Need help understanding ramifications of requesting name removal

[OtterPop]

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.

interalia,

I think the key is whether she wants to be a member of the LDS church or not. If she doesn't -- and she's as sure as possible that this will never change -- she should resign. Once she writes a letter of resignation and mails it, by law she is no longer a member, and she cannot be excommunicated. (Yes, there has actually been a court case that determined this.) I have no idea what the LDS church will do in their own records, but your friend doesn't have control of that regardless of what she does.

In your opinion, being excommunicated isn't as "bad" as leaving the church, and I think most believing Mormons would agree with you. But it's what your friend believes that matters. If she believes the church is true, I agree she should attend the council. If she doesn't believe it is, she should strongly consider resigning.

[lestertheemt]

I have never been to a disciplinary council, however it is my belief that when individuals hear "disciplinary" they think they are standing in front of a firing squad. It is my understanding that the whole process is done with love. Perhaps that is the one point that she needs to hear.

[Mahone]

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.

Your analogy is still broken. A much closer one would be someone claiming to be your mother for several years, but you then have reason to believe she isn't in fact your real mother. You may have made promises to her to look after her in her old age, but you didn't make those promises to that woman, you made it to your mother who you no longer believed she was.

In my honest opinion and by the definition of the word 'rebellion', this cannot bne rebelling. If you do NOT believe she is your mother, she holds no authority over you. Thid obviously doesn't apply to under 18s as they are legally under the guard of their parents and therefore the parent has legal authority over them. The church has no legal excuse, therefore my analogy is a much more accurate one.

I can accept that you believe someone leaving the church to be wrong, that is merely your opinion and I cannot change that and I wouldn't want to. However, to say someone is rebelling when they do not meet the definition of the word is wrong - it's trying to make them out to be doing something worse then they actually are. That is what I have issue with. Doing what you believe to be right without defying any laws or rules of a legal or ACCEPTED authority figure is not rebelling. As the church is no longer an accepted authority figure for the person in question, they are not rebelling.

And to say they lied every time they took the sacrament/were baptised/did their endowment may be completely wrong. Again, every person is different, but peoples true beliefs can and will change sometimes. You have to accept this. I'm sure you used to believe in santa claus or the tooth fairy with all your heart. Now that you no longer believe in the tooth fairy, is it rebelling against her that you no longer leave your tooth under the pillow? It would be a form of rebellion if you still believed in her and were somehow angry with her, so purposely didn't leave your tooth under the pillow. But as you don't believe she exists, you cannot be rebelling against her.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Mahone

[john doe]

Has this person considered not attending the church court? It's not like they can compel her to show up.

[MarginOfError]

The Church's official description of the consequences is

The bishop makes sure that a member who requests name removal understands the consequences: it cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and revokes temple blessings. The bishop also explains that a person can be readmitted to the Church by baptism and confirmation only after a thorough interview (CHI 1:148)

There is not comment about it being open rebellion against God. That appears to be a personal interpretation that is being argued, but is neither supported nor denied by the Church.

The key thing, in my opinion, that the person should understand is that removing his or her records negates the contract we enter into through baptism. By being baptized, we force the Lord to grant us forgiveness on the condition of our repentance; it guarantees us access to the Atonement. If the baptism is canceled, we lose our guaranteed access to the atonement. It also removes the Gift of the Holy Ghost, leaving us without a promised companion to navigate life.

[Just_A_Guy]

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.....

Do you have a source for this?

Once she writes a letter of resignation and mails it, by law she is no longer a member, and she cannot be excommunicated. (Yes, there has actually been a court case that determined this.)

That's what I thought at first (see my earlier post), but it turns out that that case was decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and (as near as I can tell) is only good law within the state of Oklahoma.

[Dravin]

re⋅bel⋅lion   [ri-bel-yuhn] Show IPA

–noun

1. open, organized, and armed resistance to one's government or ruler.

2. resistance to or defiance of any authority, control, or tradition.

3. the act of rebelling.

Number 2 (Number 1 to a degree because God would qualify as our ruler to a degree), defiance of Gods authority to give you commandments such as, don't kill people, don't worship Zeus, follow the prophet ect and insist you obey them. Not thinking he has this authority is not the same as him not having it.

If you do NOT believe she is your mother, she holds no authority over you. Thid obviously doesn't apply to under 18s as they are legally under the guard of their parents and therefore the parent has legal authority over them. The church has no legal excuse, therefore my analogy is a much more accurate one.

