Mormons: was the LDS Church treated fairly in the PBS special?

[Allweather]

Name removal is usually done privately. If she joins the Catholic Church she could be excommunicated from the LDS Church under the new rules which allow people to be ex’d for joining another church. That would involve having her name dragged through the mud. If she wants privacy she should request name removal.

Here’s how:

mormonnomore.com/

Thanks, I will discuss this with her. She was born and raised nominally Catholic, and was never catechised into the Mormon religion. For her, Mormonism was Family Home Evening and food storage, and that’s it. All along, though, she had a deep prayer life, one that transcends any religion. She just assumed that Mormonism is a better form of Catholicism, and frankly she didn’t know very much about Catholicism either. But, brother, has she got a prayer life!

 

[Allweather]

ditto. properly done name removal is reasonably private and removes one form the whole system of "ecclesiastical authority: with the LDS. as long as you choose to maintain your membership you are acknowledging their authority in regards to LDS membership. They can make notes on your records for successive leaders to read, they can discuss you in any number of meetings (welfare committee, bishopric, ward council, missionary, etc.) they can (and usually do) assign home teachers and visiting teachers. They can hold a church court and “discipline” you. Plus there is a sense of “fairness” in my mind. (speaking as a former LDS priesthood leader). Knowing the LDS system and the amount of resources that are supposed to be assigned to each person, I think it a bit unfair to leave them with all that administrative overhead on your behalf if you don’t want ot be a member of their church.

Thanks, Majik. I will show her these two posts this morning when we meet for Mass and breakfast.

 

[GIMJ]

Even now, after all this time, she is similarly conflicted as to removing her name from the records of the LDS church. On one hand, she feels that she is practicing her Catholic religion appropriately, but at the same time she doesn’t want to offend family members by taking her name off the LDS records, regardless of whatever real value that represents. And yet, she does not want her name connected to a religion that she does not support. Love, Melanie

This is the same thing I have debated. As I stated above, there is no such thing as name removal in the LDS church. No matter what, my name is always going to be connected to Mormonism, whether I like it or not. Now, I can make a big ordeal out of this by resigning my membership and having Salt Lake write me a letter threatening that I risk losing my soul if I go through with this and claiming that they have revoked my membership and removed my name…but that seems pointless. The fact is that I am no more in danger of losing my soul as they are likely to actually remove my name from the membership roles in Salt Lake. And after I die, either the Church or my family will go straight back into the temple to rebaptize me as a dead person and perform the endowments and sealings as proxy for me.

majick275I’m going to take the hard line stance on this one. If you are sure you are Catholic then go through RCIA, receive the sacraments and have your name removed from the LDS church as an act of faith that the Catholic church is right.

I am inclined to agree with you in principle, BUT you clearly don’t understand how the excommunication process works in the LDS Church, whether forced through disciplinary courts or by resignation. In either scenario, but especially in the latter, the Church makes a huge, obnoxious mess. They try to bully the backslider back into submission, threaten their families, spread rumors about the person’s moral character to other members, and finally (my favorite) forbid current members and even family of the apostate to cease contact with them. Not all excommunication processes are this nasty, but I have witnessed more than a few that followed this route.

I think it’s rather presumptuous for you to say that I am unsure about my faith–as though I’m “hedging my bet” and splitting my loyalties with both churches. I also find it offensive that you presume that I would be lying to the Church when I make the covenants to have faith and obedience in Christ when I receive the sacraments. Essentially, you’re suggesting that I’m an imposter Catholic and a liar.

If you are unsure then go through RCIA and continue your search for truth until you are sure even if you repeat RCIA a few times or spend years in study and prayer. I can see someone in that event keeping their name on the LDS records because they’re not sure what the truth is. I don’t think though that you are doing right by actually coming into full communion with the church, especially receiving christ at mass and still maintaining LDS membership “just in case” or so as not to “offend”.

Yours is such a naive way of looking at this dilemma. To your credit, you probably don’t know very much about the Mormon church and have never been part of, or witness to, an excommunication. If you had, I am confident you would have a very different outlook.

