinance of rebaptism.
   
2. Mormons can be rebaptized whenever they believe they had temporarily lost their faith and need to demonstrate their renewed commitment to God.
   
3. The church stops purporting that the administrative acts of excommunication and name removal rescind one's baptism, and instead the church explains that because the covenant is with God, only God can judge when a person's baptism has been nullified.
   
4. The administrative acts of membership reinstatement is still preconditioned on rebaptism, because the church needs an outward sign that the person has renewed his or her faith.
   

[zerinus]

I don't think that magic words need to be said when someone's name is removed from the church rolls. I'm just wondering by what mechanism a clerical action nullifies an ordinance that was sealed in heaven. Why is it that the second prior to the instant when a data entry person presses the "enter" key to delete your name from the church rolls, you can enter the kingdom of heaven merely by renewing your faith, but the second after that "enter" key is pressed, you can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through rebaptism?

Because it doesn’t happen that way. The excommunication takes place at the point when the decision is made by the proper ecclesiastical authority (by the exercise of the appropriate priesthood keys) to remove your name from Church records. The fact that there is necessarily a time-lag between the moment that decision is made, and the physical removal of the name, does not alter the situation any. Let me explain it this way: excommunication = name-removal; but name-removal does not = excommunication. If the clerk removed your name by mistake (when he shouldn’t have done), it does not mean that you are excommunicated. On the other hand, if the clerk did not remove your name by mistake (when he should have done), it does not that you are not excommunicated. As Joseph Smith explained, what is “bound on earth is bound in heaven”—when it is done by the proper priesthood keys. So although it is possible to make mistakes in earthly record due to human error, no mistake is possible in the heavenly record; and that is the one that ultimately counts. When the decision is made by the exercise of the proper priesthood keys to excommunicate someone, a record of it is made in heaven, and that is the one that ultimately counts. So it is not just a clerical decision—at least not an earthly one.

Also, baptism is not merely a covenant. It is the sign of a covenant between the individual and God (not the church), which is sealed in heaven. If the covenant is broken, why is the baptism not rescinded at the moment the covenant is broken? Why does the rescission have to wait until some data entry person in Salt Lake City presses an "enter" key?

Baptism is a commandment, as well as a token of our willingness to keep all of God's commandments:

2 Nephi 31:

14 . . . After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, . . .

Alma 7:

15 Yea, I say unto you come and fear not, and lay aside every sin, which easily doth beset you, which doth bind you down to destruction, yea, come and go forth, and show unto your God that ye are willing to repent of your sins and enter into a covenant with him to keep his commandments, and witness it unto him this day by going into the waters of baptism.

Moroni 8:

11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.

25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins

D&C 76:

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given;

D&C 107:

20 The power and authority of the lesser, or Aaronic Priesthood, is to hold the keys of the ministering of angels, and to administer in outward ordinances, the letter of the gospel, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, agreeable to the covenants and commandments.

Moses 6:

60 For by the water ye keep the commandment; by the Spirit ye are justified, and by the blood ye are sanctified;

Smith's letter did not, however, say that whatsoever is erased from the church's records is erased in heaven. Even if it did, the record of your baptism is not actually erased. It is still kept in the church records, along with your membership record in a dormant state. All that the name removal and excommunication do is make an annotation on your membership record that you are no longer a member. If you come back to the church, your official baptism date will be listed as your original baptism date, not your rebaptism date (link). So the record of your baptism is not "unwritten" on earth.

That does not alter the situation. The fact that for administrative purposes a record of your name (as an ex-member) is still kept by the Church some place, does not mean that the excommunication did not occur.

I didn't say that the church plays no part in salvation. The church provides and governs the priesthood officers who may perform the Mormon sacraments, and thereby seal them in heaven. But the sacraments themselves are not covenants with the church--they are outward signs of covenants directly with God.

Whatever they are, or however you may want to define them, they are declared by God to be essential rites for exaltation.

I think the issue of the Kingdom of God vs. the LDS Church is a little off-topic, but here is the difference: the Kingdom of God is the political theocracy that will, according to Smith, become the world government on earth during the Millennium. The church is a separate ecclesiastical body, which relates only to Mormons.

