LDS Question - What happens to people who leave the church?

[dianaiad]

I guess it isn’t important. It is just a human principle, but in our refinement it will mean nothing.

Xavier, your wishes in this mean everything. That’s the point I was attempting to make; If you send the letter asking that this work not be done, I believe that the church will attempt to honor your wishes. However, in the long run your objection might not get communicated to all your descendents.

I’m just letting you know that it doesn’t matter–in our scheme of things (which is the only scheme in which you’d ever know that such proxy work had been done for you, much less that it would be effective in any way) what YOU think is the absolute deciding factor. If we didn’t believe THAT from the bottom of our hearts, we wouldn’t be doing this. the idea that you have your free agency (free will), you see, is vital to us.

 

[Kdesiel]

That’s what you do if YOU leave. However, if you do something utterly stupid, like commit adultery or publish an anti-Mormon book while a member, or start publicly spouting heretical doctrine as ‘true,’ the church can, and will, excommunicate you.

I don’t think committing adultery gets you automatically “Ex’d” in the Mormon Church. My father had committed adultery while a member as was disfellowshipped. I think the Church takes into account of your willingness to Repent. If the desire to Repent is present then they work with you to get you back into good standing with the Church. Now if you’re less than willing to come to terms with your mistake then the Church is less willing to work with you.
However I will admit I do not know all of the specifics, I’ve never had to deal with it personally that is just what I know from people around me.
I simply submitted a letter asking for my name to be removed and the Church was very willing to work with me in that regard with little fuss.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Wow… so a person can circumvent excommunication by resigning before it happens.

Absolutely; and formally resigning is better than being excommunicated.

The Mormon Church will rush to excommunicate, when they realize a member is really going to leave. Then, if the member speaks out against the LDS Church, at a later date; the Mormon Church can more easily slander the person’s reputation, and point to the fact that the church Excommunicated them.

Anna

P.S. A formal resignation in life does not prevent the Mormon Church from performing proxy rites for you after your death.

 

[Xavierlives]

Absolutely; and formally resigning is better than being excommunicated.

The Mormon Church will rush to excommunicate, when they realize a member is really going to leave. Then, if the member speaks out against the LDS Church, at a later date; the Mormon Church can more easily slander the person’s reputation, and point to the fact that the church Excommunicated them.

Anna

P.S. A formal resignation in life does not prevent the Mormon Church from performing proxy rites for you after your death.

That’s the answer! Don’t die!

 

[Anna_Scott]

That’s the answer! Don’t die!

scary, isn’t it?

Anna

 

[ParkerD]

That’s my point too. I won’t need to worry about making any other choices anywhere else, because I’ve made my choice now and I won’t be given any other choices. So I am good.

I just don’t want my name to even be run through the system.

Xavierlives,
Proxy temple work for excommunicated LDS is not done at all unless specifically authorized by the First Presidency which would be after they received all of the details of the case in question and considered the matter prayerfully. But if you were never LDS and 300 years from now when one of your descendants becomes LDS and does genealogical research and becomes interested in you, then the best way for you to communicate your fervent desire is to leave a journal or record with several in your family highlighting that you have made a thorough research on the subject and the question of baptism, and for them to respect your absolutely sure decision. Hopefully, they would listen to you and respect your decision made in life.

But I don’t see why such a thing will matter to you at that point, other than having the satisfaction of knowing that one of your descendants cared enough about you to actually think about your life and who you were as a person.

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavierlives,
Proxy temple work for excommunicated LDS is not done at all unless specifically authorized by the First Presidency which would be after they received all of the details of the case in question and considered the matter prayerfully. But if you were never LDS and 300 years from now when one of your descendants becomes LDS and does genealogical research and becomes interested in you, then the best way for you to communicate your fervent desire is to leave a journal or record with several in your family highlighting that you have made a thorough research on the subject and the question of baptism, and for them to respect your absolutely sure decision. Hopefully, they would listen to you and respect your decision made in life.

But I don’t see why such a thing will matter to you at that point, other than having the satisfaction of knowing that one of your descendants cared enough about you to actually think about your life and who you were as a person.

Because as I do not want my name associated with the Mormons in life, I do not want my name associated with them in Death. Guess it won’t really matter. I was hoping for a no-call list though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s the answer! Don’t die!

