Question About Having Your Name Removed

[CASteinman]

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.

If it is an ordinance, it is clearly unlike other positive ordinances.

1. The mention of the use of the Priesthood is not required.

2. The name of Jesus Christ is not necessarily invoked

3. There is no ritual involved.

What I am saying is that I am not sure that the unbinding *must* be an ordinance. At least not as we think of ordinances. And on that note, I happen to think that the binding and unbinding powers do not really require ordinances. Its just that the binding ordinances and related functions do actually have ordinances defined. But I don't think the ordinances are necessary for the binding or unbinding. In particular, I think there could be instances of binding without ordinances (I do not know of any for sure, but there are some instances from Christ's life that may be examples) and I think Excommunication as well as Name Removal has no ordinance prescribed and none required.

[Messenger]

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.

Then we disagree. I'm totally ok with that.

Articles on ADHD and how it can cause divorce:

Lawyers explain why ADHD can cause divorce

As far as church references, ask your bishop to check in Handbook 1 for the differences between Excommunication and Name removal - I think you'll find that they are totally separate. I'd love to quote from Handbook 1, but that is not allowed on this forum. But your bishop will probably let you view the handbook one in his office. Or, you could just ask him.

And by the way, I never said that ADHD causes all divorces, you said that I did, but I didnt. I did say that ADHD can cause divorce. What you are saying is that people are sinners when you dont have all the information. I call that being judgemental. I had a bishop once that said a lot of people judged him because he only had two kids. That, having a large family was a requirement in the bishopric. So, where do you draw the line for your friends and church members? And are you required to have more information before you draw it? Should you draw it at all?

If you know even a little about ADHD, which I dont think you do - other than what you instantly searched for today, you would know that ADHD causes a problems in social relationships. Its the strikes at its core. Please, before you claim to be an expert, do a little basic research first. If you are challenging someone, it is your responsibility to provide what you call proof.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Messenger

[blackstrap]

Is one baptized if no record of the ordinance exists or if a record was never made? If the ordinance was done by proper authority then I believe a record is always made,even if not on earth.When a person requests a name removal a record is made on earth,and I think in heaven.Only in the final judgment are the records brought forth and reviewed for permanence.

[zerinus]

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

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?

D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Voluntary name removal can only be explained in terms of "not receiving the light," which is a sin, according to the word of the Lord.

Edited May 20, 2012 by zerinus

[CASteinman]

Then we disagree. I'm totally ok with that.

As far as church references, ask your bishop to check in Handbook 1 for the differences between Excommunication and Name removal - I think you'll find that they are totally separate. I'd love to quote from Handbook 1, but that is not allowed on this forum. But your bishop will probably let you view the handbook one in his office. Or, you could just ask him.

And by the way, I never said that ADHD causes all divorces, you said that I did, but I didnt. I did say that ADHD can cause divorce. What you are saying is that people are sinners when you dont have all the information. I call that being judgemental. I had a bishop once that said a lot of people judged him because he only had two kids. That, having a large family was a requirement in the bishopric. So, where do you draw the line for your friends and church members? And are you required to have more information before you draw it? Should you draw it at all?

If you know even a little about ADHD, which I dont think you do - other than what you instantly searched for today, you would know that ADHD causes a problems in social relationships. Its the strikes at its core. Please, before you claim to be an expert, do a little basic research first. If you are challenging someone, it is your responsibility to provide what you call proof.

Wow. For someone who is OK with disagreeing you sure push it.

And for someone preaching so hard about judging others -- you sure are aggressively judging me.

I know this is personal to you, and I will try to be gentle but this is a fact: Asking to have your name removed from the rolls of the Church, is apostasy. And apostasy is sin.

And it is a matter of doctrine -- I do not have to judge anyone -- to say that yes, people are sinners. To me this has nothing to do with judging people -- its just the way it is.

But your accusations are judgments against me. And as you have said, "If you are challenging someone, it is your responsibility to provide what you call proof." So where is the proof that I have judged you or anyone here as harshly, as aggressively as you have judged me?

[Messenger]

Wow. For someone who is OK with disagreeing you sure push it.

And for someone preaching so hard about judging others -- you sure are aggressively judging me.

I know this is personal to you, and I will try to be gentle but this is a fact: Asking to have your name removed from the rolls of the Church, is apostasy. And apostasy is sin.

And it is a matter of doctrine -- I do not have to judge anyone -- to say that yes, people are sinners. To me this has nothing to do with judging people -- its just the way it is.

But your accusations are judgments against me. And as you have said, "If you are challenging someone, it is your responsibility to provide what you call proof." So where is the proof that I have judged you or anyone here as harshly, as aggressively as you have judged me?