In the eyes of god we're under 18, always, he will always have authority over us no matter what we choose to believe. There is no, "I'm to old for you to tell me what to do!" with God or "You're not my God, I don't have to listen to you!" this of course applies to the Christian concept of God, which isn't surprising to see a Christian using.

I'm not arguing the church has any sort of legal authority, where is that coming from? I'm arguing that it has authority from God, the two are completely independant. Anlogies have been brought up concerning legal authortiy for so I'm running with them I'm not saying the Church can give you a ticket. Anyway its not so much a question of the Church's authority (outside of the fact of ordinances and it being the church), its a question of God's authority, and he's has it and always will and there is no way you can send a letter anywhere to get your name off the list of his of children nor can you get a pass on light and knowledge you've already obtained but now reject because you send a letter to his earthly orginization saying, "I don't beleive it." (Or he doesn't exist and doesn't have authority, at least not in a Christian sense and its all irrelevant)

However, to say someone is rebelling when they do not meet the definition of the word is wrong - it's trying to make them out to be doing something worse then they actually are*. That is what I have issue with. Doing what you believe to be right without defying any laws or rules of a legal or ACCEPTED authority figure is not rebelling.

If you are trying to maintain that rebellion is limited as a word to resisting earthly legal authority than of course it isn't rebellion (that's why the phrase against God is added), of course that means Judas didn't rebel agaisnt Christ. I can define rebellion as only applying to God meaning the American Revelutionary war wasn't a rebellion against England, because well, they aren't God. Isn't it fun to pretend you are the arbiter of the meaning of words? Its pretty simple, either God exsists and he has authority over us, or he doesn't and he doesn't its pretty cut and dried. And if he does have said authority than resitance is rebellion because well, you're resisting his authority which is pretty commonly refered to as rebellion.

People can and do use rebellion as resitance to other than established legal authority.

And to say they lied every time they took the sacrament/were baptised/did their endowment may be completely wrong. Again, every person is different, but peoples true beliefs can and will change sometimes.

You pretty much said what I just said. If they never beleived and were baptised, took the sacrament, endowed and ect they lied, which I furthermore stated I didn't beleive was the case meaning they didn't lie and they did beleive at some point admittedly that latter half was implied not stated out in the open. Of course if they did beleive that means they told God they understood his will and further covenant to do it meaning they aren't ignorant of his will which is my point they just don't acknowledge it as such anymore but that is irelevant to what it is and to the fact that they were informed.

You may not accept the Christian concept of God, or beleived that his will is X. But that is irelevant, you asked how its rebellion, it was explained. If of course God doesn't exsist then he doesn't have any authority (because he doesn't exsist) and it isn't rebellion. Gods exsistance though is independant from what I may beleive or what anyone may beleive, he either exsists or he doesn't. So would any authority over us be independant of what we believe.

One last time for this post: If Mormons are right than leaving Christs church is going against God's will. God having authority to insist we follow his revealed will, and furthermore Mormons having been taught that will and even made covenants to follow that will who then go against that will are resisting (aka rebelling) against God's revealed will and they are fully aware of that will even if they don't believe it.

This answers your question:

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

If your question was this instead: "If the LDS church isn't true how is it rebellion?" or "If God doesn't have authority over him how is it rebellion?" then the question would obviously be that it isn't, which I've said multiple times.

But because Mormons believe it is going against his will, and that he does have authority then that is how they go about calling it rebellion. Once again people, you can argue the premise but its sound within its paradigm.

[Mahone]

Number 2 (Number 1 to a degree because God would qualify as our ruler to a degree), defiance of Gods authority to give you commandments such as, don't kill people, don't worship Zeus, follow the prophet ect and insist you obey them. Not thinking he has this authority is not the same as him not having it.

So your entire point is based on your opinion that he does exist and has that authority? I'm sorry, that doesn't fly with me. I cam claim I have authority from God to rule over England, and no-one would believe me. They have been informed that I have that authority, but will choose not to believe me. Now obviously I don't have that authority, but if I really did, do you think it could have been said they were rebelling against me because they didn't believe me and therefore didn't do exactly as I told them to do? That makes no sense at all. They had no idea I really had that authority, even though I did tell them. If I told a group of women I was a police man and that they needed to leave the area immediately, they'd ask for my ID (or they should). If I cannot produce it, they'd think I was being an idiot and pretending to be a policeman. They'd most likely tell me to go away. Now if I really was a policeman, could I say in court that they were rebelling against me for not obeying me? Not really.

