Are you talking about the parable of Lazarus?  That story is just a parable.  It's there for the point it makes, not for being literal.  The point is to make people think about whether what they care about most in life is really important in the eternal scheme of things.

Hell was often used figuratively by the Jews in parables and stories, even though the Jews did not believe in a literal hell (and still don't).

Yes, Lazarus, thank you.

I always had trouble with that one. I know it's a parable, but how much? Most of the parables are based in real places, with realistic characters; people plant real seeds, and rocky, fertile, and sandy ground do really exist. So does Hell really exist? I can accept that it's an over-dramatization for myself, but can I show it to someone else?

I think the important fact was that the heaven/hell paradigm was often used by Jews to illustrate a point, but was not believed in literally.  So if that figurative language is used in an actual parable, it seems even less likely to be taken literally.

If I'm an apostate to the LDS church, am I still a member?

It depends on if your name has been removed from the church records officially.  The answer, in other words, is there is a database that can tell you the answer, yes or no.

Unless you specifically go into the Bishop's office and request that you be removed from LDS church records, or mail a specific form letter to church headquarters, you will not be removed, and you probably haven't been.  The Bishop's job at that point is to make sure that you understand what you're requesting, that any blessings you may still be receiving from God would be rescinded, that coming back to the church would not be an easy or a quick process, etc.  The Bishop then writes a letter to the Stake Presidency who, if they feel that the Bishop adequately explained everything, write back that the member has 30 days to change their mind.  If they don't hear from you within 30 days, then a message is sent on to church headquarters, who processes the paperwork, and you're sent a letter saying that you're no longer a member of the church.

You can also send a letter directly to church headquarters and skip that process.

This "talk to a local leader and make sure you really understand what you're asking or mail a specific form letter to church headquarters" is basically the same process for almost every different large church in the US, like Catholics, Lutheran, Baptist, etc.

This doesn't mean you'll never be contacted again by members of the church.  Missionaries go door-to-door all over the place and if your name isn't in church records, your door will be knocked on just like your neighbors door would be knocked on.  Family or friends may try to talk to you to change your mind, but the church isn't encouraging them to proselytize you any more than they'd be encouraged to proselytize anyone that they happen to know.  For instance, my brother decided that he doesn't want to be a member of the LDS church any more.  If he went through the process to have his membership officially revoked or wrote a letter (he hasn't done either yet), I wouldn't stop asking him to come visit the church on Sunday or some to a church activity.  I obviously wouldn't ask enough that it would be buggy or annoying because that's obviously not a way to change his mind, but to church activities open to the public that serve free food?  Yeah, I ask him to those and sometimes he comes.  Even if he did officially revoke his membership, I'd still ask him to those same activities.

Thanks, Bart. I learned something in that first paragraph that I didn't know before.

Is the Bishop in an LDS church paid, or is it volunteer?  Our daughter is friends with a girl whose father is the Bishop at the local LDS church, but he also works full time (at the minimum) at a job as well.  Seems like a lot!

We have a layman system, so they are not paid.  It is all volunteer.  Which, not to be political, was one thing that was overlooked when people were criticizing Mitt Romney.  He was a volunteer bishop on top of his demanding job.

We consider being a bishop a "calling" inspired by God.  Typically, the calling lasts for 6 years.

Thanks. Sort of figured that, but was unsure.

If you have a ward with 400 people or so in it (which isn't too unusual), or at least that many on the books if not that many people actively attending, and each person has one crisis every few years on average, that's an average of every few days that the Bishop is dealing with someone's personal crisis, on top of everything else that the Bishop normally does, which is a heck of a lot.

