Church policy is not to hold a disciplinary council and excommunicate people, including children, for choosing to dissociate themselves from our church and formally joining another. On the other hand, a person can't hold membership in two churches, either. Typically a ward leader or home/visiting teacher will confirm with the family what their wishes and intentions are. If they choose to join (such as with baptism) another church, they are informed that it would necessitate that their names be removed from the records of our church. We ask for their acknowledgment/request in writing. The name removal process is not done hastily, unless requested. A ward should try to work with the family to make sure this is what they really want to do.

I hope this helps all of my RfMers who are in this situation.

If that is not church policy, then why have they said it is in the 2010 handbook of instructions part I?

The CHI makes it quite clear that joining another church and advocating its teachings is apostacy. It also says that if the person does not end membership in that other church, excommunication or name removal is needed. Apostacy requires church discipline and joining another faith is apostacy as defined in the latest CHI.

Can we see bona fide quotes substantiating these points from the CHI? Or at least can we get page numbers?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2011 03:20PM by derrida.

derrida Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can we see bona fide quotes substantiating these
> points from the CHI? Or at least can we get page
> numbers?

From the 2010 edition of the Church Handbook of Instructions (now titled simply "Handbook 1"), chapter 6, "Church Discipline and Name Removal" page 57:

"Apostasy
"As used here, apostasy refers to members who:....
"...
"4. Formally join another church and advocate its teachings.
"Priesthood leaders must take disciplinary action against apostates to protect Church members....
"Total inactivity in the Church or attending another church does not constitute apostasy. However, if a member formally joins another church and advocates its teachings, excommunication or name removal may be necessary if formal membership in the other church is not ended after counseling and encouragement."

So it looks like the OP "Friend of Former SP" isn't quite accurate when he said:
"Church policy is not to hold a disciplinary council and excommunicate people, including children, for choosing to dissociate themselves from our church and formally joining another."

Please read with comprehension.

the part about advocating teachings of another church.

In 2006 just joining another church was grounds for excommunication - didn't matter if you were advocating or not.

But in 1999, joining another church was not a problem, and there was nothing about advocating non-LDS beliefs.

So now it looks like the CHI says it's okay if you join another church, just don't start proselytizing about it.

So my question is, what's the date of the OP policy?

You said the following in your original post:

"Church policy is NOT to hold a disciplinary council and excommunicate people, including children, for choosing to dissociate themselves from our church AND FORMALLY JOINING ANOTHER."

Are you asserting that someone can "formally join" another church WITHOUT "advocating its teachings?"

You do advocate the new church's teachings by the statement you make when you join. DUH!!!! The OP seems a bit confused about membership in other churches.

Yes, the Key is "AND" Advocates its teachings. The crime of apostacy is people speaking publicly against church teachings.

It seems to me that there would be one hell of a court case if the church excommunicated someone after they joined another church and advocated their new church.

The U.S. constitutional religious freedom would be pitted against the LDS ecclesiastical authority. The CHI sounds like "you can join another church, just don't preach their religion".

My common sense tells me that joining another church means the person has already left the LDS. They have no more control. That person is free to advocate whatever they wish. Let it go to court!

the kolobian church has every right to ex-communicate any of its members at any time for any reason.

by doing so they haven't done you any "harm", therefore there is no "injured party" therefore there can be no "valid cause of action."

I'm playing the devil here. In the case of GUINN V THE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF COLLINSVILLE the minister refused to recognize her resignation letter and excommunicated her after.

Maybe it needs to be pushed that joining another church speaks more loudly than a resignation letter.

wow, that's awesome. i bookmarked the court decision.

thanks!

Hancock subsequently sued the Mormon Church for millions of dollars and the Mormon Church relented, allowing him to resign.

"Excommunication of non members, Norman Hancock

"The case of Norman Hancock is an interesting one. It establishes firmly that churches cannot excommunicate members who leave during discipline, based on the Marian Guinn precedent. That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored. The state has no authority over the the disciplinary process within the church, but the person has no longer given their consent and this changes things.

"The case is standard. 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. 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 is he had asked his name be removed from thechurch role."

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/02/mormon-alliance-home-page.html

"Legal Precedent

"[The Hancock] case is important to establish the [Mormon] church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations. . . .

"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 [Mormon] 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 [see the link below for an explanation of that particular case]. The same account says that [Mormon] 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. [Mormon] Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommunication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').

"The Hancock case shows that the [Mormon] church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.

"The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the [Mormon] church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The [Mormon] church began having a process it calls 'name removal'. However, the [Mormon] 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 [Mormon] church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At [Mormon] 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."

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent
_____


P.S.--Some years ago, I personally telephoned Hancock and congratulated him on successfully challenging the Mormon Church per the matter of his membership resignation vs. the LDS Cult's attempt to excommunicate him despite his previous resignation. Hancock was gracious and low-key about the whole thing. A classy guy, in my opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/24/2011 04:22PM by steve benson.

Friend of Former SP Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please read with comprehension.

Soooo...what's the point of joining another church but not advocating its teachings. Once again, mormons speaking from both sides of their (collective) mouths..

What's advocating?? If a mormon asks a former mormon what the former mormon's new Lutheran church teaches regarding Lutheran salvation...and the former mormon says.."The Lutheran Church does not believe in having to go thru the temple and all the activities asscotiated with the temple.".

Is THAT advocating the former mormons new Lutheran religion and is THAT grounds for excommunication??

Thanks Richard. You are my favorite apostate.