If you are trying to maintain that rebellion is limited as a word to resisting earthly legal authority than of course it isn't rebellion (that's why the phrase against God is added), of course that means Judas didn't rebel agaisnt Christ. I can define rebellion as only applying to God meaning the American Revelutionary war wasn't a rebellion against England, because well, they aren't God. Isn't it fun to pretend you are the arbiter of the meaning of words? Its pretty simple, either God exsists and he has authority over us, or he doesn't and he doesn't its pretty cut and dried. And if he does have said authority than resitance is rebellion because well, you're resisting his authority which is pretty commonly refered to as rebellion.

Dravin, I have to say I really don't like your tone. Your arguments are turning ad hominem which is pretty immature. First you imply that I'm stupid and now you are telling me I'm pretending to have authority over the meaning of words. I cannot change the meaning of a word, but I can use what is the correct definition in my arguments. There was no change to the correct meaning of the word. If someone is in authority, but cannot prove it and is not accepted to be in authority by the person, then they cannot possibly be rebelling - otherwise in my examples above, the court could sentence those women for rebelling against that policeman and God could sentence those people to enternal damnation for rebelling because they didn't obey me or accept my authority. Do you really think He would do that, when they had absolutely no idea I was telling the truth? Judas is a very bad example, He didn't at any point not believe in Jesus - so yes, he was rebelling.

People can and do use rebellion as resitance to other than established legal authority.

Only when the authority is otherwise accepted by the person in question.

You pretty much said what I just said. If they never beleived and were baptised, took the sacrament, endowed and ect they lied, which I furthermore stated I didn't beleive was the case meaning they didn't lie and they did beleive at some point admittedly that latter half was implied not stated out in the open. Of course if they did beleive that means they told God they understood his will and further covenant to do it meaning they aren't ignorant of his will which is my point they just don't acknowledge it as such anymore but that is irelevant to what it is and to the fact that they were informed.

Since when did the word acknowledge come to mean believe? They are two different things, which you seem to be doing a lot with my posts. You take my words and twist them to emphasis your point, even though that was not what I said.

You may not accept the Christian concept of God, or beleived that his will is X. But that is irelevant, you asked how its rebellion, it was explained. If of course God doesn't exsist then he doesn't have any authority (because he doesn't exsist) and it isn't rebellion. Gods exsistance though is independant from what I may beleive or what anyone may beleive, he either exsists or he doesn't. So would any authority over us be independant of what we believe.

One last time for this post: If Mormons are right than leaving Christs church is going against God's will. God having authority to insist we follow his revealed will, and furthermore Mormons having been taught that will and even made covenants to follow that will who then go against that will are resisting (aka rebelling) against God's revealed will and they are fully aware of that will even if they don't believe it.

See my examples as to what you logic seems to support.

If your question was this instead: "If the LDS church isn't true how is it rebellion?" or "If God doesn't have authority over him how is it rebellion?" then the question would obviously be that it isn't, which I've said multiple times.

Clearly, but no, that was not my question. Your logic just doesn't make sense. You seem to have very narrow minded views.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Mahone

[BenRaines]

Keep it civil folks.

Ben Raines

[Mahone]

Keep it civil folks.

Ben Raines

Sorry. I do try, but when typing in the early hours of the morning and already running behind on sleep, I tend to get grouchy but wooohooo it's now the easter holidays. But being support staff, I'm still expected to go in to work. D'oh. Should be a quiet week though, this is one of the great advantages to working in education

[Dravin]

So your entire point is based on your opinion that he does exist and has that authority? I'm sorry, that doesn't fly with me.

You are asking somebody who beleives in God why another person who isn't following God as the first person beleives he's command them to is rebelling against him. Now I suppose if your premise is, "An LDS God only has authroity over LDS people.*" Then yes, your position is logical within its premise (it isn't rebellion). Can you accept the logic (not the premise, I'm not asking you to accept the premise), "If God does exsist, and he does have authority over you, by not obeying him you are rebelling."? My whole point is that the people you are asking the question of do hold the premise and thus it isn't a surprise they hold its rebellion nor is it illogical to do so given their premise.

If I'm aruging from the premise that, "People who wear green are evil." and argue that, "You are wearing green, thus you are evil." it is logically sound given the premise, you can dispute the premise which is fine (I would as well), but the logic is internally sound.