Interestingly enough, the Bishop has many jobs in the church these days which may or may not continue to always be part of the Bishop's responsibilities.  For instance, the Bishop is the head of the Aaronic Priesthood, and is also the presiding high priest in the ward.  At some point in the future (usually discussed around the time that Jesus returns to the earth), these jobs will not necessarily be held by the same person.  "Although the Aaronic Priesthood is conferred in the Church today without restriction to the lineage of Aaron, the keys of this priesthood rightly belong to the firstborn of the seed of Aaron, and in the restoration of all things the office of [president of the priests] will once again be conferred on one of that lineage, as it is designated by revelation to the president of the Church."   There are other jobs that the Bishop now has and how those jobs will change and who will have each job and what each person's title will be is a matter of speculation -- the Lord hasn't revealed to me how all that will work in some future day.

Well, I certainly think it's cool that the LDS church does not go the "professional pastor" route as do most other Christian churches.

Yeah, 1 Peter 5:2.

So, just to be clear, even if I turned my back on the LDS church, screamed at them, hung little signs all over the place denouncing it, advocated its ruin on national TV, etc... if I haven't signed a piece of paper approving my departure, I'm still a member of the LDS church?

Well, any church could choose to go through the whole excommunication process and kick you out themselves.  For you to leave a church, however, pretty much every major religion (and their lawyers, when people have sued a church, which has happened for most of the major religions at this point) have arrived at basically the same process -- either go talk to your local leader in person then wait it out or send a letter to church headquarters.

In my opinion, if you were screaming at the LDS church, hanging little signs of paper all over the place, well you're probably mentally ill and need a doctor/therapist.  If the church turns its back on you in your obvious time of trouble, well that's not very Christ-like is it?  If you're denouncing the church on National TV, well, they don't often let mentally ill people have free mic time on TV and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would likely be more inclined to eventually excommunicate you, in my opinion.  I don't know, maybe you're just going through a rough spot in life and you're misdirecting your anger for whatever reason -- excommunication is not my call to make.

They really can't if they don't keep the records that the LDS crowd does... I'd simply walk away.

But I was asking about the nature of those records. Why keep apostates on them to begin with?

What defines an apostate?  You want some religious police to be going through people's lives, even when the people aren't there, checking to see who's worthy enough to still be a member?

People sometimes have problems in their life.  People sometimes drift in and our of membership.  While this state of activity might preclude a person for a while from say being sealed in the temple, or being called to be Bishop or something, it's not enough to kick a person out.  Why should it be?

Pretty much every major religion keeps the same records on its members that the LDS church does.  They have to -- they have to have some way of tracking someone who was convicted of child molestation, or accused of it, as that person moves around from one local body of a church to another local body of a church.  As churches have begun to discover to their detriment, not keeping good records can end up making them legally liable down the road.  Not to mention, the IRS demands that companies keep track of how much donations they receive and who they received it from -- I think it's seven years?  It's all part of the IRS tattletale system where the IRS expects to get a note about everything from at least two different people, so that it can more easily take a quick glance and say whether things are matching up.

These records that the LDS church keeps on its members aren't super huge files.  They record who your family is, how to contact you, when you were baptized/confirmed, whether you went on a mission, what major callings you've had (like Bishop), and that's basically it (although, you know, they might contain a note saying that you aren't ever allowed to work with kids again or something like that).

Heath said that the church marks them, which implies that somebody does the defining.



I've attended several churches that don't seem to have anything near the level of bureaucracy that the LDS church has. Whether it has some reasonable basis isn't, to my mind, relevant, excepting the cessation of it.




Aside from those in authority in a given church I would've considered this the responsibility of civil agencies, including the police.



The IRS does not require that you keep records on the specific source of the donation... unless that source declares the intent on its taxes (Kevin Jones donates a building, the IRS needs to know that. Granny Smith puts a dollar in the collection plate... not so much). Since your typical church goer does not donate that much or declare it on their taxes (yes, I realize that tithing might be a slightly different kettle of fish, but not everyone tithes), this is not part of a template for religion.



Where you've moved to and what your current relationship is with the church. The first from personal experience and the second from Heath's statement about 'apostate' being marked.

Back to the question at hand, though I think you've answered it. I've belonged to several churches that don't keep those kinds of records. You walk away, you come back, whatever... I don't deny that it might be reasonable to maintain records on folk which may have criminal pasts or might even draw attention that a given church doesn't want.

