Need help understanding ramifications of requesting name removal

[interalia]

I have a friend who I am trying to help deal with the condition she and I share. She has just been asked to attend a disciplinary council. Understandably she is upset and confused about what to do, I've been through one myself, but she is trying to avoid it by writing a letter to the church to have them remove her name from the records.

I think she is jumping the gun! There is no guarantee a disciplinary council will result in excommunication. I need to help her see the consequences of her action. Can anyone tell me what results when a person decides to willingly remove their name from the records?

Thanks a ton! I hope to get back to her tonight before she takes any rash moves.

[Just_A_Guy]

The practical consequences are pretty much the same as excommunication--covenants made via the Church (baptism, temple sealings, etc) are deemed revoked, she won't be allowed to speak/pray in Church meetings (assuming she still chooses to go), etc.

By American law, though, the moment you voluntarily withdraw from a religious association they must stop the disciplinary proceedings. I think (but am not sure) that they are also not permitted to retain a record of the disciplinary proceedings.

(EDIT: I may be in error on the above; I'll let you know if I find anything new.)

(2nd Edit: The above is from an Oklahoma case and not necessarily binding nation-wide. Apparently, the Church will retain a notation that she resigned under a cloud of suspected "transgression", and this will be addressed if she ever applies for re-baptism. From what I can gather, though, they will not convene a council and "excommunicate" her after she's requested to have her name removed.)

Edited April 1, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[WillowTheWhisp]

Having your name removed is just slightly not as dramatic as being excommunicated in some people's eyes. If the person ever wanted to come back they would need to be interviewed and ultimately rebaptised. If they had been to the temple then they would need to be interviewed by a General Authority to have their temple blessings restored.

It's a big step and not to be undertaken lightly. In some ways it's worse than excommunication because with the latter the church will work with the person to help them back into the fellowship whereas with someone who has their name removed at their own request then the church tends to sever all future contact as it is logically assumed this is what the person wants.

It may not come to excommunication. The Disciplinary council may have better ideas. I would say the person is wisest to humble themelves and allow their leaders to be guided by Heavenly Father to do what is best to help them get back on track. Having one's name removed is an act of pride showing no true regret for whatever actions led to the present situation.

[BenRaines]

While the process is pretty much the same as most have stated. Willingly having your name removed is looked at a little more than having been excommunicated.

Ben Raines

[Islander]

People sometime miss the greater point. That is an act of open rebellion against God and the dissolution of the covenant has ramification that few stop to consider.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Does your friend actually have a testimony of the Gospel? Is she aware that what she would be doing would be denying that testimony which wa revealed to her by the Holy Ghost? Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is dangerous ground.

Hopefully a Church Disciplinary Council will be conducted in love.

[Madriglace]

Having ones name removed from the records of the church does only that ... the problem ... what ever it is ... still needs to be dealt with at some point in time. My personal opinion is that just because you have your name removed doesn't mean that the covenant has been removed ... it's not that easy. One would still be responsible. JMHO. Following through with a disciplinary hearing would address the issue and start the repentance process. Not easy but a much better choice. You may loose your fellowship or your membership but at least you would be on the right path as opposed to being in rebellion.

Church discipline is about love and forgiveness ... kind of scary but oh what a relief ... you feel light and happy ... like you could fly. I've been there and by far the worst was the tears in my dear Bishop's eyes. It is always better to follow the path the Lord has set than go it alone which is pretty much what the differences amount to.

[Dravin]

Understandably she is upset and confused about what to do, I've been through one myself, but she is trying to avoid it by writing a letter to the church to have them remove her name from the records.

Just what is it exactly she's trying to avoid, the holding of the council or the attending of it? If its the latter all she has to do is not go, of course that shows a certain lack of a repentant spirit but less so than getting ones named removed.

[OtterPop]

People sometime miss the greater point. That is an act of open rebellion against God and the dissolution of the covenant has ramification that few stop to consider.

Islander, I'm wondering how you know that "few stop to consider" the ramifications of having their name removed?

And to who commented in the last few posts, why do you assume that having one's name removed shows "rebellion"?

It seems to me the stereotypes of exMormons have dropped in pretty quickly on this thread.

Edited April 1, 2009 by OtterPop

[Dravin]

And to who commented in the last few posts, why do you assume that having one's name removed shows "rebellion"?

Well its Christ's Church (you may or may not believe it but the people making the comments do) so severing your connections with it, saying, "I no longer want to be baptized by proper priesthood authority" or "I don't want to follow the council of the Prophet of God and others duly called" when Christ has commanded one to (once again you may or may not believe this but the people making the comments do) so I'm not gonna and I don't care if I covenanted to do so is rebellion.

Christ, "Come, join my church and live these commandments."

Person, "Okay, I covenant to do so."