If it helps, quit thinking of the Mormon Church as a church: it’s a cult. Whereas a church is interested in helping the individual become godly, a cult is concerned with maintaining control on its membership. Were I an Episcopalian or a Lutheran and converting to Cathollicism, I would withdraw my membership in those churches without a second thought. But I’m neither Episcopalian nor Lutheran; I’m a Mormon and I belong to a cult.

Now, I can choose to skip away quietly and minimize any backlash for my family, or I can be loud and force my family to accept the consequences of my decision. I am only going to have to deal with this for a short time, and I have the freedom to simply leave. My family, on the other hand, will not enjoy that privilege.

I do not believe in being contrary for its own sake. That conflict swith the Christian virtue of love. Therefore, my Mormon membership remains in place until the LDS hierarchy excommunicates me or I hear an order from the Catholic church to resign.

 

[GIMJ]

Christianley, both are done privately and I would expect that even close family members would not be told. Things can go wrong but in all the publicized cases I’ve heard of, all church leaders refused to comment on any details. You guys are familiar with the sanctity of the confession booth.

Well, that sounds great in theory, and congratulations to YOU if you’ve ever been in a bishopric, stake presidency, or high council and everyone was tight-lipped and honored the privacy and decency of the confessor/penitent/apostate. In my experience, that has never been the order of business. (Admittedly, not all cases are handled as badly as others, but I have yet to see one handled as well as it must be) The leaders freely discuss confessions and disciplinary processes with each other, their wives and families, and people in the ward that they think “ought to know.” Mormons love to gossip–especially when it comes to disciplinary matters.

Whether the leadership refuses to disclose “details” is irrelevant. In fact, in many cases, that’s worse because they still let others know that something is amiss and inuendo begins to spread.

 

[rmcmullan]

GIMJ: You’re simply wrong on this.

 

[christianley]

GIMJ: You’re simply wrong on this.

I was in the Mormon Church for over 30 years. I’ve seen enough to know that GIMJ is correct. The bad stuff almost always gets out because too many people are brought into the mix.

 

[GIMJ]

GIMJ: You’re simply wrong on this.

I don’t see how you can dispute my personal experiences, just as I cannot dispute yours.

I know you guys are going to freak out at my logic here but I was baptised Catholic and am now Mormon. I consider myself a good Catholic because I am a good Mormon. If you can consider yourself a good Mormon by being a good Catholic, you’re okay.

Despite my inability to contest your personal experiences (if any) with church disciplinary procedure, I am not inclined to give much weight to the opinions of someone with the above logic. :whacky:

 

[rmcmullan]

Sorry GIMJ, but you’re still wrong. I think you are mistaking situations where a problem a person is struggling and that struggle gets made known and are making an assumption that it was leaked by the Bishopric. There are a lot of ways for a leak to happen, especially if it is the type of problem that involves other people. It’s fairly common for a spouse who was betrayed to take somebody into their confidence. Don’t assume it was leaked by people in the the council. I think that would be as likely as a priest to leak what he heard in the confession booth.

 

[majick275]

This is the same thing I have debated. As I stated above, there is no such thing as name removal in the LDS church. No matter what, my name is always going to be connected to Mormonism, whether I like it or not.

partially true. your name will alsways be in their archives but you gain certain legal protections that have held up in court that didn’t used to exist if you go through the name removal process.

Now, I can make a big ordeal out of this by resigning my membership and having Salt Lake write me a letter threatening that I risk losing my soul if I go through with this and claiming that they have revoked my membership and removed my name…but that seems pointless. The fact is that I am no more in danger of losing my soul as they are likely to actually remove my name from the membership roles in Salt Lake. And after I die, either the Church or my family will go straight back into the temple to rebaptize me as a dead person and perform the endowments and sealings as proxy for me.

I have to challenge this. In the old days there was no name removal nad everyone who “resigned their membership” was excommnicated for apsotasy. The CURRENT handbook of intructions for priesthood leaders is pretty clear about name removal. recent court cases involving a variety of churches has pretty much mandated that the moment someone formally withdraws their membership the church MUST cease all attempts to exercise eclesiastical authority. Now if you want to RETURN they can make you jump through hoops just as if you had been exed.

I am inclined to agree with you in principle, BUT you clearly don’t understand how the excommunication process works in the LDS Church, whether forced through disciplinary courts or by resignation.