Are you saying that the LDS church maintains records to maintain continuity? Why do some churches not do that and what differentiates them from the LDS church?

Sure, why not?
They probably do and you're just not aware of it.  You ever stop going to church for a month and then gotten a call, "Hey, we missed you, are you coming back?"  That's probably them using the information they have on record to contact you.  If you tell them that you're never coming back, and to stop calling you, then whoever called you might mark you as "do not call", but I highly doubt they go into their computer records at that point and completely delete all references to you.

Any church that has more than about a thousand members probably has some sort of records, probably the same information that about every other church keeps.  I get free long distance calls in the US.  Name any religion with more than a thousand members and I'll look up their website, call the contact number there, and ask whether they keep track of their members names, contact information, birthdays, etc.  I'm fairly positive that they'll tell me that they have that sort of stuff written down.
As I understand it, there isn't an apostate box to check or not check on a person's official records.  The official records are pretty scant -- they basically contain what I outlined earlier.  Everything else is word of mouth.  "So, I'm new in this calling and I was looking over the membership records and I saw a name I don't recognize, Mr. X., anyone know anything about him?"  "Yeah, he does thus-and-such, yadda, yadda."  Or, "Yeah, I stopped by his house once and he said blah, blah."  If someone is excommunicated, that's kind of different, but it's my understanding that by "apostate" you mean "I was a member and now I'd rather not be, but nothing official has ever happened regarding that."
Again, you probably just didn't realize that they do.  Pretty much every large religion in the US is the same -- United Methodist, Catholic, Reformed Church in America (the ones that the Crystal Cathedral church near me are part of -- officially that congregation has now been renamed Shepherd's Grove), etc., they all send some sort of message to the home office listing a person's name, birthday, etc., when a person joins the church.
Me too, but then I would have presumed that after sending my coffee back multiple times for being too hot I couldn't then sue McDonalds for giving me boiling hot coffee which I put between my legs while driving and then squoze it hard enough that the lid popped off and I burned myself (I didn't sue for that, some other person did and won).  What you and I consider reasonable may not match up with what lawyers have been able to argue is reasonable or not.
My employer will match charitable contributions up to $500 each year, and I'm happy to show my receipt for donating at least that much in a year in tithing and then have the company owner donate more money to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Even if your company won't match charitable contributions, most churches need large donations to keep going.  If a donation is for more than $250, a church must give you a receipt for it.  Records of those receipts must be kept in some form.  Your church probably has some sort of building committee in charge of soliciting funds to repair/build and is also in charge of coordinating work done.  Records of those types of donations usually always have to be reported to the IRS.  I'm not saying that most churches need to report what they get by passing the plate during a service, but "plate" donations like that are usually the tip of the iceberg for the donations that a church actually receives during the year.
Well, yeah, I did say they have your contact information.  If your contact information changes, that information will be updated. ;)

Or they just don't keep it. When I was a kid I wandered from church to church and no one ever asked me for my phone number, address, etc.



I guess that might go back to the "what's an apostate" question. If Heath took me to mean that the apostate in question had been excommunicated then you two share the same understanding, he just assumed I meant one thing when I said another. If he meant that apostates were marked on the card in some way that you are unaware of, like punching a hole maybe, then that's also a small matter to clear up. If, on the other hand, you both meant what you said without any error, then you both understand the record keeping of your faith differently.



Whoa there! I don't know about every church I've ever attended, but the Buddhists, the B'hai, and the Jains... they simply didn't keep records. Sometimes it was hard to recognize who was leading. They didn't ask for a signature either. And there have been a few Christian churches I've been to that weren't as big on record keeping as the LDS crowd. This is by no means a negative comment regarding your faith, simply an observation.




Your employer is not a typical church goer, and I specifically ruled out tithing as not the kind of donation I was referring to.



