So the point is: this discussion revolves around balancing purity within the LDS church and extending a time of mercy for those who for whatever reason do not identify- tough call! Difficult topic. Local leadersip acting with sensitivity and hopefully inspiration seems to be the answer to me.

Here is the root of the real problem: Church statistics!
All over membership could shoot down quickly if the removal of names was facilitated. They should have a way to transfer these names to the DNC Ward at church headquarters and then if someone wants to re-activate don’t put them through a grueling re-baptised, re-entry process, but welcome them.
The other statistic: Home Teacing, VT, attendance would go up if these were removed!
And, what I think is even more important is people. Why should active members who are busy anyway spend a time/gas/worry about getting the HT/VT done every month to DNC folks that don’t even know are DNC? We constantly see new HT assigned to these folks who spin their wheels trying to see these folks and use up time and energy instead of telling them up front the deal. Of course, PH leaders hope the “new HT” will have a fresh prospective and more luck and will re-activate these folks. But at what cost? They may be the sheep that have wondered, but once a year should be enough to just confirm they are there and whether to switch them from DNC to welcome to visit.

I would say this, if you want your name left on the rolls on the mormon church for whatever reason, you ought to expect to hear from them on a regular basis. If you don’t, then do what I did and take five minutes to write a letter to the stake president and get your name removed. Eveb thought I think mormons are lost people in need of Christ, there is no excuse for lashing out at some poor membership clerk who doesn’t know you want no contact.

I agree with ThomasB. That seems a little premature to be asking such a question. In my example, we are talking about people who continuously had no contact with the church for many, many years.

There is a Bishop that needs some training. I would call the Stake President and let him know. I am confident that if the Area Authority knew that had happened that Bishop would get a personal phone call.

I’m pretty thick skinned about getting yelled at by a stranger over things that have nothing to do with me. Do you actually take it personally when they tell you to get lost? Dust your heels and get on with your life!

That’s an excellent response and I appreciate it. I’ve seen it done both ways and I think you’ve got the right idea. It’s ministering, after all.

Do not take umbridge with the comment but what you say is one of the real problems in context to this subject. If you are the “judge” in your boundries then you should not be sending the WML out to discuss a DNC who wants his name removed. I did have people who told me that they had tried this before to no avail and I would tell them that I was going to see it through personally from beginning to end. I would imform them of every step and I followed through personally.

Those that try to delegate this or skirt it can answer for it later. It is simply a matter of stewardship. At the end of the day the only individuals that are going to carry it out are the Bishop and the Stake President. No one else can be blamed for not following through if a member of record has requested removal.

The beauty of the ward is that it has maintained a great deal of its effiency despite the growth of the church. There is no sprawling beauracracy. The councils, channels of reporting have remained relatively untouched for decades. The Lords House is supposed to be one of order. If it is not then that rests on the Bishop and he needs to ask for council and guidance on how to fix it.

Check out Cicero #49, he has a good answer to your scenarios. I’ve had situations where people say, “Gee, I’ve really not that interested right now, but maybe someday. In the meantime, I’d rather not have any contact.” That’s the nice response and everyone leave happy and cared for.

The other scenario is the nasty, hostile one where it makes you wonder why they still remain on the records, if they are so hostile to the church. Which was the whole point of the post before it got sidetracked to “don’t come to my home without calling first.”

Or a different example… I’m a member of a special interest group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. I sent them a token amount of money and they started sending me a newsletter and other things, which I appreciate. But next year if I don’t send them the money they’ll eventually get the hint and take me off the records of their organization. Or another example… at the end of the year many magazines send you a card asking if you want to renew your subscription. Is that “rude”? Would it be rude to send a member of the Church a card that said, “Are you really that interested?”

So my question is, how is this different than the Church? Am I missing something? It seems that a few people think that a member of the Church saying, “Are you really that interested? If not, why are you baptized?” is kind of rude… I’m wondering, is it really all that different than a magazine asking for a renewed subscription when they haven’t been paid in a while. Am I a calloused jerk?

There appears to be a difference between those who were so hardened that they were excommunicated and those who simply withdrew – and there is no indication that those who simply withdrew were tracked down and officially “blotted out”.

Excellent quote and an unfortunate situation for many. Let’s not forget, no matter how it is handled, the name removal is still voluntary on the part of the member and no one in the Church will do anything beyond that.

I sincerely hope that your rebaptisim happen soon. I think the church needs more people like you.

“and I am sorry but it sounds like there is to much delegation given in these issues to individuals who have no reason to be involved.”..”their name removed I was the point person with them from beginning to end”

I take it you didn’t delegate much. I knew many over the years who lead that way, did most of the paperwork even though they had a clerk. But one day they look back and finally realise that they should’ve spent more time with members and less time on admin. I suppose you haven’t reached that yet.