This is how it is. The mormon men in suits are gonna do what they’re gonna do, and too bad if you want something else. Meanwhile, they’ll keep telling you it’s fine. It doesn’t matter. They want to hear you say it too.

Well, it does matter.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Is there excommunication in the Mormon Church, similar to the Catholic Church?

I’ve read through only the first couple of posts in this thread so pardon me if I sound like a parrot. I think you might be conflating excommunication with resignation. In neither the LDS nor the Catholic churches do these two equate. Excommunication is an action made by the church in response to some type of scandalous behavior (vehement, public denunciation of church authority, marital infidelity, committing a felonious act, etc.) while resignation is an action made by the individual in response to his or her loss/lack of faith in the organization. LDS who have their names removed from the membership records are not excommunicated (at least they aren’t now). I had mine removed just prior to last Easter when I entered the Catholic Church and I experienced no ill will. The LDS church promptly forwarded my letter of resignation to my local LDS bishop who paid me a visit to make sure that the letter was genuinely sent by me, asked me a few questions, offered me a blessing, and left. A week later I received a letter from said bishop confirming that my name was successfully removed.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Xavierlives,
Proxy temple work for excommunicated LDS is not done at all unless specifically authorized by the First Presidency which would be after they received all of the details of the case in question and considered the matter prayerfully. But if you were never LDS and 300 years from now when one of your descendants becomes LDS and does genealogical research and becomes interested in you, then the best way for you to communicate your fervent desire is to leave a journal or record with several in your family highlighting that you have made a thorough research on the subject and the question of baptism, and for them to respect your absolutely sure decision. Hopefully, they would listen to you and respect your decision made in life.

But I don’t see why such a thing will matter to you at that point, other than having the satisfaction of knowing that one of your descendants cared enough about you to actually think about your life and who you were as a person.

This is very interesting to me, as the question of temple work for excommunicated and/or self-resigned members of the LDS Church arose not too long ago. I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer, as I’m sure such a practice is very rare. Can you offer some sort of citation for this from an LDS source? If not, could you tell me how it is you know this? Is it due to your experience as a Bishop and Stake President?

Thanks Parker.

 

[TheosisM]

This is very interesting to me, as the question of temple work for excommunicated and/or self-resigned members of the LDS Church arose not too long ago. I haven’t been able to find a definitive answer, as I’m sure such a practice is very rare. Can you offer some sort of citation for this from an LDS source? If not, could you tell me how it is you know this? Is it due to your experience as a Bishop and Stake President?

Thanks Parker.

Just an FYI, the Handbook of Instructions states:

“First Presidency approval is required to perform temple ordinances for deceased persons who, at the time of their death, were excommunicated or had their names removed from Church membership records.”

 

[zerinus]

My point was more of a ideological one. As I understand it, I can be baptized in death. So, I should be able to say in life, that I don’t want want to be baptized in death. I understand the Mormon point of view, that I’ll be able to reject it (but I won’t need to then).

Yeah, but I won’t need to disavow then.

That’s my point too. I won’t need to worry about making any other choices anywhere else, because I’ve made my choice now and I won’t be given any other choices. So I am good.

I just don’t want my name to even be run through the system.

Because as I do not want my name associated with the Mormons in life, I do not want my name associated with them in Death. …

But what if you changed your mind after you died—or do you think that is impossible? As a Catholic, I presume you still believe in life after death. If so, then presumably you allow for the possibility of changing your mind after you die. So what if you changed your mind in the spirit world after you died? Suppose you spent some time in Purgatory (especially the Mormon one, which is a lot worse! ); and then you decided that Mormonism is true after all, and concluded that it would be to your advantage accept the Mormon proxy baptism and get yourself out of Purgatory! Why would you want to deny yourself that option in this life, without knowing for sure what you will encounter in the next?

 

[Xavierlives]

But what if you changed your mind after you died—or do you think that is impossible? As a Catholic, I presume you still believe in life after death. If so, then presumably you allow for the possibility of changing your mind after you die. So what if you changed your mind in the spirit world after you died? Suppose you spent some time in Purgatory (especially the Mormon one, which is a lot worse! ); and then you decided that Mormonism is true after all, and concluded that it would be to your advantage accept the Mormon proxy baptism and get yourself out of Purgatory! Why would you want to deny yourself that option in this life, without knowing for sure what you will encounter in the next?