Aside from the LDS and the Catholic church (although I'm sure there's others... tithing is not a new concept), I haven't encountered them. Probably because I'm cheap.



I don't belong to any such organization.



Most of my dealings with priestly folk running a church are a touch on the rural side, where the preacher does all the building repairs hisself or gets 'em donated by the locals. Sometimes that gets noted as a tax item, but more often it's considered a quid pro quo kinda deal. The plate tends to be a big deal for them, or the donation box.

Bear in mind, if you're not volunteering hours behind the scenes, you're probably not aware of how the church you're attending works.

My parents are both deeply involved in their church (and I've spent my hours as an altar boy). So I can tell you:
- I was registered with the diocese when I was baptized. My parents got a nice baptismal certificate too. I understand I can ask to view the paper records the Church keeps if I wanted, but it's kept at the local level. I expect that most churches that practice an initiation ritual will keep some record of this important event, it being, well, an important event :)

- Most churches I've gone to have a little pamphlet or booklet or something with news, announcements, and ads. At the end of that is normally a little registration paper you can put in. Some churches are pushier about it than others. If you just go in for service and blow on out straight after, you probably don't notice it, but it does help them reach out for volunteers, provide assistance to people, and just form a psychological bond between parishioners and the community ("this is MY church, I chose it and registered!")

- The RCC is a big organization which I'm sure likes papers, however for most parishioners, you don't have a file that follows you around. Like I said, if I wanted my baptismal certificate, I'm sure I could find it, but *I* would have to track it down. HOWEVER, the LDS Church relies more heavily on volunteers as well as missionaries. When you do that, you need more paperwork to keep track of all of those people. From my experience in scouting I can tell you, it's just good sense; who is experienced in what, who took the mandatory youth protection and sexual assault training, who is owed money for a large loan to the church, who is a problem person who needs extra care, etc. It would be foolish to do otherwise, and destructive for everyone involved.

- The churches I've been to have always relied more heavily on behind-the-scenes checks than on the little basket passed around. Average service is what, 60 families, with an average donation of $10/person? Five services in a weekend is $3,000 for the week? And with that you cover usually three (or more) full-time employees, maintaining a giant building including heating, power, maintenance, PLUS social programs? I can only speak for my parents, obviously, but they'd regularly donate four-digit checks (or higher, they never told me) to the Church. That requires the Church track it, and they'd be giving away at least $300 to Uncle Sam if they don't track it as well.

So nothing Bart has said seems unreasonable. It only becomes unreasonable if this is tracked without consent. And since I've never heard of any LDS members (or ex-members) saying they've been tracked or harassed without consent, I don't believe it to be a serious issue.

I agree katisara.

Almost any church I have been to has some sort of record keeping along the lines of what the LDS church seems to track.

Obviously that doesn't mean that all churches do this, but just the ones I have been to.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 867):

And that's cool. I don't think, although I'd have to look back and I'm feeling lazy at the moment, that I meant to imply this was even out of the ordinary. Just that it was done.

Smaller churches that I've attended have not tracked simply because they don't.

Article Headline is:

It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11...ml?referrer&_r=3

My question is if this is really news?  This strikes me as something that was well known.  I didn't realize it was even denied.

Well, as I recall, Smith only had two wives with which he had relations.

One of the issues people don't get is that the marriage/sealing ordinance is a required ordinance in the LDS church to get to the celestial kingdom (e.g., you might say the top level of heaven where God dwells).  Therefore, early on in the church, many women were sealed to men so that this could be complete, not so they could actually live as husband and wife.

The result is that it looks like the men had many, many wives, but in actuality, most of the wives were already dead or were otherwise not a wife in the traditional sense.  It was just an ordinance performed so they could make sure it was done in their name, like baptism.  How that all gets sorted out in the afterlife, I don't really know.

So does this surprise me?  No.  My guess is that they sealing ordinance was done to ensure they had all saving ordinances performed for the resurrection, not so they could be married in the traditional sense.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:58, Tue 11 Nov 2014.