Jeff,

“Let’s face facts, no one wants to deal with the growing number of members who want no contact with the Church. It is one of the most difficult things to deal with because of the usual hostility that accompanies it.”

So very true.

For the hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out, that they were remembered no more among the people of God. And also many withdrew themselves from among them.

There appears to be a difference between those who were so hardened that they were excommunicated and those who simply withdrew – and there is no indication that those who simply withdrew were tracked down and officially “blotted out”.

I am not sure what to make of this comment.

You sound like a Bishop who was very interested in doing his job. Not all Bishops want to take personal responsibility for the DNCs. They delegate that to the Priesthood quorums, whose job it is to assign, manage and perform Home Teaching. Even when reporting back that a person desires no contact or continued no contact, sometimes, that member is not contacted by the Bishop to understand the reasons why. And sometimes, when the Priesthood Leader knows the reason, still the member is left alone. Let’s face facts, no one wants to deal with the growing number of members who want no contact with the Church. It is one of the most difficult things to deal with because of the usual hostility that accompanies it. But, still, the ward and the Bishop have a responsibility to that person, whether they like it or not.

Leaving those folks alone is the usual course of action.

Maybe the Bishops you know that complain so much are just incompetant. In all my years of service the only people I ever heard complain about record keeping was the clerks. The only time there were problems with it is when they continually ignored what I asked them to do. This really is not a complex matter and I am sorry but it sounds like there is to much delegation given in these issues to individuals who have no reason to be involved.

If someone asked or we found out someone wanted their name removed I was the point person with them from beginning to end. If someone made a mistake guess what it was me. I did not send out the EQ Pres, HP GL,or a missionary couple to deal with an issue that has such sensitive issues surrounding it. After reading all of this it just seems like there are many individuals dealing with these circumstances that have no common sense.

The system may not be anywhere as easy to change as you might think. I’m not sure it is even in anything as modern as COBAL.

(*you know, drop dates and other information, add stuff, etc. I’d get them corrected and they would go squirrelly again all on their own).

I think we’re on the same page about the trust issue with the average Elders Quorum member. Yeah, it would be nice if all Elders caught the vision of home-teaching, stewardship, serving people in the way they want to be served, and how Christ would have us serve, and were good communicators. But few seem to have the vision that you, Ray, and DavidH have. Most members just don’t “get it.” And many people don’t have good communication skills. And having once had the vision, that’s probably the most frustating part for me of being an attending/active ex-member. I miss home teaching.

I haven’t had much contact with members of HP groups. But generally, they seem to have a better vision than the elders. However, the problem of human communications still plays a part, where when you say “x”, people automatically assume that it includes “y”. Or when people say “x”, and they did mean to imply “y”, but the listener is a literalist.\\

Then there’s the whole spectrum of people skills. Some people can establish a relationship of trust on the first encounter. Some people never do. Some people can read others well, some can’t. I have a problem understanding people who never speak in complete sentences.

And yes, I knew that one’s baptism date, after rebaptism, reverts back to the original date.

I get what you’re saying, but obviously disagree with the lack of trust by the SP.

Maybe you’re right and it needs to all be in writing and formal, but if only they would just trust elders more and accept their, the HT elders written report of events as sufficient just as a judge accepts a police officers report as valid almost always, then I’d be more likely to take part in the whole process again.

But then hawkgrrrl has a good point here in that it does sound a lot like “you should just leave” when that letter is requested by HT, doesn’t it??

Who knows? anyway I need to get some sleep now, being up all night and too many ‘evil’ and ‘bitter’ comment have been flowing from my mind

By the way, I take it that they re-baptised you? If so you should check the numbers on the records before you left and on return and the baptism dates, which should all be the original ones, to kind off prove that the church never destroys or deletes any record, only moves them around form one list to another. And in that moving is where errors are usually made.

Where do ‘me’ guys get this stuff? A)from more than 3 decades experience in various leadership positions, from Bishop, stake president counselor, to stake and ward clerk and just about every other calling except stake president or patriarch. B)Form what you yourself wrote. I never mentioned evil or the SP yelling just noted from what you wrote that the man obviously didn’t trust your management skills enough and ‘just wants to check’, ‘just in case’…’lets make sure’….

Fact is that the church is anything but efficient when it comes to membership records and procedures. GA want inspiration to be a part of everyday church activity so they don’t police much on the admin side of things. But then they’ll make some small comment that ‘clerks need to be trained..’ and so on. And I’ve heard some complain of the lack of continuity in bishops especially, where today they average about 3.5 years in the calling, then a new kid is called and it all starts again, the training, teaching, checking……so maybe they have reasons to be suspicious of what local leaders do.

But still I wish that our common elders in our church would be kind of equivalent to officers in the military, for example, so that everything they do is trusted and respected because they are ‘officers’ and professionals, instead of all going to the Bishop. Maybe someday…..nah!