Stone holm Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Can someone explain a situation to me (real or hypothetical) in which someone would join another church but still wish to maintain their LDS Church membership? Before they adopted the concept of membership cancelation, you had to excommunicate them and people didn't like the idea of being excommunicated from anything. But now besides family tranquility, a lot of people attend other churches and wind up joining for reasons like its too long a drive to church, or all my kids' friends go to this other church, or we don't have to dress up for that church, or really like participating in the their choir, or they have great activities, or they are more of a community group.....but when it comes down to leaving the True Church, no not going to cancel my membership. 2
sdc999 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) For me it's a win, win, win, win situation. The first win is that my wife is happy because her mother took it very very hard when we left the church and since MIL is elderly, what's the point of proving our own point? "You may have conned my daughter and two granddaughters but you will never con me." ( CLICK - that's the sound of the phone being slammed down in my ear. ha). The second win is that MIL is happy. I never quit liking her, although I was disappointed that she didn't speak to me for 7 months witch made it hard on my girls. Third win: my home teacher, a really good friend, puts a check next to my name every month whether we see each other or not - we do speak on the phone. Forth win: The bishop is happy because I don't act in a malicious manner towards the church. He's a nice guy and does business with me. We've had this conversation.I have officially joined another church and I, as well as my family, are very active. No action has ever been threatened against us. Have we had conversations with members about our reasons? Sure. But they initiate the conversation; we don't seek them out. I just realized I spelled 'witch' when talking about my MIL as opposed to which. Subliminal thoughts maybe!!! I really do like her. Edited November 13, 2013 by sdc999
sdc999 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Before they adopted the concept of membership cancelation, you had to excommunicate them and people didn't like the idea of being excommunicated from anything. I believe there was a lawsuit about just this to which the church began to having to allow resignations.
Stone holm Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I believe there was a lawsuit about just this to which the church began to having to allow resignations. I think you may be right about that. I think that they started discouraging people from referring to what we now call "disciplinary councils" as "Church courts, or Bishop's Courts, or High Council Courts" about that time as well.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 I don't think that I misread you. We don't require name removal for those who join other churches either. This would indicate that we probably have a significant number of people on our membership rolls who either attend or have joined other churches.Again did not suggest this action was necessary, but a means of dealing with the issue. Maybe I am misreading me?
rockpond Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Again did not suggest this action was necessary, but a means of dealing with the issue. Maybe I am misreading me? Okay... What did you mean when you said: "No action needed, if someone joins another church, then no longer a member of this church. Unlike some Nations that accept dual citizenship, the church does not do so." I said that this statement by you was false. Joining another church does not mean that you are no longer a member of this church. Our church generally does accept "dual citizenship" as long as you aren't advocating other church's teachings (as noted in the handbook). 2
Duncan Posted November 13, 2013 Author Posted November 13, 2013 The reason I ask is because a few years ago our Stake Patriarch went inactive and has been so since then. When I asked how he is doing my Stake exec. clerk brother told me casually that they were planning on holding a disciplinary council for him because someone had heard he joined another Church. It seems the height of stupidity to me to do so, like if he joined another church after he was inactive then who cares FYI my brother is notorious for keeping secrets, he could have been on the Titanic and you still wouldn't know about it! We think he's a spy
Stone holm Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 The reason I ask is because a few years ago our Stake Patriarch went inactive and has been so since then. When I asked how he is doing my Stake exec. clerk brother told me casually that they were planning on holding a disciplinary council for him because someone had heard he joined another Church. It seems the height of stupidity to me to do so, like if he joined another church after he was inactive then who cares FYI my brother is notorious for keeping secrets, he could have been on the Titanic and you still wouldn't know about it! We think he's a spy Going inactive is not a very good grounds for holding a disciplinary council, but going inactive and joining another Church starts to be something that an Stake President might start considering--especially if the person was a former Stake Patriarch. Somebody who had been ordained to that position, probably better have a very good explanation for joining another Church -- unless it was to save his marriage, he might well be looking at the door.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Okay... What did you mean when you said: "No action needed, if someone joins another church, then no longer a member of this church. Unlike some Nations that accept dual citizenship, the church does not do so." I said that this statement by you was false. Joining another church does not mean that you are no longer a member of this church. Our church generally does accept "dual citizenship" as long as you aren't advocating other church's teachings (as noted in the handbook).Not sure what is false; but I was in Bishopric for three years and HPGL for five and that was 25+ years ago. When assigning HT's or in Bishopric meetings if we knew they had joined another Church we went no further, or would have two Priesthood leaders visit and ask them if they wanted their names removed. I assure you I am not attempting to misleading.
