What happens to members that LEAVE the church

[KitCarson]

Very dear friends of mine have decided to LEAVE the LDS church. The parents have quit wearing their garments and they no longer bring their children to Sunday Services (7 months now). The wife told me they will not be "coming back" and the issues are "doctrinal."

Does the LDS church just treat them as "inactive" from here on? My understanding is that as long as they do not join another church or are not baptized by another denomination, they aren't excummunicated. This allows them a chance to reconsider and "reactivate" at a later date.

Is this what happens?

[john doe]

If they don't ask to have their names removed from the church and do not get excommunicated for sins they have committed, they are still considered members. That would make them inactive members.

[HEthePrimate]

I leave the LDS Church at least once a week. Then I go home, have dinner, sleep, and go to work the next day. Next time we have church meetings, they seem happy to have me back. They don't even ask for an explanation!

Just having a little fun with you. Seriously, unless a person commits a major transgression or asks to have her name removed, they will simply be considered inactive if they stop attending church.

Peace,

HEP

[Torch]

As the others have said, they will simply be counted as inactive members unless they formally request that their names be removed.

[NeuroTypical]

A few years back, there was a lady on the records of our ward. She had not only left the church, she had actually become an ordained pastor in another congregation. And there she was on our rolls. This Bishop just contacted her once a year to ask her if she wished to remain on our rolls. After a few years, she finally had her name removed.

Basically, if someone has been baptized, they have entered into a baptismal covenant. Choosing to not follow your end of the covenant, is not the same thing as getting out of the covenant. To get out of the covenant, you have to make a formal request, fully understanding what you are doing.

[mnn727]

Basically, if someone has been baptized, they have entered into a baptismal covenant. Choosing to not follow your end of the covenant, is not the same thing as getting out of the covenant. To get out of the covenant, you have to make a formal request, fully understanding what you are doing.

This is very important from our point of view and we believe from God's point of view, this is why they should ask to havetheir names removed from the rolls of the Church.

Of course those that no longer believe in the teachings of the Church don't see it as important.

The one thing that having their names removed would do would mean we wouldn't keep trying to visit them.

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not sure what to make of the integrity side of being inactive vs. removed. After all, if they are simply inactive, as others have said, they could come back. The reality seems to be that well over 8 million LDS are largely inactive, with some parts of the world more so than others. See (a pro-LDS source, from what I can tell): trends in LDS Church Growth

[Suzie]

I'm not sure what to make of the integrity side of being inactive vs. removed. After all, if they are simply inactive, as others have said, they could come back. The reality seems to be that well over 8 million LDS are largely inactive, with some parts of the world more so than others. See (a pro-LDS source, from what I can tell): trends in LDS Church Growth

Yes and that's why when we boast about 13 million members and over we should think twice because a big chunk of that number are inactive.

[prisonchaplain]

Suzie...not sure which way is better. My own fellowship has 1.8 million members in the United States, but well over 3 million adherents. We welcome new members, but do not pressure attendees. Personally, I would consider counseling a regular attendee about perhaps seeking baptism, but would really hesitate to say anything like, "So...why haven't you become a member yet?" Nothing wrong with doing so, but it's just not our church culture.

Yet, I have heard of Baptist churches with over 200 members, and maybe 60 in attendance. I attended one service in which the pastor gave an invitation for those who wanted to "accept Christ." Then he asked for those who would like to "recommit their lives to Christ." Finally, "And for those who would like to join our church, or transfer membership..." Again, nothing wrong...just a different church culture.

[Maureen]

...We welcome new members, but do not pressure attendees....

Amy: I don’t object to the concept of a deity, but I’m baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance. (The Big Bang Theory, The Lunar Excitation, Season 3)

I watch The Big Bang Theory and just had to quote this great line from one of its episodes. :)

M.

[Jamie123]

Seriously, unless a person commits a major transgression or asks to have her name removed, they will simply be considered inactive if they stop attending church.

If they don't ask to have their names removed from the church and do not get excommunicated for sins they have committed, they are still considered members.

Of course those that no longer believe in the teachings of the Church don't see it as important.

Now this is something I've never understood. I've often heard stories of members being excommunicated for apostasy, and it's mentioned on the Wikipedia article on excommunication (Excommunication - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia):

Excommunication is generally reserved for what are seen as the most serious sins, including committing serious crimes like murder or child abuse and incest; committing adultery, polygamy, or homosexual conduct; apostasy, abortion, teaching false doctrines, or openly criticizing LDS leaders.

According to the dictionary (Apostasy | Define Apostasy at Dictionary.com) apostasy means:

...a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc.