I cam claim I have authority from God to rule over England, and no-one would believe me.

But if such was actually the case then you would have that authority, independent of what they believed. I can claim the theory of evolution is fase this does not make it so, if I make the opposite claim that it is true that does not make it so. The theroy of evolution is correct or incorrect entirely independant of what I personally beleive on the matter. Truth is independant of belief, which yes means my belief that God exsists does not make him exist (and conversly) somebody's belief that God doesn't exsist does not make him not exsist, his exsistance (and subsequent authority if any) are independant of anyones thoughts on the matter*. And yes, that also means my belief that the premise I'm operating from does not mean such is the case, just as your belief that the premise is false does not mean such is the case.

This though is a tangent on whether its logical given various premises to do X, but may not even be a tangent and more of a different point entirely.

* And yes, this means if it is actually the case that God only holds authority over those who believe he does such would be independant of my assurtion otherwise, just as if he holds authority over everyone no matter whether they believe he does is independant any assertions on the matter. Which was the point I was trying to get acrossed with the many, "If he has authority he has it or he doesn't and he doesn't, doesn't matter what you believe on the subject."

Clearly, but no, that was not my question.

You asked how its rebellion, it was explained to you how it would be rebellion, if the question is, "Is it objectively rebellion if you don't believe?" well, that depends which premise is correct and that boils down to assertion when talking about God so the only answer is, "If it is it is, if it isn't it isn't." We can make assertions on the matter, we can even make convincing ones but the actual truth of the matter is still independant of what either side is saying.

the court could sentence those women for rebelling against that policeman and God could sentence those people to enternal damnation for rebelling because they didn't obey me or accept my authority. Do you really think He would do that, when they had absolutely no idea I was telling the truth? Judas is a very bad example, He didn't at any point not believe in Jesus - so yes, he was rebelling.

The analogy is more apt if the the cop shows them his badge and they respond with, "Its fake."

Remember, we are talking about exmormons, they do have an idea that what they are doing is rebelling (they've been shown the badge), they just don't believe it (just like I have the idea that not being Roman Catholic is going against God's will I just don't believe it, but if the Catholics are right, I fully expect to be held accountable for that, I was presented with the truth, now my level of belief will be taken into account as to just how accountable or just how flagrant the rebellion was, or maybe not, I'm not overly familiar with the Catholic ideas on judgment). The end result of your argument is if I now become atheist and no longer believe in the moral authority of God and his commandments I can rape, murder and pillage and I won't be held accountable for that, I don't know (believe anymore) that I shouldn't do these things (at least not in the sense of God has commanded me not to, society has its own ideas of right and wrong) and won't be held accountable. I don't think this is your position so I'm pretty sure I'm missing something.

Is there a distinction between accountable and rebelling I'm missing? Because if I'm accountable to God for my actions that implies he has authority, else why would I be accountable to him?

Also, there is an assertions here I feel I needs to be corrected, that is, "Rebelling against God = Damnation.*" I don't believe so, we all rebel in our own ways, and as I believe even you accept I spend time in rebellion against God, I don't believe I'm damned to hell because I willfully choose to call my brother a fool, occasionally find a lie escaping my lips or don't go to church one Sunday even though I know I should. Even though I believe God has commanded me in these things, and that he has the authority to command such.

* You can be damned for rebelling don't get me wrong, but just because you rebel to some degree does not make one irredeemably damned or anything like that.

Your logic just doesn't make sense.

Honestly it sounds more like my premise (though I suppose that could be the logic of the premise) doesn't make sense to you, the logic operating using that premise is pretty straight forward. It pretty much boils down to, "If I'm right I'm right, if I'm not I'm not."

P.S. I apologize, I shouldn't have gone to insults.

Edited April 3, 2009 by Dravin

[Palerider]

Do you have a source for this?

That's what I thought at first (see my earlier post), but it turns out that that case was decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and (as near as I can tell) is only good law within the state of Oklahoma.

yes I do.....this was the instructions I recieved from my Stake President when someone sent me a letter wanting their name removed....I as the Bishop, knew there were transgressions, he told me to hold a Church Council.....and it was the training we recived in Bishop's Training....

[MarginOfError]

yes I do.....this was the instructions I recieved from my Stake President when someone sent me a letter wanting their name removed....I as the Bishop, knew there were transgressions, he told me to hold a Church Council.....and it was the training we recived in Bishop's Training....