sdc999 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Going inactive is not a very good grounds for holding a disciplinary council, but going inactive and joining another Church starts to be something that an Stake President might start considering--especially if the person was a former Stake Patriarch. Somebody who had been ordained to that position, probably better have a very good explanation for joining another Church -- unless it was to save his marriage, he might well be looking at the door.Let me understand this. In the temple, everyone wears white so as to all be equal. No one is above or below another, but in the real world, let's make an example of this guy because if the average member sees a man of such great standing in the church leave without consequence, then....... who know what this may encourage others to do? 1
sdc999 Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Not sure what is false; but I was in Bishopric for three years and HPGL for five and that was 25+ years ago. When assigning HT's or in Bishopric meetings if we knew they had joined another Church we went no further, or would have two Priesthood leaders visit and ask them if they wanted their names removed. I assure you I am not attempting to misleading.I thought that the 'ask if they want their name removed' was a recent direction by the church. Years ago, I thought the church's position was to always keep their names on the roles (minus serious transgressions) as they may see the 'err' of their ways and return again someday. So are saying 25 years ago, you were inviting inactives to have their names removed?
rockpond Posted November 13, 2013 Posted November 13, 2013 Not sure what is false; but I was in Bishopric for three years and HPGL for five and that was 25+ years ago. When assigning HT's or in Bishopric meetings if we knew they had joined another Church we went no further, or would have two Priesthood leaders visit and ask them if they wanted their names removed. I assure you I am not attempting to misleading. I get what you are saying: effectively, they are no longer members (the get put on that "unofficial Do Not Contact" list). But on the official records of the church, they remain members.
Tsuzuki Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) Can someone explain a situation to me (real or hypothetical) in which someone would join another church but still wish to maintain their LDS Church membership?Do you remember me? I've joined two other churches (Roman Catholic Church and Ordo Templi Orientis). I might do more. I dunno. I'm kind of happy with three at the moment. Edited November 14, 2013 by Tsuzuki 1
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I get what you are saying: effectively, they are no longer members (the get put on that "unofficial Do Not Contact" list). But on the official records of the church, they remain members.I agree. I remember when I went to someone's house to see if they did not want any contact because of the issue being addressed...he was on fire and told me to remove his name and his wife. I told him I could not take any action without his wife telling us the same. She called my house that night crying and begging that her name not be removed. But you have good point this guy was all but asking for it. The good news, we did not act...20 years later he was back. He told me, "you look familiar"; I said, "yes..you once threw me put of your home".