That may be one possible interpretation, but not the only one. There are other passages of scripture in which the Kingdome of God is made synonymous with the Church, or with heaven.

It is not "just" a public witness. The earliest-translated parts of the Book of Mormon (including the citations provided by Log) describe baptism as a public witness of faith. Around June 1829, the Book of Mormon translation began to refer to baptism as a means of spiritual regeneration, as well. Then in 1830, baptism took on an additional role as a witness of, or embodiment of, a (new and everlasting) covenant. So this triune meaning of baptism was carried into later Mormonism, and that's what we have today.

That is an absurd interpretation of the Book of Mormon. The translation of the Book of Mormon took place at such a rapid pace that it makes no sense to assume that Joseph Smith had the chance to “think through” the presentation of the doctrines taught within it.

Edited May 19, 2012 by zerinus

[Messenger]

If you have your name removed from the records of the church, does that undo all temple sealings baptisms etc, sort of like an excommunication?

Having your name removed from the church is not like excommunication. I think its an important subject so I am happy to give you the knowledge that I have. Anybody can have their name removed, by doing so you simply are removing yourself from the church, and all the binding covenants you have made as a result of your baptism, and any obligations to those covenants. I also want to say, because those things are covenants (a two way promise) you also are removing all of the blessings bestowed on you as a result of keeping those covenants. Those that have their name removed will be most surprised by the loss of the constant companion of the Holy Ghost. We, as members, don't often think that the Holy Ghost is a true companion and constant because we often feel natural varying levels of intensity throughout our lives. Anybody that goes through this process will be surprised, dismayed, saddened by the loss and the direction. We may have thought that the direction we had was from ourselves, but we would be wrong.

People sometimes have their name removed because of something a leader has done. It today's free business market, we often choose what products we buy based on what we like. And when it doesn't perform, we don't buy it anymore. Some may use this logic when being a member of the church. When a home teacher, bishop, and even stake president all make mistakes, even all at the same time, we may think the church isn't true anymore. We may even think that our own guidance is the way to go. The problem with that is that we are all imperfect, and its often our example that teaches others, and certainly by our mistakes we learn, and yes, so does the home teacher, the bishop and the Stake President. That's how the gospel works. But it can't unless we forgive.

I would say to anybody that is thinking about getting their name removed, be the better man, and show us by your example, of what a better man is. Removing your name does indeed release you from church obligations, it doesn't release you from what you know to be right.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

understood but where it is voluntary does it undo everything

It does undo everything. But if a person comes back after time (usually a year, then another year to restore blessings) then the temple sealings are back and the promises you made in the temple are back as well.

[Messenger]

My understanding is that excommunication and name removal have the same effect, the process of reinstatement is different but everything else is the same.

Not exactly. Excommunication is someone else deciding you shouldn't be a member due to sin. Having your name removed is not a self-admission of sin. There is no church court that is held after your name is removed- there cant be. Also, the process of coming back is slightly different. Again, there is no church court to come back either. All that is required are interviews with the bishop. Actually the process is more similar to being a new member with some added questions about why the person left. However, if a person is sealed to a spouse, there will be an interview by a General Authority when the person wants the priesthood back.

[Messenger]

................. Whether one is excommunicated voluntarily or involuntarily, baptism is required to come back to the Church, and if the person was endowed, there is an ordinance to restore priesthood, i.e. temple blessings. What happens in the hereafter if an endowed member was excommunicated.

I'm not sure I would call in an ordinance. Its an interview by a general authority and a blessing at the end. Perhaps that is the proper word though.

[Messenger]

I know as a practical matter, having your name removed from the church's roles is treated the same as excommunication, but where is the doctrinal or theoretical basis for that? How can a clerical act of taking someone's name out of a database have eternal consequences? When they remove your name, it's not like they draw a witches circle and burn your effigy inside--they just take your name off of a list. Can a clerical act loose what was bound in heaven by a priesthood ordinance?

Absolutely

[Messenger]

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.

That is correct, there is NO COURT. Once a letter from the individual is sent to the first presidency to remove their name, a confirmation letter is sent from the church stating that their name has been removed, and that they are no longer a member of the church.

[Messenger]

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.