So surely admitting that you no longer believe in the Church and requesting to leave constitutes apostasy, and ought therefore by rights to be grounds for excommunication. It's no use saying a person "hasn't committed any major sin". By ceasing to believe they have committed the major sin of apostasy.

[Guest gopecon]

For purposes of excommunication, I believe that apostacy means people who begin to actively preach against the Church or its doctrines (as the quote says, "teaching false doctrines, or openly criticizing LDS leaders". These are the fruits of apostacy). Quietly leaving due to disbelief is not the type of apostacy that would warrant excommunication. Requesting to leave or have your records removed is not excommunication, although some of the consequences are similar if you ever want to return.

[Guest mysticmorini]

Most people don't leave the church lightly. In my experiance those who leave (not the ones that go inactive because they are lazy) the church usually have some reservations about it. Excommunicating those members would only further hender them from ever returning.

[Torch]

For purposes of excommunication, I believe that apostacy means people who begin to actively preach against the Church or its doctrines (as the quote says, "teaching false doctrines, or openly criticizing LDS leaders". These are the fruits of apostacy). Quietly leaving due to disbelief is not the type of apostacy that would warrant excommunication. Requesting to leave or have your records removed is not excommunication, although some of the consequences are similar if you ever want to return.

You are correct. When I had doctrinal discussions with the bishop, he mentioned that I could believe anything I wanted or be inactive and that I could stay on the rolls as a member so long as I didn't "apostatize" or preach out against the church.

[spamlds]

There are different reasons people "leave the Church" and the outcome is largely based on those reasons.

Some people get offended by a person and they redirect their resentment towards the institution. Some of them fall into the traps mentioned in Matthew 13--persecution, worldliness, etc. Some people drift away because they're spiritually lazy. Some people just can't make the transition from belief to faith.

Some people have a secret sin that they are unwilling to confess and forsake and they just wear themselves out going through the motions. In many cases, rather than admit that they are at fault, it becomes the Church's fault in their eyes.

Some people apostatize, lose faith, or adopt teachings that are contrary to or oppose those of the Church.

There are a lot of different reasons a person leaves. The end result of all of them is the same: the influence of the Holy Ghost diminishes in their life. The Spirit strives with them for a time, but eventually the Lord will respect their agency and the Holy Ghost will depart. When they break their covenants, they lose the protection and blessings of those covenants. They just become "natural" men and women.

Unless a person formally requests that his name be removed, the Church will maintain contact at whatever level they're comfortable with. There is a member of our branch that I work with, who has no intentions of ever coming to the Church. However, we're cordial with each other and I inquire periodically about the individual's welfare to see if they have any needs. That person can remain indefinitely in that state and we'll simply hope that one day, he/she will feel the Lord's Spirit calling. Maybe some event will make the individual desire the contact of home teachers, visiting teachers, etc. People can and do change their minds and come back after years of inactivity. One fellow I knew was inactive for over 20 years and, after he had a heart attack, he became fully active and totally enthusiastic. He had some kind of near-death experience that changed him dramatically.

As long as a person maintains fellowship with the Church, it is our duty to provide a watch-care for them. That's our part of the baptismal covenant. If an individual bristles at that and asks for his/her name to be removed, then the spiritual effects are no different upon him--he's already lost the companionship of the Spirit through disobedience. However, it does end our responsibility to watch over and care for the individual.

In most cases, we still feel a desire to do this. We don't "shun" people or turn them away from attending Church. However, our level of obligation is different. We're no longer under covenant to provide that same watch-care. We might continue to do so, inasmuch as the person will permit it, but it's done out of a general sense of Christian kindness at this point.

If a person is hostile or makes threats, we'll avoid contact altogether. We don't send home teachers. Missionaries might accidentally knock on their door when tracting, but they don't expressly seek them out.

[KitCarson]

So if the family remains inactive, not excommunicated, and they don't ask for their names to be removed, their temple ordinances and sealings remain intact? Their eternal marriage remains valid even if they never reactivate? Their children born under the covenant remain sealed to them for eternity whether or not they are even baptized and confirmed as members. (The oldest child was baptized at age 8 but the younger two are only 6 and 3).

Before I recently became a member of the LDS church, I had been a member of several different protestant churches throughout my adult life. I find it humorous that all of them have me as a member "on the books". So I am being counted as a member by FOUR different denominations including the religion I was raised in. In fact, my childhood religion refuses to remove my name despite my requests. My name is being held "hostage" :)

So don't be so critical of the LDS keeping names on the books. Seems all religions do that. I once read a statistic about the number of "unchurched" in America. Seems that number is far from accurate if many people are being counted as members by multiple churches.

