Excommunication for Inactivity?

[Rico]

Ok, I highly doubt this one, but I really want to know if this is true or not.

A little background: Back when I was the EQ Secretary, the Elder's Quorum Presidency was putting together a home teaching list. The EQ President saw one member's name and said, "That person doesn't need to be home taught, they need to be excommunicated."

I said, "Why? What did she do wrong?"

He answered, "She's inactive. She's been through the temple and knows that she's supposed to be in church."

He went on to say that he was going to bring it up to the Bishopric at the next meeting.

Now, maybe he knew something that the rest of us didn't know about her, but I was a little taken back. Excommunication for inactivity may seem like overkill but in some way it does make sense.

This has bothered me for awhile so maybe someone else can shed some light. Can someone be excommunicated for inactivity?

[BrioCyrain]

If people got excommunicated for inactivity I think a good fraction of our members would go down the drain.

So I am guessing the closest thing is he knows something or they have been inactive since the day they got baptized or something drastic like that....but who knows

[marshac]

If people got excommunicated for inactivity I think a good fraction of our members would go down the drain.

So I am guessing the closest thing is he knows something or they have been inactive since the day they got baptized or something drastic like that....but who knows

I'm not sure excommunicating a newly-minted member is going to give them any desire to reexamine the church (and their role within it) down the road.

[BenRaines]

First of all an Elder's Quorum President has nothing to do with whether someone is excommunicated or not. Even him suggesting it to the Bishop would do nothing. I have been a branch president for several years and served on the Stake High Council. No one I know of was ever excommunicated for inactivity.

Ben Raines

[Wingnut]

First of all, your EQP shouldn't have been saying things like that to anyone but the bishop.

Second, he may have come from an era when church leaders did do just that. When my dad was in a bishopric in the early 80's, it was fairly common practice (in the are in which we lived) for wards to have close to 100% attendance on a regular basis, because they excommunicated everyone who wasn't active. That isn't so common a practice anymore. I've known (or known of) several people who either did it or knew of it in that similar time frame, but I haven't heard of it happening anytime in the last 20 years.

[marshac]

it was fairly common practice (in the are in which we lived) for wards to have close to 100% attendance on a regular basis, because they excommunicated everyone who wasn't active.

talk about 'tough love'

How long would they have to be inactive for before getting cut loose? We were inactive for nearly 4 months due to the kiddo before going back to church this past Sunday.

[Snow]

I was excommunicated for inactivity, three times.

Four times for sloth.

Once for avarice. Twice for licorice...

... and a partridge in a pear tree.

[Rico]

Well the EQ President is part of the reason why we aren't in church here anymore, but that's another story. :)

Ever since we decided to go inactive, I have had the worry in the back of my mind whether they would excommunicate us for that inactivity. (We plan on going back once we leave this tiny rock with one branch).

[MarginOfError]

It used to be that the only way to remove a person from Church records was to excommunicate them. When this administrative issue combined with pressure to have higher activity rates, leaders met the pressure by excommunicating less-actives to reduce their denominator.

Beginning in the 80's, the Church began to change its focus. Excommunication was no longer allowed for removing names from Church records, and members were given an option to have their name removed via a written request.

Certainly in our time, the counsel is that disciplinary action should be reserved for serious transgression and not applied lightly. The first solution should always be to help the person come unto Christ, and never make it more difficult to do so.

[Dravin]

I was excommunicated for inactivity, three times.

Four times for sloth.

Once for avarice. Twice for licorice...

... and a partridge in a pear tree.

I daresay if it was red 'licorice' you fully deserved it.

[NeuroTypical]

I was Exec Sec once in a ward where a certain lady was on the rolls. Certain lady had actually left the church and become a pastor with the church across the street. The Bishopric would (once every year or so) go ask her if she was certain she still wanted to be listed on the rolls of this church, because they for the life of them couldn't understand why she would. She was never excommunicated, although she did eventually (like 3 years later) request a name removal.

LM

[miztrniceguy]

LM...maybe she was trying to keep her options open, all her bases covered.

[WmLee]

Ben, you are very right here; the EQP has nothing to do with an inactive sister and her excommunication. Suggesting it (and I question if that is his place), to anyone other than the Bishop, is a mistake.

Wingnut, perhaps in your area this was the practice, but I still have a little problem thinking church admin would support it. My grandfather served as Bishop during most of the 70’s. When I was first called in the early 80’s (in a different county) he and I talked a lot. I was feeling like a hard nose and suggested just that; if they don’t want to be here, take ‘em off the records, (again, the number game). He explained we deal with individuals and their salvation, not numbers. So that wasn’t common or even considered in our area.

M-Error, again, I think you are mistaken here. My grandfather was a “by the book” sort of guy being retired military. But he dealt with a lot of inactive members and we discussed it a lot. Inactivity is one reason for Ward Missionaries. In the 70’s, If someone was a member and didn’t want to attend church or have Home/Visiting Teachers they were placed on a “Do Not Contact” list but their records remained in the Ward.

[Wingnut]

talk about 'tough love'

How long would they have to be inactive for before getting cut loose? We were inactive for nearly 4 months due to the kiddo before going back to church this past Sunday.

I don't know how long they would wait. I was young enough that I don't even remember my dad being in the bishopric at the time. I don't imagine that four months would be the cutoff.

Ever since we decided to go inactive, I have had the worry in the back of my mind whether they would excommunicate us for that inactivity. (We plan on going back once we leave this tiny rock with one branch).

I doubt it's anything you have to worry about. Focuses have changed and bishops/leaders tend to try to reactivate now more than cut out.