The difference is that I have ADHD and know what its like to have it un-diagnosed during a marriage. I have been studying it for for over a year, how long have you been studying it? What are your credentials sir? What about your references? Also, I know all about handbook 1, and have read it at least 5 times. I, having my name removed and coming back also know about the differences in the procedures. What experiences do you have with those procedures, and interviews? Have you ever seen handbook 1? Have you ever had an interview and a blessing by a general authority? I have also provided references on both subjects, you sir have not. That makes me more credible than you sir. Again, you haven't provided anything here but an opinion, and I have brought not only my experience but also links to back up what I have experienced. Further, it is not I that have responded to your original post, you responded to mine. And, if you say that everyone are sinners, that is true, but you sir are skirting your own statement, that people that have their name removed is a sin. I am simply saying that it is not always so, and certainly not the same as being excommunicated. Again sir, I am waiting for some references such as I have given. I welcome you to view handbook 1 yourself and learn something from it. Your not a bad person, just misinformed. I invite you to learn a little something on both subjects.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Voluntary name removal can only be explained in terms of "not receiving the light," which is a sin, according to the word of the Lord.

Actually, you have to know its a sin before you commit it. What if someone believes that there is more light outside? Again, I know there isn't, but there are people through circumstances (right here on this board) that might believe there is. This is why it can be so easy for a person who has had their name removed to come back. Because the interview process determines if the person left or had their name removed because of a previous sin. If there was none, then its fairly easy. That's the difference.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Messenger

[CASteinman]

The difference is that I have ADHD and know what its like to have it un-diagnosed during a marriage.

You can only imagine that is a difference.

I have been studying it for for over a year, how long have you been studying it? What are your credentials sir? What about your references? Also, I know all about handbook 1, and have read it at least 5 times. I, having my name removed and coming back also know about the differences in the procedures. What experiences do you have with those procedures, and interviews? Have you ever seen handbook 1? Have you ever had an interview and a blessing by a general authority?

1. I will keep how long or whether I studied it at all, private.

2. I will keep that private

3. I told you, I agree that there are differences in administrative procedures.

4. Many experiences with the procedures having had to engage in them.

5. Yes regarding the GA.

6. Your references are not related to the subject. That is why I have not addressed them.

And, if you say that everyone are sinners, that is true, but you sir are skirting your own statement, that people that have their name removed is a sin.

I did not skirt that. I reiterated it.

To me, you seem to be getting upset about this so its probably best to end this. I am sorry that my words have upset you. Hope you can have a better evening.

Edited May 20, 2012 by CASteinman

[Messenger]

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).

I just wanted to clarify this. If a disability is diagnosed by a doctor, and the doctor consults with the patient about the ability to go on a mission and the person goes to the Lord and a revelation is given to not go, then that is not rebellion. I left my mission in Australia due to a problem with my knee. My mission president did think I was rebelling, but the general authority did not. I got my operation, and finished my mission state side. The same thing can be true for those who are thinking about a mission. Although, missions now are more flexible regards to those that have disabilities than in the past, this is a hypothetical exercise.

Edited May 20, 2012 by Messenger

[Log]

Personal revelation trumps all.

[Messenger]

2. I will keep that private

And why would you? Are you concerned about what others might think? Where do you think that comes from?

I actually thank you for the opportunity to clarify and project what I know to be true. There are always others that can benefit from discussions like this. I dont have a problem with what you have posted. As I have said, I think you are a good person. Have a great night!

Clean up the attitude if you want to stay in the thread.

[Messenger]

Personal revelation trumps all.

It does. Where would we be without it? That's why we are all brothers and sisters. Although, some seem like the odd, strange uncle from across town (that was joke).

[Gervin]

What if someone believes that there is more light outside? Again, I know there isn't, but there are people through circumstances (right here on this board) that might believe there is.

Some "people" know there is more light outside; they believe there is. You "know" there isn't because you believe differently. If you "know" it then you only know (believe) it for yourself.

[Cobalt-70]

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

But suppose a Mormon has denied his faith and become inactive for a few years, without being excommunicated. He is denied, and rescinded his covenant of baptism. Yet, when he comes back to the church, he is not rebaptized. He just takes the sacrament. So what is the difference between that person and the person who has been excommunicated? Nothing, really, except an annotation in a database.

Moreover, the original idea of excommunication, both in Christianity and in Mormonism, is the idea of the denial of Communion (i.e., the sacrament). If the punishment is excommunication, then isn't the reprieve Communion? Why does it necessarily have to be rebaptism?

Edited May 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

Is one baptized if no record of the ordinance exists or if a record was never made? If the ordinance was done by proper authority then I believe a record is always made,even if not on earth.When a person requests a name removal a record is made on earth,and I think in heaven.Only in the final judgment are the records brought forth and reviewed for permanence.