[john doe]

Well, here's the rub: You can be a member of the church 'on the books', and even be sealed and have children Born in the Covenant, but when it comes down to judgment day, how well we kept the covenants we made with God will come into play. If we willingly enter into all those covenants with God and promptly (or even sometime later) go inactive or fail to do our part to live up to those covenants, then we have no promise. We don't make 'one-and-done' covenants with God, it's a daily process and decision that we will do the things He asks us to do.

So yes, it is possible for a person to be sealed in the temple, and have children born in the covenant, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we will automatically gain those rewards promised to us if we leave the temple, decide it's all a lie, and walk away never to believe again. God is under no obligation to hold up His end of the bargain if we don't hold up ours.

[mordorbund]

A few years back, there was a lady on the records of our ward. She had not only left the church, she had actually become an ordained pastor in another congregation. And there she was on our rolls. This Bishop just contacted her once a year to ask her if she wished to remain on our rolls. After a few years, she finally had her name removed.

It's like the old adage, "You can leave the Church, but the Church won't leave you alone." Or something like that.

[blackestate]

But... If you "leave" the church, for what ever reason and your still a member, you are still under covenant, and accountable for your actions in that light. Where if you remove your name, the covenant is removed, and then you are not held accountable to the rules of the covenant.

If you do not live worthy of the covenant, it does not just go away, it can become a negative in your life. So for a lazy person who lives most of the gospel like most of us, being inactive is not terrible. If being inacticve is based on not wanting to live by the rules, then you may be better off to remove the covenant (name removal). But if you do not believe....

[Guest gopecon]

John Doe is right about the efficacy of temple covenants for the inactive. While the sealing may be on the books, it is not likely to bless the lives of those who have chosen to leave activity.

I don't think that there is a "benefit" to having your name removed as far as getting someone "off the hook" for covenants that you have made. Once you make covenants with God you are obligated to keep them or to be otherwise held accountable (priesthood covenants being a possible exception as you are not permitted to use the priesthood with your name removed). Having your name removed just means that you won't have home teachers or other visitors from the Church to remind you of your covenants.

[Dravin]

Once you make covenants with God you are obligated to keep them or to be otherwise held accountable (priesthood covenants being a possible exception as you are not permitted to use the priesthood with your name removed).

I don't think priesthood is an exception, it's just one who has removed their name from the records of the Church is essentially automatically unworthy to exercise their priesthood and thus doing so is taking the name of the Lord in vain. Inasmuch as you must exercise the priesthood to fulfill the oath and covenant you've made the obligation is still there, you are just incapable of meeting it until you repent.

Doctrine and Covenants 84 seems to be in agreement (at least concerning the Melchizedek priesthood) that you don't get released from your priesthood covenants:

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

Very dear friends of mine have decided to LEAVE the LDS church. The parents have quit wearing their garments and they no longer bring their children to Sunday Services (7 months now). The wife told me they will not be "coming back" and the issues are "doctrinal."

Does the LDS church just treat them as "inactive" from here on? My understanding is that as long as they do not join another church or are not baptized by another denomination, they aren't excummunicated. This allows them a chance to reconsider and "reactivate" at a later date.

Is this what happens?

I vowed to never return back to the LDS Church.

I attacked the Leaders, founder, and the doctrines of the LDS Church.

I attended various denominations. Shifting from "Born again" to Charismatic, to nondenominational, to Calvinist, to Agnosticism. I attended an AG church, worked at an AG Church and questioned my faith in God in general.

I was praised by counter-cult online ministry groups. I came on pro-LDS discussion boards and attacked, and subsequently was banned (Ask those who still hang out at MADB now MD&D).

Not once had I ever asked for my name to be removed from the Church records. I had thought about it, even talked with a Bishop about it, but then life just simply got in the way and it was furthest from my mind.

I have lived in sin on numerous occasions, rebellious, drunkard, homeless, detached, arrogant, and suffered a big ego of entitlement.

Today, I am now an active member of the Church, holding two callings, married to a wonderful Lady who is a RM and we have a beautiful little girl we are blessed with.

I am very active in the LDS Apologetics field.

Why did I come back? Because, I finally received the long sought after question. I really sat down and read the Book of Mormon. I had read it several times, but never received an answer to Moroni. I now realized I never truly had a testimony of the Church, when I thought I had.

This was all despite the fact that I still struggled to reconcile certain doctrinal issues with what I have come to learn and understand, as well as some historical accounts. Despite these doubts, they have slowly dissipated and were replaced with a reality of truth and revelation of those truths.

Do I still hold those doubts? Not really because they are not important.