The bishop can choose to be an idiot, and contact the person, but if they have had their name removed, they have probably already asked the bishop to be put on the "do not contact list". If this bishop wishes to contact the person, it would probably be best if he didn't show up on the ex-members doorstep. Honoring the free agency of any person is Christlike. Not honoring that is bound to get that bishop in serious trouble.

[Messenger]

...... 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.

Actually, they have and they do. The legal precedent has been determined through various lawsuits over time. Many bishops are not aware of them and therefore do get themselves into trouble when they don't honor the request or pass it on to church headquarters. That's why many people who decide to have their name removed simply skip the bishop, and go directly to church headquarters. Legal precedent has determine there is less than one month that passes before the requesting member gets a confirmation from the church headquarters that they are no longer a member. Some bishops try and delay the process once they get notification from the member - many try and get information as to why the person wants to leave, some do it out of some other reason. Some may even try to hold a court based on whatever information they have or think they have. That process is totally negated by the letter to the Church headquarters. If the Church does not honor the members request to have their name removed, then they are open to legal action as they have been before. Bishops that try and derail the request of member to have their name removed through processes of delays, investigations, and attempted courts, are usually and quickly removed from their calling. This can even go up to the stake president if the bishop has been relying on information from them. And, to be frank, there wouldn't be any reason for a bishop to ask a stake president what to do, because all of this information and procedures are located in Handbook 1.

[Messenger]

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?

You are not bound by them from a church standpoint. However, you are always responsible to act on what you know to be true. If you were to ever come back, (assuming you do send the letter) its very similar to just being a new member, although it takes longer (up to a year) to be eligible for re-baptism. The interview questions are performed by a bishop, not a missionary. If, at that time, you decide to confess any sins, there is no church court, assuming that your sins were made after you sent in your letter.

I feel its important to express my personal opinion about church policy and doctrine in this matter. I don't believe that confession of sins to a representative of the church is necessary to gain forgiveness, especially if those sins were done outside of the church membership. We get ourselves in trouble when we break our church covenants when we are a member of the church. But even then, I see no Doctrine of Christ that says there is anybody but Christ that is an additional intermediary to the forgiveness of sin. There are no "cleansing keys" that are owned by anybody in an official capacity to the church.

In my personal opinion, if you receive a witness that you are forgiven of your sins, because of your own request through prayer and confession to Jesus Christ, who is a Bishop to negate that? I realize that Church policy is different, and I am sure there are some good reasons why there is such a church policy, but I don't believe it is doctrine. When you have those interview questions by a Bishop or Stake President, and you have been forgiven by a spiritual witness, then that is that. You answer the questions based on your testimony and spiritual witness.

[Messenger]

...... just wondering by what mechanism a clerical action nullifies an ordinance that was sealed in heaven. Why is it that the second prior to the instant when a data entry person presses the "enter" key to delete your name from the church rolls, you can enter the kingdom of heaven merely by renewing your faith, but the second after that "enter" key is pressed, you can only enter the kingdom of Heaven through rebaptism?

Also, baptism is not merely a covenant. It is the sign of a covenant between the individual and God (not the church), which is sealed in heaven. If the covenant is broken, why is the baptism not rescinded at the moment the covenant is broken? Why does the rescission have to wait until some data entry person in Salt Lake City presses an "enter" key?

What is bound on earth is bound in Heaven, there may be some delay in the actual removal of the Holy Ghost, to determine if the person is truly making that decision with all of their faculties (in my opinion). But the person will definitely feel when it is actually "bound" in Heaven. It will be a profound loss.

[mfbukowski]

But if it is "happening in the heart," then why is what happens in a computer so important, or even relevant at all? Why isn't the moment you leave the faith "in your heart" the moment when your name is stricken from the "book of life"?

I can envision a quite different church policy. I'm not saying that this is a better church policy, but I don't see any doctrinal reason it could not be this way:

1. The church resumes practice of the ordinance of rebaptism.
   
2. Mormons can be rebaptized whenever they believe they had temporarily lost their faith and need to demonstrate their renewed commitment to God.
   
3. The church stops purporting that the administrative acts of excommunication and name removal rescind one's baptism, and instead the church explains that because the covenant is with God, only God can judge when a person's baptism has been nullified.
   