So does this mean that potential converts are specifically told that they can't hold membership in two churches? Do the missionaries make sure new members have formally resigned membership in their previous church before they baptize them?
Or does a Mormon baptism cancel out their previous church membership? It seems that Mormon policy only works in one direction.

Good point maeve. I was Catholic groing up and never resigned my membership before joining the lds church. In essense I held two memberships so I can see where they could favor it one way. They probably dont care if you resigned your previous church, just not this one.

When I told a Catholic priest I was thinking about joining another church he just said I'd "forfeit the blessings of my baptism." Maybe I get them back if I returned (not that I want to).

I'm sure I'm still counted as a Catholic. I don't mind since they don't crow about it every year to promote the mistaken notion that the one true church is growing like a noxious weed.

I DID find it necessary to remove my name from the LDS church.

According to a very witty musical number from monty Python's the meaning of life: "You're a catholic the moment dad came." ;-)

QUESTION???? Don't the Mormons contact the new convert's previous church to say they are joining up with the Mormons? I thought they did. So if they don't does that mean that my daughter still holds two memberships- my Church (her first church and first baptism) and the LDS "Church"?

Yes, Steve (I posted this in the wrong place)....yeah to the Methodists and to this day they have standards which JS did not meet. Sorry Joe, but you are a huge fraud.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2011 05:26PM by honestone.

The handbook is a guide, but inspiration trumps policy.

Bishops/SPs sometimes ex people based on what they think the Lord is telling them to do and with hearsy/gossip as backup evidence.

They might not bother to ex someone in clear violation of mormon commandments and in accordance with handbook instructions.

Conversely, at times they ex members without any kind of due cause but just because of feelings and coincidendental appearances.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/12/2011 05:43PM by Cheryl.

--Mormon Apostles Secretly Try to Spin Joseph Smith's Disobedient Dance with the Methodists--

When I met privately with Mormon Apostles Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell in Salt Lake City's LDS Church Administration Building on 24 September 1993 to talk Mormon doctrine and history, Oaks informed me that the LDS Church did not (at least not at the time of our conversation) regard abandoning the Mormon religion in favor of another demonination as grounds, in and of itself, for excommunication.

Oaks's claim was in response to me asking him and Maxwell why Smith had joined a local Methodist Sunday School in 1828, after being told by God and Jesus Christ in the First Vision not to join any of the churches, given that they were all false.

--Oaks replied that Smith's "state of knowledge was much deeper than mine" (meaning Oaks's). Oaks added that because after receiving the First Vision Smith "could not meet with others of his own faith," he therefore "would want to meet with other Christians."

(Really? Did Joseph Smith wanting to do meet-and-greets with other Christians mean that God and Jesus were telling him he could join their membership ranks?)


--Oaks described Joseph Smith as a "friendly" person, one who was "interested in sampling what others taught."

(Really? Did God and Jesus tell Joseph Smith that he could engage in post-First Vision sampling of other churches, just as long as he didn't join up and as long as he was friendly about it?)


--Maxwell added that Smith was "social" and "gregarious" and that, at any rate, his joining with the Methodists was "brief."

(Really? Did God and Jesus tell Joseph Smith that he could join other churches because he was an easy mixer and an outgoing guy, but only on the condition that he didn't join for very long?)


--Oaks further noted that just as people were "moving in out and out of marriage in the Utah period,' so, too, on the New York frontier during the 1830s, an attitude prevailed requiring "no formal divorce in church membership."

(Really? Did God and Jesus tell Joseph Smith that because others in his day were moving on and off various church membership rolls, he could, too?)


--Oaks added that, according to the LDS "General Handbook of Instructions" (at least at that time), "joining other churches is not, by itself, a sign of apostasy."

(Really? Did God and Jesus tell Joseph Smith that if he violated their command not to join any of the other churches, they wouldn't consider him an apostate if he did, even though they had told him in the grove of trees that they were all an "abomination"?)


--Neither Oaks or Maxwell adequately explained to me why Joseph Smith--God's prophet on Earth who restored the one and only true church to the planet, i.e., the Mormon one--flagrantly disobeyed his Sacred Grove orders from God and Jesus by going ahead and joining a Methodist Sunday School.

(Oh well, it didn't work anyway. The Methodists knew a fraud when they saw one and kicked him out).

Back in the mid seventies there was a house cleaning here in N.C. I was the E.Q. pres. and we were given a lot of names and told to ask the people to write a letter asking that their name be removed from the church. Most of these people were kiddie baptize and forget. However there were a few people who were elders and they did not come to church very often. One was a grandson of L. Snow and he attended another church with his wife. I was assigned as his home teacher and came to like him a lot. Finally I was asked to deliver the choice to him and I refused. Someone else delivered the choice and he was exed out of the church.
It's fair to say that most of the people did not know that they were members of the mormon church. They were baptized when they were kids and thought the mishes were playing with them.
This happened a lot in N.C. back in the sixties and early seventies.

It is totally up to local leadership. My ward knows that I am a very active member of a Christian church. In fact my wife told the missionaries I joined that church

I am probably in the not worth the effort category.

Or because I am friendly and don't say anything bad about the church plus feeding the missionaries, they leave me alone.

The thing I don't understand about joining other churches from the Mo's POV is: Why won't they take that as a hint and leave people the hell alone about their beliefs?

It really is NOT all about them (the church). ex-com, name removal, blood atonement whatever, just leave us the he!! alone!! Ok, maybe not blood atonement.