I recently had my name removed from the records of the Church. I was surprised when I found out that a member not in the Bishopric knew about it. We asked the Bishop why he knew and who else knew. He listed the entire ward council and said that the handbook said that he was supposed to inform ward leadership of any disfellowshipments, ex communications, or name removals.

Anyone know if that is true. I do not have access to book 1 to check. It really bugged me that he shared that with so many people.

I don't know what it says in the book, but years ago they used to announce excommunications in Priesthood meeting after they dismissed the Aaronic priesthood. I remember this happening in the late 1970s.

It could be that he's telling the auxiliary leaders to let them know to stop contact. That would explain why when I resigned it was like turning off a switch. All the unwanted calls and visits stopped immediately.

From the Handbook:


6.10.9
Announcement of the Decision

When announcing Church discipline, leaders must consider the feelings of the transgressor’s innocent family members and the needs of innocent potential victims.

A decision to place a member on informal probation is not announced.

A decision to place a member on formal probation may be announced to those who need to know as determined by the presiding officer.

A decision of disfellowshipment or excommunication is announced only to those who need to know. The principles and procedures in the following paragraphs govern these announcements.

No announcement is made if a decision is being appealed, unless the presiding officer of the disciplinary council concludes that an announcement pending appeal is necessary to protect potential victims, to support the healing of victims (although victims’ names are not announced), or to safeguard the name of the Church.

The bishop announces the decision in confidence in ward priesthood executive committee meeting to guide priesthood officers who might otherwise consider the disciplined person for Church service, offering prayers, or giving talks or lessons.

The bishop advises the ward Relief Society president in confidence when a member of the Relief Society has been disciplined or has been a victim.

If a case concerns (1) preaching of false doctrine, (2) a transgressor whose predatory tendencies seriously threaten other persons, or (3) other flagrant transgressions (such as plural marriage, cultist teachings to attract a following, or ridicule of Church leaders), then, with the approval of the stake president, the bishop announces the decision in meetings of the elders quorum, high priests group, and Relief Society in his ward. In such cases the stake president may also need to authorize a broader announcement, such as in a stake priesthood meeting or to the Melchizedek Priesthood brethren and Relief Society sisters of other wards in the stake. In some cases the presiding officer may find it beneficial to notify some or all of the victims and, when necessary, their families that the transgressor has been the subject of a disciplinary council.

When an announcement of Church discipline is necessary, it is limited to a general statement that the person has been disfellowshipped or excommunicated for conduct contrary to the laws and order of the Church. The officer who makes the announcement asks those who hear it not to discuss it with anyone. Announcements of disfellowshipment or excommunication do not require a sustaining vote.

To dispel rumors, a bishop or stake president may need to announce that a disciplinary council considered charges against a member but that no action was taken.

My Bad, I forgot to put this part first.


6.14.3
Announcement of Name Removal

In some cases a bishop may need to announce that a person’s name has been removed from the membership records of the Church. The announcement merely states that the action was taken at the person’s request. The announcement should not use the word excommunication. The guidelines in 6.10.9 apply.

Whoa. Anyone else catch that a FLAGRANT transgression includes ridiculing leadership of TSCC. No one could make this stuff up.

When are these guys gonna lighten up?

Quote (caps are mine), "
If a case concerns (1) preaching of false doctrine, (2) a transgressor whose predatory tendencies seriously threaten other persons, or (3) other FLAGRANT transgressions (such as plural marriage, cultist teachings to attract a following, or ridicule of Church leaders), then, with the approval of the stake president, the bishop announces the decision in meetings of the elders quorum, high priests group, and Relief Society in his ward

Is it ridicule to call the GA's douchebags, or just addressing them properly?

That jumped out at me too - and made me laugh! Wow. They are pretty touchy aren't they? They'd better watch out because being that sensitive about their "leaders" could make them easily offended. And you know where that leads...

Satan Claus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When announcing Church discipline, leaders must
> consider the feelings of the transgressor’s
> innocent family members and the needs of innocent
> potential victims.



What about the feelings of the transgressor?

Cultist teachings to attract a following.

Hilarious. I guess the cult leaders want the cult members to stay loyal to their cultist teachings and that the MLM structure of their organization does not want its' members taught unapproved, forgotten, or ignored cultist teaching.

Good thing TBMs know its' true or else they would see Mormonism is a fraud cult.

Cultist teachings! Hilarious.

Because, you know, disbelief is contagious.

I would think ward leadership would need to know. Otherwise you could pray in class, give lessons, etc.

or to ask that "we all go home in safety", it might backfire.

Intersting also that "cultist teachings to attract a following" is also on their list.

These guys are really so full of themselves. They really think that anything that pops into their heads is the True and Inspired and Universally Obligatory Word of God.

I'm surprised they didn't ex me when I told the stake president to go to hell. I guess he agreed with me.

I know that in the 80's as part of the repentance process a family member was forced to stand up in sacrament meeting and confess his adultery to the ward and ask for their forgiveness. It might have just been a power hungry asshat of a bishop that decided to do this regardless of policy, but either way, shame on him and the church.