Person, "Wait, I change my mind, I'm not gonna do what you have commanded me and invited me and which I furthermore covenanted to do."

Its rebellion. You can argue the premise (that God wants to you be LDS and keep your covenants) but the conclusion is sound within its paradigm*

[aside]There are lots of ways to rebel, a member watching pornography is in open rebellion to God's revealed will as well. Or one who decided to go watch a movie on Sunday, or who smokes/drinks or what have you.[/aside]

[Madriglace]

Islander, I'm how you know that "few stop to consider" the ramifications of having their name removed?

And to who commented in the last few posts, why do you assume that having one's name removed shows "rebellion"?

It seems to me the stereotypes of exMormons have dropped in pretty quickly on this thread.

When we refuse to repent we are in rebellion against the Lord ... no matter who we are or what we believe. This is not an ex-Mormon statement at all. This is an everybody statement. Brings to mind the verse in "I Stand All Amazed" ... to rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine ... I resemble that remark and I know it! I work really hard not to but I still have a long way to go and way to much to do on myself to ever make jabs at anyone else. Kind of an ... it is what it is ... statement.

[OtterPop]

Dravin, I understand that the people who posted believe that it's Christ's church. I also know that for the vast majority of exMormons, it's not as simple as "I changed my mind." It's offensive for you to characterize one of the most important decisions I've made in my life (leaving the LDS church) as so thoughtless and casual. For some people, leaving the LDS church is casual; however, most of those people don't bother to have their name removed.

I'm not flippant about my spiritual life or my relationship with God. Why should I allow your assumptions that I am to go unchallenged?

You stated that "few" consider the ramifications of having their name removed. How do you know this? How many exMormons have you really listened to in this regard?

For me, leaving the LDS church is the decision in my life that I considered more carefully than literally any other decision.

Edited April 1, 2009 by OtterPop

[OtterPop]

When we refuse to repent we are in rebellion against the Lord ... no matter who we are or what we believe. This is not an ex-Mormon statement at all. This is an everybody statement. Brings to mind the verse in "I Stand All Amazed" ... to rescue a soul so rebellious and proud as mine ... I resemble that remark and I know it! I work really hard not to but I still have a long way to go and way to much to do on myself to ever make jabs at anyone else. Kind of an ... it is what it is ... statement.

If one is following where God has led them -- in my case, out of the Mormon church -- where is the sin? The statements I was referring to were indeed in regard to that issue specifically.

It takes humility to acknowledge that the belief system you have dedicated your heart and mind to is not the right one for you. It takes hubris to assume that you can accurately interpret others' spiritual experiences.

[Mahone]

People sometime miss the greater point. That is an act of open rebellion against God and the dissolution of the covenant has ramification that few stop to consider.

As has been said above, if you really do no longer believe that the church is true, how is it rebellion? You can rebel if you really believe the church has true authority over you (as most members do) but choose to break the rules anyway. However if you truly don't believe the LDS gospel, I personally don't consider that to be rebellion by choosing to leave it. And IF the church is true, I don't think God would be being very fair to judge someone harshly by doing what they truly believed to be correct at the time.

There is a big "taboo" about people who wish to have their name removed from the church records. Though that is because a lot of people do not know the stories behind their reasoning in doing so.

Back on topic though, if she does wish to have her name removed from church records, she'll be forced to wait 30 days for it to actually take effect and the church will send her a pamphlet to attempt to get her to change her mind in those 30 days.

I am not claiming the church is false in this post. To be honest, I am really uncertain. However I can definately see things from the point of view of the person wishing to leave.

[Madriglace]

My comment about being in rebellion was in reference to what the OP said about the young woman having her name removed rather than going through the process. In which case if she does this rather than repent it is rebellion even if she leaves the church it is still rebellion not to repent no matter who you are or what you believe as a Christian. What ever prompted the question of what is worse (the sin) it still has to be addressed at some point in her life.

[Mahone]

My comment about being in rebellion was in reference to what the OP said about the young woman having her name removed rather than going through the process. In which case if she does this rather than repent it is rebellion even if she leaves the church it is still rebellion not to repent no matter who you are or what you believe as a Christian. What ever prompted the question of what is worse (the sin) it still has to be addressed at some point in her life.

I think that's assuming she is leaving out of pride. It would seem that way from what the OP said, however only the person leaving can truly know. Maybe she believes the one true church could not have treated her the way the LDS church have treated her with the disiplinary actions? Not all bishops / stake presidents are as thoughtful and kind as they are made out to be in general during these times. I agree that if she is leaving out of pride and still believes the church to be true deep down, then that is a rebellion. If she is in true doubt about the latter, it is not.

[Dravin]

OtterPop, you're arguing the premise, which is fine but irrelevant to the question I quoted.