Wingnut, perhaps in your area this was the practice, but I still have a little problem thinking church admin would support it. My grandfather served as Bishop during most of the 70’s. When I was first called in the early 80’s (in a different county) he and I talked a lot. I was feeling like a hard nose and suggested just that; if they don’t want to be here, take ‘em off the records, (again, the number game). He explained we deal with individuals and their salvation, not numbers. So that wasn’t common or even considered in our area.

I lived in Southern California at the time, but I've since talked to people who lived in New England at the time and either participated in or also knew of the practice. As MOE said, excommunication was the only way to remove someone from the records. I also know that now, if someone moves out of your ward boundaries and you are unable to locate any forwarding information for them (from new tenants or neighbors or family), that you can ship their records out of your ward to Salt Lake City, to a "dead letter office" of sorts, so that you don't have them clogging up your lists anymore, but neither are they being removed from the records. I don't know when that practice started, but I'm guessing it also wasn't available in the early 80's.

[MarginOfError]

Ben, you are very right here; the EQP has nothing to do with an inactive sister and her excommunication. Suggesting it (and I question if that is his place), to anyone other than the Bishop, is a mistake.

Wingnut, perhaps in your area this was the practice, but I still have a little problem thinking church admin would support it. My grandfather served as Bishop during most of the 70’s. When I was first called in the early 80’s (in a different county) he and I talked a lot. I was feeling like a hard nose and suggested just that; if they don’t want to be here, take ‘em off the records, (again, the number game). He explained we deal with individuals and their salvation, not numbers. So that wasn’t common or even considered in our area.

M-Error, again, I think you are mistaken here. My grandfather was a “by the book” sort of guy being retired military. But he dealt with a lot of inactive members and we discussed it a lot. Inactivity is one reason for Ward Missionaries. In the 70’s, If someone was a member and didn’t want to attend church or have Home/Visiting Teachers they were placed on a “Do Not Contact” list but their records remained in the Ward.

I don't think I'm mistaken at all. I think your grandfather was just a wise man.

The picture I was trying to illustrate--which I apparently failed to do very well--was that there was a push to improve Church activity. The original intent of this message was to seek out those that were not attending and reconvert them to the gospel. Unfortunately, the metric by which success was measured was Sacrament meeting attendance percentage. If you push people enough toward a metric, they will find a way to better the metric. In this case, when people got focused in on higher percentages, they quickly discovered that reducing the denominator was a simpler and faster way to achieve success. In essence, they've perverted the message and overemphasized the metric.*

So, no, I don't think I'm mistaken. I still hold that what I described really was taking place. And because of that, I commend your grandfather for being wise enough to understand and hold on to the message and the purpose of the counsel.

*as a side note, this might be another thing to add to the 'mormon culturalisms' thread. We've run the church like a business for so long that it really shouldn't be surprising that we found ourselves honing in on objective metrics as a measure of successful Church administration.

[theoriginalavatar]

If people got excommunicated for inactivity I think a good fraction of our members would go down the drain.

The last actual numbers I saw were from 2006. At that time, the Church estimated that only one third of the members - about 4 million out of 12 million - were considered active. Total membership has, of course, grown since then. As you said, if the church excommunicated members solely for inactivity...

[john doe]

While that sort of thing may have happened in some areas in years past, I doubt that it was church policy at the time, and certainly isn't now. Excommunication nowadays is generally reserved for expulsion of blatant sinners with no desire to repent. Bishops these days don't even have the sole power to excommunicate these days, a church court held under the direction of the stake president makes those decisions.

I would imagine today that if a unit started to have mass reductions in member numbers such a bump would gain the attention of area authorities who would come asking questions about what is going on.

[rameumptom]

I was excommunicated for inactivity, three times.

Four times for sloth.

Once for avarice. Twice for licorice...

... and a partridge in a pear tree.

Isn't it about time for your next excommunication? It's been what, 2 years since your last one?

Of course, from what I hear, Snow was soooo inactive that he didn't even show up for the proceedings.

[Mute]

I've never heard of them ever excommunicating someone for inactivity. I doubt they ever would because there are a lot of inactive members who have been through the temple.

[Wingnut]

I've never heard of them ever excommunicating someone for inactivity. I doubt they ever would because there are a lot of inactive members who have been through the temple.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, as temple endowment does not preclude one from being able to be excommunicated.

[Mute]

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, as temple endowment does not preclude one from being able to be excommunicated.

It has to do with Rico quoting the elder's quorum president. "She's inactive. She's been through the temple and knows that she's supposed to be in church."

[InquisitiveSoul]

Not to speak out of turn, but i'm curious: do local church leaders put more emphasis on working with inactive members who have been through the temple over inactive members who have not?

[Gwen]

in our branch they don't.... we'll take anyone we can get lol

[MarginOfError]

Not to speak out of turn, but i'm curious: do local church leaders put more emphasis on working with inactive members who have been through the temple over inactive members who have not?

To put a more PC spin on what Gwen has said, wards are instructed to prayerfully identify the individuals that are best prepared to return to the Gospel. If they have been to the temple, the goal is to help them return and keep their covenants. If they haven't, the goal is to help them get to the temple and keep their covenants.

So I guess it isn't so much "we'll take anyone we can get" as it is "we'll welcome anyone who's willing to come back."

[Gwen]

lol thank you moe..... that does sound worse than i meant it.

in a small branch you are appreciative of anyone that comes and contributes to the meetings (even in the form of comments during lessons). we have had times when non members came just for the fellowship or to be with family, no intention of joining. we were always happy to see them. we have some that only come to the activities, always welcome.