thesometimesaint Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Do you remember me? I've joined two other churches (Roman Catholic Church and Ordo Templi Orientis). I might do more. I dunno. I'm kind of happy with three at the moment. Long time no see. Glad to see you are back. Off hand I would say that being in all three at the same time is problematic. They have incompatible doctrines, and beliefs. But if that is what floats your boat. Who am I to object. 1
Tsuzuki Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 (edited) To the original poster: When I first checked less than ten years ago to make sure that what I was about to do was on the up and up, the CHI definitively said that formally joining another church did not count as apostasy, and wasn't grounds for any discipline at all. That policy has since changed twice. The first change since then made it qualify as apostasy, but the one very quickly afterward (and current one) added the qualifier that the person had to actually advocate that church's teachings (assuming they're not the same as the LDS church's teachings, of course). I think it's safe to say that what the church is concerned about is people spreading foreign doctrines within the church rather than them getting more knowledge from outside for their own personal benefit. Edited November 14, 2013 by Tsuzuki 4
Tsuzuki Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Long time no see. Glad to see you are back.Thanks! I saw this thread and couldn't resist. Off hand I would say that being in all three at the same time is problematic. They have incompatible doctrines, and beliefs. But if that is what floats your boat. Who am I to object.Being something is easy, and I find incompatible doctrines and beliefs child's play. Actively engaging in them is the hard part, and I need more time in the day. 1
strappinglad Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Rev 3:15-17 comes to mind. I'm not sure how long the Lord will continue sloshing us lukewarmees around. Regardless of what the Church does, a man who honestly feels the Church is not for him, should have the courage of his convictions and bite the bullet . If being a member of a church is like being in the Kiwanis then... I'd better not say.
Stone holm Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Rev 3:15-17 comes to mind. I'm not sure how long the Lord will continue sloshing us lukewarmees around. Regardless of what the Church does, a man who honestly feels the Church is not for him, should have the courage of his convictions and bite the bullet . If being a member of a church is like being in the Kiwanis then... I'd better not say.Well from what I observed of Elder Faust he was trying in a kindly way to say that it wasn't something for us to get all hot and bothered about to the extent we started cutting people off from the true Church.
rockpond Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 I agree. I remember when I went to someone's house to see if they did not want any contact because of the issue being addressed...he was on fire and told me to remove his name and his wife. I told him I could not take any action without his wife telling us the same. She called my house that night crying and begging that her name not be removed. But you have good point this guy was all but asking for it. The good news, we did not act...20 years later he was back. He told me, "you look familiar"; I said, "yes..you once threw me put of your home". Yeah, we recently had a family who, at their request, was a "do not contact". Our HPGL would mail them our monthly newsletter. Rather than just tossing it, they would return to sender with messages that became stronger and stronger each month. So the bishop asked them if they wanted their names removed to which they replied affirmatively. But then when they got the "warning" letter from headquarters they said "oh wait, we don't want that".
JLHPROF Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Can someone explain a situation to me (real or hypothetical) in which someone would join another church but still wish to maintain their LDS Church membership? Well, I know several members who joined fundamentalist groups and just allowed themselves to be inactive in the Church so as not to face any disciplinary actions. Their reason was that they still believed in the church and didn't want their membership put in jeopardy, despite joining a fundamentalist group.
Tsuzuki Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 Well, I know several members who joined fundamentalist groups and just allowed themselves to be inactive in the Church so as not to face any disciplinary actions. Their reason was that they still believed in the church and didn't want their membership put in jeopardy, despite joining a fundamentalist group.Fundamentalist groups are treated separately from religions that are completely apart from Mormonism, and there are other policies with them in mind.
Storm Rider Posted November 14, 2013 Posted November 14, 2013 A Church court is always at the discretion of the local leadership regardless of the reason for such a court. Life is difficult and many people seem to be wanderers without ever really finding a home. They move from church to church or religion to religion without ever putting down deep roots. In regards to joining another church while being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, it only becomes problematic when the Bishop or SP thinks it is. It often will never become a problem unless the individual begins to attack the Church in a public way. I recently listened to a fellow on YouTube that was a previous bishop and joined an Evangelical group. Write to his son while on his mission to discuss the book he had written attacking the Church and tried to get his daughters to read it. He told a story of giving it to one daughter who took it and immediately threw it in the trash - as if that was a very pitiful situation for this father to endure. This is the kind of individual that would be excommunicated. Fortunately, he was a man with some integrity and had his name removed. If you advocate for your new church and attack the Church of Jesus Christ you should expect an invitation to a Church Court. If you simply dissolve into the space of humanity and do your own thing; no one will say a thing. My question is when the Bridegroom calls who will hear and have their lamps full of oil?
Recommended Posts