Obviously if it isn't God's will that you be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints than not being so isn't going contrary to his will (aka rebelling), in fact if it is God's will that you be Catholic than every Catholic convert to the LDS Church (and possibly every non-Catholic) is rebelling against God's will. Of course the people making the comments you are refering to aren't operating from that premise.

It's pretty simple, if God's will is X and you aren't doing X and you know you should be doing X then you are in open rebellion against God. If what you think X is and if it is in fact what X truly is, is a whole 'nother animal.

I'm not flippant about my spiritual life or my relationship with God. Why should I allow your assumptions that I am to go unchallenged?

I never said you were. I never touched why one would change one's mind whether such reason are flippant or extended emotional, spiritual and mental energy went into the decision. When you are baptized you state you beleived the Church was true and agree to follow its tenants forever, when you remove your name from the records you are stating such is no longer the case, or in other words you are changing your mind as to whether you believe it true and whether you are going to follow its tenants forever.

I was trying to be brief which may have communicated something I wasn't intending, I didn't (still don't) have the time or patience to write an internal dialog categorizing every reason why one might have changed their mind flippant or agonized over so I didn't and included them all under changing ones mind.

You stated that "few" consider the ramifications of having their name removed.

No I didn't.

As has been said above, if you really do no longer believe that the church is true, how is it rebellion?

Because whether one beleives the church is true is completely independant of wether it is true*. If its true its rebellion, if it isn't it isn't. Obviously those who have a testimoney of the church are going to be arguing from the position that it is just like those who don't aren't. See my first comment in this post to OtterPop. The Pope considers I'm a poor wayward soul who isn't a member of the true church, I don't agree with that but I can certainly understand why he thinks so, it isn't mystifying why.

I really don't understand the confusion.

* I'm assuming you mean to ask, "How can you accuse somebody who doesn't believe the Church is true of rebellion?" because I don't see anyone who doesn't believe the Church is true arguing that its rebellion to leave.

Edited April 1, 2009 by Dravin

[OtterPop]

Dravin, you are indeed not the one who said that few consider the ramifications of leaving. I was mistaken.

But I did find your made-up dialog between a convert and Christ to be flippant:

Christ, "Come, join my church and live these commandments."

Person, "Okay, I covenant to do so."

Person, "Wait, I change my mind, I'm not gonna do what you have commanded me and invited me and which I furthermore covenanted to do."

Following Christ should be more thoughtful than this, and choosing to renounce those covenants should be more thoughtful than this, as well. I'm not confused; I just think your tone is disrespectful. Believe me, I have no interest in your imagined internal dialogs that may or may not go into someone leaving the LDS church.

It's interesting to me that you characterize renouncing baptismal covenants as simply changing one's mind. I was baptized when I was 8. I understand the LDS concept of the age of accountability, and I did understand at age 8 that being baptized meant my sins were washed away, and that I to be clean before God I would need to identify and repent of any sins I committed from then on. But I did not understand what it meant to make an eternal covenant. I'm not complaining about that, because I don't think any 8-year-old can grasp that.

[Mahone]

Because whether one beleives the church is true is completely independant of wether it is true*. If its true its rebellion, if it isn't it isn't. Obviously those who have a testimoney of the church are going to be arguing from the position that it is just like those who don't aren't. See my first comment in this post to OtterPop. The Pope considers I'm a poor wayward soul who isn't a member of the true church, I don't agree with that but I can certainly understand why he thinks so, it isn't mystifying why.

I really don't understand the confusion.

* I'm assuming you mean to ask, "How can you accuse somebody who doesn't believe the Church is true of rebellion?" because I don't see anyone who doesn't believe the Church is true arguing that its rebellion to leave.

Rebellion is turning against authority. Normally this is referring to governments who officially have that authority by law, therefore anyone who turns against them is officially a rebel. The church has no authority by law therefore a person can only rebel against it if they personally believe the church to have the authority it claims to have. If they don't believe it, they are not rebelling against it any more than a person who shuts their door in the missionaries faces. Just like you are not rebelling against that telemarketer you may have told you are not interested to in the past week. Just like ending a contract with a company because you believed they didn't stick to their end of the bargin. It's not rebellion, you may believe it to be wrong if you are an employee of said company, but rebellion is completely the wrong word to use.

[Dravin]

It's interesting to me that you characterize renouncing baptismal covenants as simply changing one's.

I'm not sure about simply, but yes it is. At least I can't see any reason to renounce them unless you changed your mind from when you made them, if you hadn't changed your mind you'd still be holding to them wouldn't you?

I just think your tone is disrespectful.

I suppose the wait would have better been left out, like I said that wasn't my intent.

The church has no authority by law therefore a person can only rebel against it if they personally believe the church to have the authority it claims to have.