Well, if I am faithful in life, I’d like to think I’d be faithful in death. As a “protestant” I do believe in life after death.

Why would I want to deny myself? Only because I don’t want to ever be associated with your church and I should not have to trust relatives 100 years from now to follow my desires or that my message would follow my relatives for eternity. Presumedly, LDS will be a round a while and they are their record keepers, so I should be able to file my desires in life and expect they would be followed.

 

[zerinus]

Well, if I am faithful in life, I’d like to think I’d be faithful in death. As a “protestant” I do believe in life after death.

Why would I want to deny myself? Only because I don’t want to ever be associated with your church and I should not have to trust relatives 100 years from now to follow my desires or that my message would follow my relatives for eternity. Presumedly, LDS will be a round a while and they are their record keepers, so I should be able to file my desires in life and expect they would be followed.

In our theology, the burden of searching out and performing proxy baptisms for the dead is placed squarely on the shoulders of the descendants of the deceased. The Church does not have an independent decision to make on that. Let us suppose that you made your wishes known to the Church, and the church had some monitoring mechanism in place to prevent you from being baptized according to the wishes you had expressed. Now suppose that 100 years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and he claimed that you had appeared to him in a dream, and told him that after death you discovered that Mormonism was true, and repented of your former unbelief, and would like him now to perform proxy baptisms on your behalf. What do you think the Church should do? Should they obey your written request, or should they believe what your descendant had said and approve your proxy baptism?

 

[Xavierlives]

In our theology, the burden of searching out and performing proxy baptisms for the dead is placed squarely on the shoulders of the descendants of the deceased. The Church does not have an independent decision to make on that. Let us suppose that you made your wishes known to the Church, and the church had some monitoring mechanism in place to prevent you from being baptized according to the wishes you had expressed. Now suppose that 100 years later one of your descendants became a Mormon, and he claimed that you had appeared to him in a dream, and told him that after death you discovered that Mormonism was true, and repented of your former unbelief, and would like him now to perform proxy baptisms on your behalf. What do you think the Church should do? Should they obey your written request, or should they believe what your descendant had said and approve your proxy baptism?

Well, I’d say listen to me now. Since, in death, I’ll have no voice in things of this world,

Is that truly a claim? That these long dead relatives are are appearing in people’s dreams saying, “Baptize me!”

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Actually, as soon as a person submits a formal request to resign from any church in the U.S., including the Mormon Church, the church no longer has the legal right to hold court, excommunicate, or take any other action against the individual. There are laws that protect an individual’s right to resign from a religion.

This has been tested by court cases and still stands.

Anna

I am amazed at this. As far as I know, any religious body has the power under the First Amendment to manage membership matters as it sees fit. So, should a person leave Church A for any reason, that church would still have the authority to classify that person as it sees fit, and to advise its members of that classification.

For example, I am a former Baha’i. Under Baha’i teachings and law, should I become an active opponent of the Baha’i faith, appropriate Baha’i authorities could ultimately declare me to be a “Covenent Breaker”, which would involve a certain measure of shunning by Baha’is. This sanction is available even though I have written a letter to national Baha’i authorities resigning from the faith.

This sanction would not apply to active opponents who had never been Baha’is.

Similarly, should a Catholic qualify for excommunication and then leave the Catholic church, the church has the right to do so, so that should the person wish to return, their standing with the church would have to be rectified.

Please share the court cases that demonstrate your point.

 

[zerinus]

Well, I’d say listen to me now. Since, in death, I’ll have no voice in things of this world,

Exactly! In death you don’t, that means that your expression of preference after you die doesn’t count for much either. After all, you are dead! If you don’t believe that any of this is true, what do you care? You are not here for it to affect you; neither do you have any say as to whether it should be done or not! So it is not as simple as you think—or rather, it is simple; but the simplicity of it works against you.

Is that truly a claim? That these long dead relatives are appearing in people’s dreams saying, “Baptize me!”

Not exactly. It is not a common occurrence. But a few instances of it have been known. More commonly Church members have had spiritual experiences that have indicated to them in some way that their deceased relatives have accepted the gospel in the spirit world, and are pleased with the work that their living relatives have done on their behalf.

 

[MadScot]

I am amazed at this. As far as I know, any religious body has the power under the First Amendment to manage membership matters as it sees fit. So, should a person leave Church A for any reason, that church would still have the authority to classify that person as it sees fit, and to advise its members of that classification.