What do I personally say to those who rattle off "Well, I was a member held such and such calling in the Church and know Mormonism very well!"? My response is - so what? Who cares about the callings you held. They don't do anything for your testimony. They are just mere positions one held at one time. The real question is within the context of whether or not they truly understand Mormon doctrine.

If the couple left because of Doctrinal issues, then I guarantee you they started entertaining ideas presented to them about the Church that put those doctrines in question. Not only doctrines, but the history of the Church.

Take for instance, I had one of the full time missionaries ask me what is the most craftiest Anti-Mormon argument I personally know. My honest and objective answer, the Adam-God doctrine.

As to answering the question - what happens to members that leave the Church? It is quite ambiguous because those individuals who leave the Church because of doctrinal issues tend to become apostates in the sense that they start aligning themselves with the Anti-Mormons (or counter-cult ministries) in an effort to witness in love. Some have been known to go into evangelical Christian Churches and become teachers of Sunday School Programs where they talk about how to witness to Mormons, and speaking engagements about their "tenure" as members of the LDS Faith.

Others tend to become either Atheists or Agnostics because their faith is shattered to the point that they can't believe in God anymore.

From the standpoint of the Church's perspective, I am of the opinion that the Church does not view them as lesser individuals, but simply individuals who have gone astray, and are just as important as those who are actively involved in the Church.

[KitCarson]

I suspect my friends will live a SECULAR life for a while, not seeking affiliation with any church. Their closest nonLDS friends are ISLAMIC neighbors.

They feel their TITHE money is better spent on themselves. They can buy better cars, upgrade to a bigger, more expensive house. They purchased HDTVs and Video games for each child's room (didn't even have a TV before). The kids spend hours watching TV or playing games, essentially unsupervised. They are trying to sell their food storage cans. The wife is also looking for a career job (husband makes a good living). She doesn't want to be a "stay-at-home" mom anymore and is happy to leave her 3-year-old in daycare. She's dressing age-inappropriately with VERY short shorts and spaghetti-strap tank top with revealing midriff to the mall (like a teenie-bopper instead of 34-year-old woman).

This looks like REBELLION to me, not "doctrinal issues." Either way, everyone has FREE AGENCY. Just hope they'll be willing to reachout for help when the storms of life come--those come whether you're active or inactive in the church. They'll soon find out that money and the secular life doesn't bring much happiness or peace.

[SeattleTruthSeeker]

I suspect my friends will live a SECULAR life for a while, not seeking affiliation with any church. Their closest nonLDS friends are ISLAMIC neighbors.

They feel their TITHE money is better spent on themselves. They can buy better cars, upgrade to a bigger, more expensive house. They purchased HDTVs and Video games for each child's room (didn't even have a TV before). The kids spend hours watching TV or playing games, essentially unsupervised. They are trying to sell their food storage cans. The wife is also looking for a career job (husband makes a good living). She doesn't want to be a "stay-at-home" mom anymore and is happy to leave her 3-year-old in daycare. She's dressing age-inappropriately with VERY short shorts and spaghetti-strap tank top with revealing midriff to the mall (like a teenie-bopper instead of 34-year-old woman).

This looks like REBELLION to me, not "doctrinal issues." Either way, everyone has FREE AGENCY. Just hope they'll be willing to reachout for help when the storms of life come--those come whether you're active or inactive in the church. They'll soon find out that money and the secular life doesn't bring much happiness or peace.

From what you describe here, sounds like they are being dangerously selfish. Pride comes before the fall.

[Maureen]

I suspect my friends will live a SECULAR life for a while, not seeking affiliation with any church. Their closest nonLDS friends are ISLAMIC neighbors.

They feel their TITHE money is better spent on themselves. They can buy better cars, upgrade to a bigger, more expensive house. They purchased HDTVs and Video games for each child's room (didn't even have a TV before). The kids spend hours watching TV or playing games, essentially unsupervised. They are trying to sell their food storage cans. The wife is also looking for a career job (husband makes a good living). She doesn't want to be a "stay-at-home" mom anymore and is happy to leave her 3-year-old in daycare. She's dressing age-inappropriately with VERY short shorts and spaghetti-strap tank top with revealing midriff to the mall (like a teenie-bopper instead of 34-year-old woman).

This looks like REBELLION to me, not "doctrinal issues." Either way, everyone has FREE AGENCY. Just hope they'll be willing to reachout for help when the storms of life come--those come whether you're active or inactive in the church. They'll soon find out that money and the secular life doesn't bring much happiness or peace.

They sound terribly evil. How convenient for this thread that they've turned to the dark side. You don't have cameras set up watching them, do you?

M.