I laughed out loud here. My father is still in a bishopric and serves as a temple worker like he has for years. I was a couselor in the bishopric when I removed my name. I think I know the process both as it’s written in the handbook and how it went down in reality for myself and others.

In either scenario, but especially in the latter, the Church makes a huge, obnoxious mess. They try to bully the backslider back into submission, threaten their families, spread rumors about the person’s moral character to other members, and finally (my favorite) forbid current members and even family of the apostate to cease contact with them. Not all excommunication processes are this nasty, but I have witnessed more than a few that followed this route.

I think those were the norm in the past and while the CAN still happen, I think they are the exception to the rule as it makes the church vulnerable to litigation. Besides most bishops and stake presidents are either too busy or not a big neough jerk to go very far down that path. (I admit it CAN happen though)

 

[majick275]

(continued)

I think it’s rather presumptuous for you to say that I am unsure about my faith–as though I’m “hedging my bet” and splitting my loyalties with both churches. I also find it offensive that you presume that I would be lying to the Church when I make the covenants to have faith and obedience in Christ when I receive the sacraments. Essentially, you’re suggesting that I’m an imposter Catholic and a liar.

well then I apologize. That’s not what i meant. I think it a “beneficial” act of faith to remove your name because it says to yourself that you are Catholic only. That’s just my opinion too, it;'s not doctrine or dogma. I think in SOME cases it does mean that you are “sure” about your choice and then I believe that you may not be ready for the sacraments. )opinion again) I kind of screwed up that post since you came away with such a judgemental perception. I am sorry for that.

Yours is such a naive way of looking at this dilemma. To your credit, you probably don’t know very much about the Mormon church and have never been part of, or witness to, an excommunication. If you had, I am confident you would have a very different outlook.

see above. I think I know as much as anyone about the mormon church and i have been involved with all aspects of church discipline including excommuinications. That is part of what drove me to leave. I find it a brutal, degrading process.

If it helps, quit thinking of the Mormon Church as a church: it’s a cult. Whereas a church is interested in helping the individual become godly, a cult is concerned with maintaining control on its membership. Were I an Episcopalian or a Lutheran and converting to Cathollicism, I would withdraw my membership in those churches without a second thought. But I’m neither Episcopalian nor Lutheran; I’m a Mormon and I belong to a cult.

AMEN!!!

Now, I can choose to skip away quietly and minimize any backlash for my family, or I can be loud and force my family to accept the consequences of my decision. I am only going to have to deal with this for a short time, and I have the freedom to simply leave. My family, on the other hand, will not enjoy that privilege.

well now I think you have hit on soemthing that IS significant and true. (not that your other points weren’t). They have been known to get ugly with the family of an “apostate”. My wife and children left with me at the same time. They felt sorry for my parents but I blieve that if only I had withdrwan my name they would have been trying to convince my wife leave me and marry a good mormon man. They would have certainly undermined my relationship with my children by painting me as aan apostate and trying to compensate for that with their “enlightened” leadership of my children. I HAVE seen that. You are correct to fear that. As long as you are just “less active” they will just go through the normal stuff (reactivation attempts) in the hope that you will “see the light” but once you leave they can’t do that and there is a risk that they would try to cut you off from your family to prevent them from leaving.

I do not believe in being contrary for its own sake. That conflict swith the Christian virtue of love. Therefore, my Mormon membership remains in place until the LDS hierarchy excommunicates me or I hear an order from the Catholic church to resign.

I acquiesce to your personal judgement on this. God bless you and strengthen you. May he send his angels to care for your family.

 

[christianley]

(continued)

I acquiesce to your personal judgement on this. God bless you and strengthen you. May he send his angels to care for your family.

That’s basically why I haven’t resigned yet. My wife and children are still Mormons.

 

[GIMJ]

rmcmullan:
I’ve been around bishops, high councilors, and stake presidency members in my close and extended family, not to mention family friends enough to know this: things get leaked out, and it gets leaked out by leaders. My experiences may not be the rule, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that it’s not a rare exception.

I’m not wrong. You’re in denial.

majick275:
I suppose I shouldn’t have made my own assumptions about you either. I’m glad that you’ve had better leaders than I have. And good for you, doing the right thing, especially when you must have come under a lot of scrutiny.

I also know what the current Handbook says. I used to have a copy. I still stand by what I wrote before.