4. The administrative acts of membership reinstatement is still preconditioned on rebaptism, because the church needs an outward sign that the person has renewed his or her faith.
   

There's virtually no difference in existing policy and what you are proposing except that your proposal would be an administrative nightmare. No Bishop would know who is "in" his ward or out (this week), no home teacher would know whom to teach, nor would ordinances mean anything anymore if you could just be baptized one week then decide you didn't want to be a member any more, and then get rebaptized the next week.

Anyone who has his name removed or is excommunicated can get rebaptized in the existing system whenever he wants and qualifies himself to do so.

Taking or not taking the sacrament is the decision we make weekly as to renew our covenants or not.

Edited May 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

That is correct, there is NO COURT. Once a letter from the individual is sent to the first presidency to remove their name, a confirmation letter is sent from the church stating that their name has been removed, and that they are no longer a member of the church.

Yes, I know, and that's why I said the same thing.

Edited May 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The bishop can choose to be an idiot, and contact the person, but if they have had their name removed, they have probably already asked the bishop to be put on the "do not contact list". If this bishop wishes to contact the person, it would probably be best if he didn't show up on the ex-members doorstep. Honoring the free agency of any person is Christlike. Not honoring that is bound to get that bishop in serious trouble.

Since the bishop mentioned was me, I beg to differ with you.

[cdowis]

Those that have their name removed will be most surprised by the loss of the constant companion of the Holy Ghost. We, as members, don't often think that the Holy Ghost is a true companion and constant because we often feel natural varying levels of intensity throughout our lives. Anybody that goes through this process will be surprised, dismayed, saddened by the loss and the direction. We may have thought that the direction we had was from ourselves, but we would be wrong.

Those requesting removal have probably lost the Holy Ghost a long time ago. When their name is removed, there will be no "sudden" loss. It's already gone.

They may feel a slight sense of remorse (as well as relief that it is finally over) when they get the letter, but the enemy will make sure that goes away quickly.

Edited May 19, 2012 by cdowis

[Messenger]

Since the bishop mentioned was me, I beg to differ with you.

I'm OK with differing with you. My ex-bishop regrets his attempts to this day. I forgive him. I believe Heavenly Father agrees with me. There are no hard feelings that I harbor. I would ask that you talk with your local general authority and see how he feels about you disregarding the free agency of a member of your congregation. After all, if God does not follow the law, God would cease to be God - why do you think you would be above the law?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

Those requesting removal have probably lost the Holy Ghost a long time ago. When their name is removed, there will be no "sudden" loss. It's already gone.

They may feel a slight sense of remorse (as well as relief that it is finally over) when they get the letter, but the enemy will make sure that goes away quickly.

Respectfully, that was not my experience. I have talked with Stake Presidents about my experience, and its fairly common for those of us that had left the church, and did nothing wrong that would warrant excommunication, that they would feel the Holy Ghost leave like a switch. In fact, I had a pretty spiritual experience with regards to it when it left. So, not everyone loses it before, if there is no reason for it to be lost.

Unfortunately, its common for members of the church to create false linkage between Excommunication and a member having their name removed. My hope in responding to this thread is to point out that they are quite different.

I was a good person before I joined the church, I was a good person after I left, and again when I was re-baptized many years ago. From experience I can tell you for me, in my ADHD mind, I absolutely felt the church was no longer true. There was such a loss of the principles that I new were true in the local leadership, that I protested with my membership. That was a pretty serious mistake on my part. After I was re-baptized, and requested that the priesthood be restored, I did have an interview with a General Authority, who took very extensive notes on dates, names, and positions of the local leadership. I could have done that by simply making a call and scheduling an appointment in Salt Lake City before I left.

Now, years later, being a High Priest, I am both an example of what not to do, and what to do. If you think about Heavenly Father, and how he treats your Free Agency, I think you'll understand that its never OK for anybody in any leadership position to take it away from somebody else. If someone has requested to not be contacted, and they do anyways, then they request that their name be removed, and they try and stop that process - I don't think any bishop will be an honorable bishop for very long after that. Which is why bishops sometimes have a problem with people trusting them.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger