Question About Having Your Name Removed

[mfbukowski]

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?

I beg your pardon??

If you re-read the post, I felt that I was being guided by the Holy Ghost and in fact the former about to be ex-member is now a member in good standing, but what do I know about discernment? Clearly it's a good thing I didn't have this conversation with you before I brought this sister back- I might not have tried.

You have really overstepped the boundary here buddy.

[Messenger]

I beg your pardon??

If you re-read the post, I felt that I was being guided by the Holy Ghost and in fact the former about to be ex-member is now a member in good standing, but what do I know about discernment? Clearly it's a good thing I didn't have this conversation with you before I brought this sister back- I might not have tried.

You have really overstepped the boundary here buddy.

Clearly you are upset, and I hope you realize that I am not. There is nothing wrong with conflict in the church, often it is a stepping stone to new knowledge. I have no ill will towards you. I'm not sure what boundary you think I have over-stepped. Everything I have stated is in congruence with church doctrine.

There is a reason why there is a do-not contact policy. If everyone in the church believed that they could disobey the wishes of individuals that have requested it, why then would there be a church policy for it? Again, I am not calling you to repentance, I am simply stating what I know to be true based on policy, not for your benefit, for the benefit of others that read this forum.

Again, for anybody else that wishes to either not be contacted by home teachers, or even wish to have their name removed, a bishop has no right to deny this. If they are, I would simply write a letter to church headquarters and let them know that you don't wish to be contacted and/or have your name removed. Do I agree with it? No I don't. But you have the free agency to do it. Nobody should feel compelled to anything by the use of undue pressure both socially and or through intimidation. We keep commandments because we want to, not because we are compelled to. We came to this world not because we knew we everyone would be saved, by compulsion, but instead we chose to come here with the risk that we may choose differently when we came here. Free agency is the core of the gospel. Living with our decisions, both right and wrong, and learning from them, is why we are here.

I chose to do the wrong thing when I left the church. I am thankful that church HQ reprimanded my bishop for trying to force me to stay. In that life changing event, we both realize that free agency is ours and the decisions we make may be wrong, and with Jesus Christ, we can overcome the wrong decisions. After all, that's why he came here.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[CASteinman]

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.
   

1. Rebaptism is available for anyone who has been excommunicated. (Removal of name is excommunication under a different public name. It is otherwise no different).

2. Sacrament is effective for Mormons who feel that they have recovered their faith

3. God has not permitted us to do as you request. Whatever is loosed on earth is loosed in heaven.

4. That is in place now.

[CASteinman]

Having your name removed from the church is not like excommunication.

I do not know why you think it is not. There is functionally no difference at all. There may be slightly different administrative processes, but it is the same thing.

[Messenger]

I do not know why you think it is not. There is functionally no difference at all. There may be slightly different administrative processes, but it is the same thing.

Name removal is a decision by the person leaving Vs excommunication is a decision church court removing the individual

Name removal isnt necessarily the result of sin Vs excommunication is the result of church court to determine is someone has sinned to the level enough to be removed from the church

Returning from Name Removal is more like someone wanting to join the church Vs returning from excommunication means many interviews to ensure that the sin has been overcome by the individual.

One there is no sin Vs the other which leaves no doubt.

[CASteinman]

Name removal is a decision by the person leaving Vs excommunication is a decision church court removing the individual

Name removal isnt necessarily the result of sin Vs excommunication is the result of church court to determine is someone has sinned to the level enough to be removed from the church

Returning from Name Removal is more like someone wanting to join the church Vs returning from excommunication means many interviews to ensure that the sin has been overcome by the individual.

One there is no sin Vs the other which leaves no doubt.

It doesn't matter who makes the decision. Well, maybe it matters to them, but it is irrelevant to the nature of the act that follows. Name removal is always the result of sin. Every time. There are no exceptions. Excommunication, on the other hand may very very rarely involve no sin on the part of the individual removed.

I did mention that there were some administrative differences. But that is all.

[Messenger]

It doesn't matter who makes the decision. Well, maybe it matters to them, but it is irrelevant to the nature of the act that follows. Name removal is always the result of sin. Every time. There are no exceptions. Excommunication, on the other hand may very very rarely involve no sin on the part of the individual removed.

I did mention that there were some administrative differences. But that is all.

Actually name removal is not the result of sin. I welcome your references.

I think you have to think of name removal like divorce. There may be a question about who sinned if either of the two did sin at all, but divorce in of itself is not sin. So it is with name removal. The person leaving may no longer have a testimony that the church is true. That in of itself is not a sin, its just a bad decision based on poor judgement or inaccurate information. Of course, they may wish to leave because they can no longer keep the church covenants, which if they leave the church and then don't keep them, that again is not sin if they do not have a testimony of those covenants. Lots of people in the world make mistakes based on poor knowledge, those mistakes are not considered sin. You cant sin against something you don't know is true. Those are mistakes, but not sin.

Another analogy might be the decision not to go on a mission. If the person decides not to go, we don't judge that person because we don't know the situation. Not going is not always a sin. It can be if they are worthy, and meet the mission guidelines. But if they don't (for example they may have a disability that you are not aware of or they could be too old) that doesn't always make it a sin.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[Stargazer]

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?

The Lord gave Peter the right to bind, but also to unbind. You affirm the former but not the latter? We all know how Peter performs the former, but how does he perform the latter? In an ordinance of course.

And what is an ordinance? It is an prescribed action taken with prescribed words being said. Generally, ordinances of salvation are executed verbally, backed up with a written record. The Church is required by the Lord to keep central records of ordinances, probably because of the requirement that the Lord's house be a house of order. But It isn't the written record which is efficacious, but it is the physical ordinance. Order necessitates the maintenance of records, most assuredly, but it is the performance of the ordinance. Absence of the record, however, puts the fact of the performance of the ordinance into doubt however, and may necessitate the ordinance being repeated. And certainly, although each ordinance is assuredly recorded in heaven, we don't have access to that database, at least not yet. If a person is baptized and confirmed, and immediately thereafter an asteroid hits the spot where the ordinance occurred, immolating all present (plus a few million others), the ordinance is nevertheless recorded in heaven and is efficacious. The Church may later wish to repeat the ordinance by proxy, just to make sure, but efficacy is not harmed thereby.

Now, if the asteroid is deflected, but nevertheless there is a clerical failure that results in the ordinance not being recorded here on earth, eventually, if that person is to be ordained to priesthood, or receive her endowment, the lack of a written record may require that the ordinance be performed again. A case in point: a young sister of age 12 in my ward had been baptized at age 8 in another ward many years previously, but somehow the record of the ordinance had never reached Salt Lake, and her local membership record in our ward indicated that she was a "child of record" but not a member. As clerk, I was reviewing records one day and just happened to notice this. This was odd, I thought, since her family was quite active and so was she. I asked her mother and stepfather about it, and while her mother had been present at the time, and knew that it was the girl's father who had performed the ordinance, when they searched their family records they could not find a certificate, nor were there any personal journal records that indicated a date. The then manual said that in such cases if nobody could find an official record, but two members present at the ordinance could testify of the date and who performed it, then we could create her membership record from that information. We eventually got a letter from the girl's father giving the date on which he had both baptized and confirmed her, which the mother likewise attested to, and we were in business. If this had not proved possible (e.g. nobody could agree about a date, or the dad had been unreachable), then the ordinances would have had to be performed again, with the latter date becoming the date of joining.

In short, it is the ordinance itself, not the record, which is salvific, but absent the record, one must repeat the ordinance in order to be certain that all is done in its proper order.

As to name-removal, it is not the member's writing and mailing of the letter requesting name-removal, nor the Bishop's forwarding to Church Headquarters of that request and his endorsement, nor is it the delivery of the letter from the Church advising of the granting of the name-removal that is efficacious, nor the change in the database, but it is the act of signing the letter either by the authoritative priesthood officer or its signing at his direction which is the ordinance. You don't become a non-member upon the arrival of the letter, but upon the signature of the priesthood holder.

At an excommunication and disfellowshipment, it is not the act in council of the bishopric or the high council of deciding to excommunicate, nor the delivery of the letter advising of the change in status which is efficacious, it is the presiding officer speaking the words carrying out the ordinance. "You are hereby excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." The record of the ordinance is merely a necessary formality, for the purposes of the Church. Of course, for the Lord the ordinance itself is already a fait accompli.

I hope that I have endowed the subject with a little clarity.

[CASteinman]

Actually name removal is not the result of sin.

Of course it is. There is no righteousness in rejecting covenants, rejecting the Church of Jesus Christ and in rejecting the Holy Ghost. Such things -- any one of them and all of them together -- are sins.

I think you have to think of name removal like divorce.

Pretty good analogy. Divorce is accompanied by sin. It is the result of sin. By at least one person. And, divorce may be a sin itself.

Another analogy might be the decision not to go on a mission. If the person decides not to go, we don't judge that person because we don't know the situation.

It does not matter if "we don't judge" that person. It does not change the fact that if we are talking about a young man in the Church a decision to not heed the call from the Prophet is a sin.

[Messenger]

Of course it is. There is no righteousness in rejecting covenants, rejecting the Church of Jesus Christ and in rejecting the Holy Ghost. Such things -- any one of them and all of them together -- are sins.

Pretty good analogy. Divorce is accompanied by sin. It is the result of sin. By at least one person. And, divorce may be a sin itself.

It does not matter if "we don't judge" that person. It does not change the fact that if we are talking about a young man in the Church a decision to not heed the call from the Prophet is a sin.

What if the person leaving believes in their own mind that they are becoming closer to the Holy Ghost by leaving the church. What sin is left?

[CASteinman]

What if the person leaving believes in their own mind that they are becoming closer to the Holy Ghost by leaving the church. What sin is left?

The sin of rebellion remains, regardless of what they think. They may not be accountable if they are insane, but they are still sinning. For example, the man who murdered his wife while in a dream state (so he said) committed a grave sin and grave crime. However, he may not be accountable if he was mentally ill or otherwise involuntarily incapacitated.

The same goes for people who request having their names removed from the Church. They are sinning. And almost none of them are cliniically insane. They are accountable.

[Calm]

It does not change the fact that if we are talking about a young man in the Church a decision to not heed the call from the Prophet is a sin.

Are you saying is if a young man receives a spiritual witness that it is better for him not to go on a mission that it is a sin for him to accept a personal spiritual message to himself from the Lord in favour of a generic instruction from the prophet?

[Messenger]

The sin of rebellion remains, regardless of what they think. They may not be accountable if they are insane, but they are still sinning. For example, the man who murdered his wife while in a dream state (so he said) committed a grave sin and grave crime. However, he may not be accountable if he was mentally ill or otherwise involuntarily incapacitated.

The same goes for people who request having their names removed from the Church. They are sinning. And almost none of them are cliniically insane. They are accountable.

But you are assuming they are rebelling against truth, when they may in fact believe that there is no truth that remains in the church. The reason why this is important, is because many people do leave the church because of mistakes by church home teachers, bishops and stake presidents. Now, I'm not saying its right, but I am saying that many people who have asked to have their name removed, are actually thinking that they are following truth, because what they have witnessed by those people who represent that church are not acting in Christ's name. You may judge that as rebellion, but you also may want to consider that they may feel that those church leaders have left the truth of the church, and no longer represent it. They may be rebelling against people, but they may feel (however incorrectly) that they are actually following truth. I do understand what you are saying, but if you really want to understand the mind of the person who is leaving, you have to understand why they are considering leaving. Unless you solve that issue, they will simply leave. And you will be left with saying to yourself .... "they are a sinner or they are rebellious". Which never really improves anything does it?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

Are you saying is if a young man receives a spiritual witness that it is better for him not to go on a mission that it is a sin for him to accept a personal spiritual message to himself from the Lord in favour of a generic instruction from the prophet?

Excellent! I couldn't have said it better myself. This goes to the core of our responsibility to follow personal direction from Heavenly Father.

[Messenger]

Pretty good analogy. Divorce is accompanied by sin. It is the result of sin. By at least one person. And, divorce may be a sin itself.

What if nobody sinned and the divorce was caused by ADHD? Are disabilities sin? And, if the disability wasn't discovered for 15 years after the divorce, who is to blame for the undiscovered disability and the resulting divorce? Society? Who is responsible for the inactive children?

This is exactly why we cant judge other people.

Thank you, this has been a lot of fun.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[CASteinman]

What if nobody sinned and the divorce was caused by ADHD? Are disabilities sin?

I reject the notion that divorce is caused by ADHD. But I do think that there are some things called mental disorders that are, in their nature, sinful. Sociopaths for example.

Edited May 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[Messenger]

I reject the notion that divorce is caused by ADHD. But I do think that there are some things called mental disorders that are, in their nature, sinful. Sociopaths for example.

Ok, now you're just silly. Have a great day, I know I am!

[CASteinman]

Ok, now you're just silly. Have a great day, I know I am!

I am not being silly. I am also not unfamiliar with ADHD. It does not cause divorce. Otherwise, people with severe ADHD would all be divorced. They are not.

I know of only one case where someone may commit something that is a sin and it is declared by God not to be a sin. I know of no other exceptions.

Edited May 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[Calm]

A woman has a severe brain injury from a car accident that was not her fault. It is severe enough that it causes a personality change to the point where she is no longer in love with her husband. He, having married an outgoing, affectionate woman, has a hard time dealing with the cold, unemotional woman that she has become (there are brain injuries that can alter someone's level of emotion). The doctors say there is no way for her brain to heal enough for her to experience the level of emotion needed to interact with someone on the level of intimacy and commitment that is required in a marriage. There are no children. If they stay married, it would be in name only and neither would be happy. It is not a temple marriage either.

Is there any sin in a divorce that results from the situation above?

I agree that it is an extreme case, but I don't believe that all divorces result from sin. It is possible, for another example, that a marriage results from sin and the divorce occurs when those involved have repented and decided they would better not to be living together due to the likelihood of falling into old dangerous habits again.

Edited May 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Messenger]

I am not being silly. I am also not unfamiliar with ADHD. It does not cause divorce. Otherwise, people with severe ADHD would all be divorced. They are not.

It can result in a relationship breakdown, which can be a first step in divorce. If you are as familiar with ADHD as you say you are, you should be familiar with the divorce statistics for people with ADHD. And you know I'm not here to debate that at all, but (haha) I mean its pretty much a known fact in those that treat and have ADHD and in nearly every book on the subject. But, again, I was trying to use the concept of a disability for not being able to do certain things, including going on a mission, divorce etc etc. But, I know that's not what you believe in, and I'm not really here to debate that. I pretty much know where you stand. The main point of me posting is to provide others that read the forum another point of view.

Edited May 19, 2012 by Messenger

[CASteinman]

It can result in a relationship breakdown, which can be a first step in divorce. If you are as familiar with ADHD as you say you are, you should be familiar with the divorce statistics for people with ADHD. And you know I'm not here to debate that at all, but (haha) I mean its pretty much a known fact in those that treat and have ADHD and in nearly every book on the subject. But, again, I was trying to use the concept of a disability for not being able to do certain things, including going on a mission, divorce etc etc. But, I know that's not what you believe in, and I'm not really here to debate that. I pretty much know where you stand. The main point of me posting is to provide others that read the forum another point of view.

1. I reject that ADHD can result in a relationship breakdown -- it would be other things that cause the breakdown. For example, one partner without ADHD might begin to feel resentful about having to take on more of the responsibilities -- that the sharing is not equal. That resentment might be cause of a divorce but that is resentment, not ADHD. Again, if ADHD were the cause of divorce then people with severe ADHD would all be divorced. They are not. That is proof that ADHD does not cause divorce.

2. Yes, I am aware. They are twice as likely to have a divorce. You should know that correlation is not equivalent to causation. Other factors that do not cause divorce but that are correlated with higher divorce rates are things like Youthful marriage, Poverty and being African American. None of these are sins per se and none of them cause divorce. But each of them is associated with higher divorce rates. Or are you really saying that being black causes divorce?

3. Refusing to go on a mission is not a "disability". it is rebellion. If a person has a disability that prevents them from going, they are not called, there is no refusal -- and in that case, your example does not apply (you talked about refusal).

4. With regard to your point of view, I particularly agree with you about the loss of the Holy Ghost. Later, I will post a story in that regard. Nevertheless, you are not correct that having your name removed is functionally different from Excommunication. Indeed, if you do a search on LDS.org on the term "Name Removed" the very first link that comes up is "Excommunication". I think you would be hard pressed to find any case of the Church talking about Name Removal without mentioning Excommunication -- they are functionally identical. You are also incorrect to suppose that it is no sin. It is the sin of apostasy. And Apostasy is one of the 3 main reasons for excommunication as well.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[Cobalt-70]

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.

There is no administrative nightmare. A person is a member of the church until his or her name is removed from the church records. It's just as it is now. The difference is that the church stops claiming that its administrative removal of a person's name from its roster itself nullifies that person's baptism. The other difference is that the church begins to acknowledge that a person's loss of faith nullifies the effect of their baptism, whether or not the church's computers are updated to that effect.

[Cobalt-70]

2. Sacrament is effective for Mormons who feel that they have recovered their faith

Then why isn't the sacrament enough to renew one's baptismal vows after one has been excommunicated?

Edited May 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

In short, it is the ordinance itself, not the record, which is salvific, but absent the record, one must repeat the ordinance in order to be certain that all is done in its proper order.

I agree. In the case of name removal and excommunication, however, the record of the original baptism is not actually lost. The record of the person's original baptism is still saved in the church archives. If that person is later re-baptized, the date of their original baptism is retrieved and put on their new membership record as the sole listed date of their baptism.

As to name-removal, it is not the member's writing and mailing of the letter requesting name-removal, nor the Bishop's forwarding to Church Headquarters of that request and his endorsement, nor is it the delivery of the letter from the Church advising of the granting of the name-removal that is efficacious, nor the change in the database, but it is the act of signing the letter either by the authoritative priesthood officer or its signing at his direction which is the ordinance. You don't become a non-member upon the arrival of the letter, but upon the signature of the priesthood holder.

If the stake president's signature were considered to be an "ordinance," there would be at least some evidence of that in church publications. I haven't seen any. Baptism is an ordinance. A signature is just a signature.

[CASteinman]

Then why isn't the sacrament enough to renew one's baptismal vows after one has been excommunicated?

Because Sacrament is only effective for those who fall under the previous covenant of Baptism.