The record is made on the earth, but by what mechanism is the record on earth copied to the record in heaven? For baptism, the mechanism is a priesthood ordinance. An ordinance is the act that seals in heaven. A signature can't replace your baptism, nor can sending a letter. You can't just skip baptism and enter your name on the church rolls. If you do that, there will be a record on earth, but none in heaven. The ordinance is the mechanism for getting the information in the church computers burned onto the heavenly scrolls.

But when name removal occurs, there is no ordinance, and no theological mechanism for updating the heavenly scrolls. There is only an administrative action and an entry in an earthly computer database. This asymmetry is a real theological problem, and it does not go unnoticed by many I have heard of who have gone through the process and feel that what God has bound in heaven through an ordinance cannot be rescinded by a stake president simply through a letter or an email.

[mfbukowski]

Wow. For someone who is OK with disagreeing you sure push it.

And for someone preaching so hard about judging others -- you sure are aggressively judging me.

I know this is personal to you, and I will try to be gentle but this is a fact: Asking to have your name removed from the rolls of the Church, is apostasy. And apostasy is sin.

And it is a matter of doctrine -- I do not have to judge anyone -- to say that yes, people are sinners. To me this has nothing to do with judging people -- its just the way it is.

But your accusations are judgments against me. And as you have said, "If you are challenging someone, it is your responsibility to provide what you call proof." So where is the proof that I have judged you or anyone here as harshly, as aggressively as you have judged me?

Join the club. This guy will not last long here with that attitude. Personal attacks and implicates of unworthiness will get you banned faster than you can make them

I personally think he is a sockpuppet. No real Mormon would act like that.

[mfbukowski]

Personal revelation trumps all.

Thanks- my point precisely

[mfbukowski]

And why would you? Are you concerned about what others might think? Where do you think that comes from?

I actually thank you for the opportunity to clarify and project what I know to be true. There are always others that can benefit from discussions like this. I dont have a problem with what you have posted. As I have said, I think you are a good person. Have a great night!

Some of us actually post under our own names, sockpuppet. You hide anonymously- I wonder why?

Edited May 20, 2012 by mfbukowski

[rodheadlee]

Wow, I think you all are being hard on Messenger for no good reason at all, simply because his experience doesn't fit your preconcieved notions. I don't think he is a sock puppet either. I believe it is possible to think you are doing the right thing by having your name removed. I admire the guy for holding his temper.

[rodheadlee]

D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Voluntary name removal can only be explained in terms of "not receiving the light," which is a sin, according to the word of the Lord.

What if it wasn't plainly manifested unto Messeneger? or any ohter person with doubts, trying to do the right thing?

[mfbukowski]

Wow, I think you all are being hard on Messenger for no good reason at all, simply because his experience doesn't fit your preconcieved notions. I don't think he is a sock puppet either. I believe it is possible to think you are doing the right thing by having your name removed. I admire the guy for holding his temper.

It's pure defense. Read the thread.

Stop if you want to stay in the thread.

[Pahoran]

The record is made on the earth, but by what mechanism is the record on earth copied to the record in heaven? For baptism, the mechanism is a priesthood ordinance. An ordinance is the act that seals in heaven. A signature can't replace your baptism, nor can sending a letter. You can't just skip baptism and enter your name on the church rolls. If you do that, there will be a record on earth, but none in heaven. The ordinance is the mechanism for getting the information in the church computers burned onto the heavenly scrolls.

But when name removal occurs, there is no ordinance, and no theological mechanism for updating the heavenly scrolls. There is only an administrative action and an entry in an earthly computer database. This asymmetry is a real theological problem, and it does not go unnoticed by many I have heard of who have gone through the process and feel that what God has bound in heaven through an ordinance cannot be rescinded by a stake president simply through a letter or an email.

No, there is no "real real theological problem." There is only an artificial problem, created for no other purpose than to cause contention.

If a sixteen-year-old priest has the authority to baptise, then a Stake President certainly has authority to rescind that baptism.

I fail to see the problem you are having. What do you want, exactly? A bell, book and candle ceremony?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

Messenger has been around a long time. Don't see him as a sock puppet, what he says here is in line with what he has said elsewhere about his experience and he has related a lot of personal info that has all been consistent in my memory. Are you sure you are thinking of the same guy?

And he also shared personal info when he was listed in the photographer spotlight on lds.org.

Edited May 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[volgadon]

Messenger and I don't often see eye-to-eye, but he is not a sockpuppet. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/56659-photographer-spotlight-ok-im-humbled/page__hl__%2Bphotographer+%2Badhd There is a link to the photographer's spotlight, go to Jan. 2012, Messenger is 2nd from the top.

[mfbukowski]

Messenger and I don't often see eye-to-eye, but he is not a sockpuppet. http://www.mormondia...tographer +adhd There is a link to the photographer's spotlight, go to Jan. 2012, Messenger is 2nd from the top.

Well he does have a name and a face after all- thanks for that Volgadon. I apologize for calling him a sockpuppet, I was wrong.