Whether one thinks it has the authority or not is irelevant. It does or it doesn't, it either has the authority granted from God (not granted from people's belief) or it doesn't. This is like saying a cop only has authority to pull me over if I believe he does, a cop either has the authority granted it by the law or it doesn't, belief has no bearing on the matter same with the Church except as mentioned the authority comes from God not the government.

If they don't believe it, they are not rebelling against it any more than a person who shuts their door in the missionaries faces.

Said people, as far as I know, were not commanded by God where aware of said commandment then make a covenant with God by sacred ordinaces performed by the proper priesthood authority to listen to the missionaries, if they had then yes they would be rebelling against God.

Just like you are not rebelling against that telemarketer you may have told you are not interested to in the past week.

If the telemarketer was God and I had made a covenant with him to remain interested for eternity then yes I would.

It isn't a hard concept. God tells you to do X, you knowing that he has told you to do X and you don't do so, you are rebelling against him just as if your parents told you to clean up your room, you heard them and then didn't do so except the consequences are a little more significant.

[Mahone]

It isn't a hard concept. God tells you to do X, you knowing that he has told you to do X and you don't do so, you are rebelling against him just as if your parents told you to clean up your room, you heard them and then didn't do so except the consequences are a little more significant.

I'm not going to respond to the whole post, I'm already late for bed. However I thought it'd be quick to point out that my entire point was that they DON'T know that he has told them to do X because they don't believe it! And by you constantly saying it isn't hard to understand is questioning my intelligence, I'd rather you didn't do that. Thank-you.

[MichaelPAGuy]

Let me just add something here. I actually went through the process of having my name removed from church membership records. I actually resigned. I am currently in the process of repenting and coming back into full membership in the church. I have regretted my decision ever since I mailed in the letter to Salt Lake. My best advice as having to go through this, Please tell your friend to not do it. Face the council. She will be a better person for it.

[interalia]

Thanks all for the information. From what I've gathered:

Requesting removal from the church could be/is

1) open rebellion against God.

2) revoking previously made covenants and blessings received (sealings, endowments, baptismal covenant, etc)

3) not as bad as attending the disciplinary council

4) has less potential for help from the church afterwards due to the fact that the church usually provides more support for the excommunicated than for those who leave the church

Did I get it all?

Oh and to clarify, she is considering having her name removed simply to avoid the disciplinary council. She could just NOT go, but she doesn't want to be excommunicated. So I think in the end, she is trying to avoid being excommunicated. I need to help her see that even if she IS excommunicated, it isn't as bad as willfully leaving the church.

[Dravin]

However I thought it'd be quick to point out that my entire point was that they DON'T know that he has told them to do X because they don't believe it!

Then they lied when they were baptised and every time they took the sacrament or bore testimony (which I doubt is the case for most ex-members). If they had a testimony at some point then they do (or did) know that God wants them to keep the covenants they made, they were told, they acknowledged it when they entered into covenants such as baptism or they partook of the sacrament, you can of course not believe anymore but that doesn't change the fact that you were told and acknowledged, even made covenants about what God wants you to do, doesn't mean you weren't made aware just because you now believe its all bunk.

If your Mom tells you to clean your room and you say, "Okay I hear you, I will" and then tell her later, "I'm not going to clean it, I'm not rebelling, I just don't believe anymore that you told me to." don't expect it to fly.

I'm not saying such people are beyond hope or what have you (I'm in open rebellion against God every time I break a commandment, this isn't some super elite descriptor), just they are going against the will of God, and they were taught (and all of them at some point acknowledged, unless of course they lied) what that will was.

Helaman 8:25 says this, "But behold, ye have rejected the truth, and rebelled against your holy God" I think its safe to say that the Judges that Helaman was talking to didn't have a burning testimony that what they were doing was wrong at the time they did it. What they did have was having been taught what they should be doing in the past. Rejecting the truth, aka not believing anymore does not mean you can't rebel. I know that this doesn't prove the concept in an objective way, I'm just saying it isn't a new one and it isn't something I'm making up. Its kinda like saying Israel when they apostatized never actually rebelled against God because if they believed in Baal they didn't believe in Jehovah.

Also remember we are talking about people who are, or at least at some point were members of the church and thus where taught God's will, little Timmy in the heart of the Amazon is a whole different story.

[Palerider]

I have a friend who I am trying to help deal with the condition she and I share. She has just been asked to attend a disciplinary council. Understandably she is upset and confused about what to do, I've been through one myself, but she is trying to avoid it by writing a letter to the church to have them remove her name from the records.

I think she is jumping the gun! There is no guarantee a disciplinary council will result in excommunication. I need to help her see the consequences of her action. Can anyone tell me what results when a person decides to willingly remove their name from the records?

Thanks a ton! I hope to get back to her tonight before she takes any rash moves.

she can write a letter asking to have her name removed....but...if the Bishop feels a church court is needed.....he can still hold one on her behalf.....