This seems to be contrary to the instructions in the 2006 version of the Church's Handbooks. It says there that if a member requests to have his or her name removed from the records, the priesthood leadership should proceed regardless of whether or not they suspect or have evidence of transgression. Priesthood leaders are instructed to note any allegations or evidence of transgression on the Report of Administrative Action so that it may be considered if the person ever chooses to seek readmission. No mention of disciplinary action is mentioned.

[Palerider]

This seems to be contrary to the instructions in the 2006 version of the Church's Handbooks. It says there that if a member requests to have his or her name removed from the records, the priesthood leadership should proceed regardless of whether or not they suspect or have evidence of transgression. Priesthood leaders are instructed to note any allegations or evidence of transgression on the Report of Administrative Action so that it may be considered if the person ever chooses to seek readmission. No mention of disciplinary action is mentioned.

perhaps it does......however....Pale was released around that time and put out to Pasture.......

sorry....i was ousted in 2008.....and I did the council just as I stated......maybe thats why.....I did not run into any issues....this did take place before 2006....I served about 8 yrs and I stand by what I said....is it wrong today..maybe so....It wasn't then....

Edited April 4, 2009 by Palerider

[Palerider]

I think this is the case someone mentioned earlier....

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

and this probally changed the rules going by all the opinions

[MarginOfError]

perhaps it does......however....Pale was released around that time and put out to Pasture.......

sorry....i was ousted in 2008.....and I did the council just as I stated......maybe thats why.....I did not run into any issues....this did take place before 2006....I served about 8 yrs and I stand by what I said....is it wrong today..maybe so....It wasn't then....

And that's fine. That's the reason I made the point of saying "the most current version" of the handbooks. I know that these procedures have been changing for the last 20 years. As I understand it, 20 years ago, the only way to remove a person's records was through a disciplinary council and excommunication, regardless of whether or not the person and requested the action.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, Guinn is the one. Technically only good law in Oklahoma, but I suspect it had an influence on Church policy worldwide.

[Palerider]

Yeah, Guinn is the one. Technically only good law in Oklahoma, but I suspect it had an influence on Church policy worldwide.

apparently it has made a difference on church policy and other churches as well......

[Jim108]

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.

Believe in Jesus. He can and will forgive. ...and the best part is, no person can kick you out of Christ's Church. God Bless, Jim

[Palerider]

Jim.....alot of churches will remove you from membership for misconduct or request removal...

http://www.cbdelta.com/Media/Docs/ByLawsAsOfNovember2005.pdf

No. 1-03-1594, Ervin v. Lilydale Progressive Missionary Baptist Church

First Assembly of God - Jefferson City, MO - Constitution & By-Laws

one wonders which church you associate yourself with...seems all churches have by-laws that can get you removed..

You can google the subject and read for yourself....

Edited April 4, 2009 by Palerider

[Dravin]

Unless I'm mistaken from the comments I've seen Jim make he isn't a church guy, he's a, "Churches are great if they help you become closer to Christ but they are men's creations not God's." guy.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong Jim.

Edited April 4, 2009 by Dravin

[Palerider]

Unless I'm mistaken from the comments I've seen Jim make he isn't a church guy, he's a, "Churches are great if they help you become closer to Christ but they are men's creations not God's." guy.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong Jim.

are we saying he owns his own church...without a steeple..:)

[Jim108]

Unless I'm mistaken from the comments I've seen Jim make he isn't a church guy, he's a, "Churches are great if they help you become closer to Christ but they are men's creations not God's." guy.

Correct me if I'm reading you wrong Jim.

Dravin, you are correct, thank you, Jim

[Jim108]

This is Christ's Church. It is the believers. You and I and anyone who believes. It does not matter your religion. If you believe then you have membership. ...and there are no building and no temples. The Church literally is the body of believers. You see. It can't be destroyed by men. If you tear down all the temples the most important Temple will still stand. It is Christ's Church. Christ's Temple. Brothers and Sisters, is it not wonderful. Jim

[Jim108]

This is Christ's Church. It is the believers. You and I and anyone who believes. It does not matter your religion. If you believe then you have membership. ...and there are no building and no temples. The Church literally is the body of believers. You see. It can't be destroyed by men. If you tear down all the temples the most important Temple will still stand. It is Christ's Church. Christ's Temple. Brothers and Sisters, is it not wonderful. Jim