I already requested quietly that they honor my resignation–I was refused. I did not want to make a mess of it at the time, so I just accepted that. I have new stake and ward leadership now, so I have considered giving it another go. However, I do not know the new leaders as well as I did the old ones, and I have no way to predict how they will act. What would you do?

 

[Kristine1957]

My opinion:

I think the history was accurate, but I felt the Mormon Massacre was downplayed. If the Mormon leaders felt the massacre was justified then why did they find it necessary to hide it and keep it hushed up right from the very beginning?

I find it interesting even today that church leaders pick and choose what they want people to know inside and outside of the church. Anytime they don’t know an answer to something or they dont want to answer a question it seems to me its always “sacred” or " we cant talk about it outside the temple" To me its always a cop out

 

[majick275]

rmcmullan:
I’ve been around bishops, high councilors, and stake presidency members in my close and extended family, not to mention family friends enough to know this: things get leaked out, and it gets leaked out by leaders. My experiences may not be the rule, but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there to suggest that it’s not a rare exception.

I’m not wrong. You’re in denial.

majick275:
I suppose I shouldn’t have made my own assumptions about you either. I’m glad that you’ve had better leaders than I have. And good for you, doing the right thing, especially when you must have come under a lot of scrutiny.

I also know what the current Handbook says. I used to have a copy. I still stand by what I wrote before.

I already requested quietly that they honor my resignation–I was refused. I did not want to make a mess of it at the time, so I just accepted that. I have new stake and ward leadership now, so I have considered giving it another go. However, I do not know the new leaders as well as I did the old ones, and I have no way to predict how they will act. What would you do?

pages 129-130 covers name removal. It does allow them to delay processing name removal if they have evidence of transgression requiring church discipline and it does in fact allow them to announce that name removal has occurred (although it doesn’t mandate it and it restricts what can be said)

while there are numerous court cases in this arena probably the most relevant is this one:

*Guinn vs. Church of Christ of Collinsville

(Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1989)

Summary: Elders publicly confronted a church member with a rumor that she was fornicating with a man and asked her to repent. When she refused and tried to quit, the elders told the congregation to call her and urge her to repent. They asked other Church of Christ parishes to do the same.

Outcome: The woman was awarded monetary damages. The court said she withdrew her consent to be disciplined when she quit the church. *

This is seen as the established case law from everything I can find. Basically, once you resign you withdrawn consent to be under a church’s authority and have legal protection from any further actions by said church. you might have to threaten a lawsuit but the LDS articles of faith claim they will be subject to the law of the land and the law says you have a right to decide to leave any church at any time and if/when you exercise that right they have to respect it.

 

[majick275]

I would also have you read this:

mormonalliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm

What you choose to do then is between you and your family (and God). I will pray that God gives you peace and joy in your life regardless of how you choose to proceed.

 

[cor]

pages 129-130 covers name removal. It does allow them to delay processing name removal if they have evidence of transgression requiring church discipline and it does in fact allow them to announce that name removal has occurred (although it doesn’t mandate it and it restricts what can be said)

while there are numerous court cases in this arena probably the most relevant is this one:

*Guinn vs. Church of Christ of Collinsville

(Oklahoma Supreme Court, 1989)

Summary: Elders publicly confronted a church member with a rumor that she was fornicating with a man and asked her to repent. When she refused and tried to quit, the elders told the congregation to call her and urge her to repent. They asked other Church of Christ parishes to do the same.

Outcome: The woman was awarded monetary damages. The court said she withdrew her consent to be disciplined when she quit the church. *

This is seen as the established case law from everything I can find. Basically, once you resign you withdrawn consent to be under a church’s authority and have legal protection from any further actions by said church. you might have to threaten a lawsuit but the LDS articles of faith claim they will be subject to the law of the land and the law says you have a right to decide to leave any church at any time and if/when you exercise that right they have to respect it.

Thanks for the information. But, that case would only have authority in the State of Oklahoma, wouldn’t it? Have there been federal cases that ruled the same?

 

[CCM08]

It’s a precedent on the matter, and could be used in any court in the US until a higher court rules differently on the matter. Given the outcome of the Norman Hancock case it’s clear that the precedent set by Oklahoma’s high court is solid.