For example, I am a former Baha’i. Under Baha’i teachings and law, should I become an active opponent of the Baha’i faith, appropriate Baha’i authorities could ultimately declare me to be a “Covenent Breaker”, which would involve a certain measure of shunning by Baha’is. This sanction is available even though I have written a letter to national Baha’i authorities resigning from the faith.

This sanction would not apply to active opponents who had never been Baha’is.

Similarly, should a Catholic qualify for excommunication and then leave the Catholic church, the church has the right to do so, so that should the person wish to return, their standing with the church would have to be rectified.

Please share the court cases that demonstrate your point.

Sure, under the First Amendment, a Church has the right to manage it’s membership. However, once a member submits a letter of resignation the member is no longer under the discipline of the Church. If a Church still proceeds with any type of disciplinary action up to and including excommunication, the Church risks it exposes itself to lawsuit.
(see Guinn vs Church of Christ)

 

[Usbek_de_Perse]

Sure, under the First Amendment, a Church has the right to manage it’s membership. However, once a member submits a letter of resignation the member is no longer under the discipline of the Church. If a Church still proceeds with any type of disciplinary action up to and including excommunication, the Church risks it exposes itself to lawsuit.
(see Guinn vs Church of Christ)

Thanks! I will look this up!

 

[Anna_Scott]

I am amazed at this. As far as I know, any religious body has the power under the First Amendment to manage membership matters as it sees fit. So, should a person leave Church A for any reason, that church would still have the authority to classify that person as it sees fit, and to advise its members of that classification.

For example, I am a former Baha’i. Under Baha’i teachings and law, should I become an active opponent of the Baha’i faith, appropriate Baha’i authorities could ultimately declare me to be a “Covenent Breaker”, which would involve a certain measure of shunning by Baha’is. This sanction is available even though I have written a letter to national Baha’i authorities resigning from the faith.

This sanction would not apply to active opponents who had never been Baha’is.

Similarly, should a Catholic qualify for excommunication and then leave the Catholic church, the church has the right to do so, so that should the person wish to return, their standing with the church would have to be rectified.

Please share the court cases that demonstrate your point.

Usbek de Perse,

The law does not allow “excommunication” or any other action against a person who has formerly resigned from a religion/church.

The following link provides a simple summary of 2 court cases, proving exactly what I said.

dailykos.com/story/2008/10/14/11624/597/670/629888
(Emphasis is mine.)

"LEGAL PRECEDENTS
There is one case in particular that has clearly established in case law a right that most of us believe we had all along: the right to simply resign from a church. A second case is important to establish the church’s vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations.

GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE
Final decision by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, January 1989
Marian Guinn, a member of the Church of Christ of Collinsville, OK, hand delivered her resignation to the minister after he told her he was going to excommunicate her for fornication.

The minister refused to honor the resignation, went ahead with the ‘excommunication’ and then announced it from the pulpit. Guinn sued and was awarded $390,000. On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that Guinn’s resignation was effective immediately and that anything the church or the minister received Guinn’s resignation was tortable.

In other words, she could sue for anything they did after she resigned. The court ruled that with her resignation Guinn withdrew her consent to being treated as a member and she withdrew her consent to being subject to church discipline.

Of extra importance is the fact that the court ruled that the right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church.

In several subsequent court cases the Mormon church has agreed to the principles established in Guinn. They have not even attempted to argue that the principles do not apply to them.

THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)
In 1985 the Mormon church ‘excommunicated’ Norman Hancock AFTER he submitted a letter of resignation to the church.

Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church.

The suit was settled out of court and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case.

The same account says that church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn’t want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an ‘excommuication’: the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for ‘name removal’).

. . .The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The church began having a process it calls ‘name removal’.

However, the church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is ‘transgressing’ should not be allowed to resign, that “name removal should not be used as a substitute for church discipline”.

If you’ve paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the church is wrong about that and they can be sued for ‘excommunicating’ someone who already resigned. At church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to ‘discipline’ proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are."

© Kos Media, LLC
Site content may be used for any purpose without
explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC

So, we are protected by the laws of our country. We have freedom of religion, which includes the right to resign from any religion, without the religious leaders/church taking any further action against us.

Hope this helps,
Anna