4 ms·

> The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. I don't see that. If they're removed, they're removed, at l

> The names don't get removed. Everyone that leaves is just "inactive". Tell me you don't see that. I don't see that. If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see.

dkarl 7y ago
> If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see. This is exactly the kind of dishonest bullshit line that local leaders use when people ask to be removed and not contacted again. I don't know how these "lists" work internally in the church, but local leaders can happily say, "Sure, we'll remove you from the list. Done! No more visits!" knowing that they haven't done what the person requested, knowing that the church will continue to send people to that person's home, even if they move hundreds of miles away. They believe this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for a believing Mormon, which is why it's so important to call it out in public. The only way they will back off from this kind of behavior is if it harms the public image of the church.
- godelski 7y ago
  Exactly this, and I thought I was clear with my analogy with the sports team. I have told at least a dozen missionaries and a handful of bishops to not contact me. Yet here we are. When someone says "I'm out of here" you don't follow them around the country, calling them by name "Hey, so are you ready to come back?" To put it in other words "No means no." following people around like that is harassment and borderline stalking.
- curiousgeorgio 7y ago
  You're welcome to your own opinions, but I actually work with church records at a local level, and this is the truth. I have siblings and neighbors who have left, and there's absolutely no remaining evidence (that I or my local leaders can see) of their info or that they were ever members of the church. It comes down to what you're specifically asking. If you ask a local leader to remove you from a list, they may remove you from (for example) a local list of members who are open to being visited. That list would not represent your membership record in the church. In most cases, the removal from a local list like that is both appropriate and what the person actually expects (after all, it's not like your contact info was obtained from a spam list or something; you would have to have been baptized in the church, professed to believe in the church's doctrines, voluntarily consented to being a member, provided personal data, etc, so a retraction of all that is a relatively serious decision). On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters. If you asked specifically about removing your record completely, and a bishop didn't tell you how to do that, that would be a (frustrating) mistake, and I believe that leader should be corrected (it's in their handbook of instructions). It's rare enough that some leaders may just not be as familiar with the process. In either case, it sounds like you had a bad experience with that, and your frustration is understandable. People in similar situations have been very vocal about that kind of thing, but I know that in the majority of cases (many that I've seen firsthand), those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can. EDIT: The line about you volunteering information (or your parents doing so on your behalf) isn't meant to place blame, but rather to simply point out that significant, deliberate effort was put into creating your record in the church. In that light, it would be crazy for a local leader or member to knock on your door, hear you say "remove me from your list", and interpret that as full authorization to remove your record completely. You certainly have the freedom to do that, but an offhanded remark at the door isn't really appropriate for that level of action.
  - dkarl 7y ago
    > On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters. This is exactly how my friend was treated at every step of the way. They pretended that she hadn't actually asked for the right thing in the right way. It's shameful. She asked over and over not to be contacted ever again, by anyone, by any part of the church, in any locality. And to this day, people just like you pretend that it couldn't have happened that way, that she must have done something wrong. "Gaslighting" is a word that I think is used way too lightly these days, but that's what the church did to her. It started before she left and was the reason she left. Every time she talked to people inside the church about the things that were happening to her, the reaction was, "Are you sure it didn't actually happen this other way?" They rejected her story of what happened and believed their own version instead. > those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can I'm sorry, but I don't believe that even you can even pretend to believe that without it hurting a little bit.
    - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
      I'm sorry about your friend. If it's a case of abuse (as it sounds like), I'm truly sorry, and I don't know anyone - inside or outside the church - who would think that's okay. If she wants her name removed (and it hasn't already been done), that can definitely be done - she just needs to talk to the bishop or stake president and formally request it to be removed (it's really not a complicated process). Those stories should be heard, and there absolutely needs to be transparency. It does come with the side effect of making those cases sound disproportionately "typical", when they really aren't. I've never experienced or known a victim of abuse in the church (that I know of), but it does break my heart to hear about it happening, and I would encourage people to speak up when it does happen (especially to higher-up leaders who can do something about it). Bad people slip through the cracks (as they do in any organization). It's unfortunate, but the church is doing a lot to help prevent those wrongs and mistakes. I absolutely still stand with my assertion that "mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can".
jacurtis 7y ago
It actually doesn't remove it from Missionary records. Missionary records are intentionally kept separate from church records. I was a missionary and we visited people who have left the church (and had their name removed) many, many times. We have left their records behind after we were told to fuck off for future missionaries to continue to contact. If the threats get violent enough a missionary might choose to remove it from missionary records (we did this only once during my two year mission, after someone threatening to kill us and posting pictures of us at our apartment). Other threats were just shrugged off and I guarantee missionaries that came behind me re-visted that member again and probably still are to this day.
- curiousgeorgio 7y ago
  What "missionary records" are you talking about? I'm not aware of any official, separate missionary records. I was also a missionary and the only records/lists we saw were those kept by local wards. Were they perhaps (unofficial) manually-stored paper records kept by previous missionaries or something?
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    Each mission area has an official notebook of paper records that are maintained by the two missionaries that cover that area. These records were never synchronized with other data sources. Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them (I only saw this once in two years, and nobody involved seemed to take a moment to think about the bigger picture of what they were doing). There are personal info data brokers e.g. Acxiom. Maybe the church is incorporating such sources when tracking down "lost" members.
    - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
      > Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them I've seen that too, though as I understand it, those only come from (standard membership) records that are moved from a previous ward (not removed) and the leadership doesn't know which new ward the person should geographically belong to (they might only have a rough geographic idea). The intention is one of trying to help provide assistance and support to people who are - at least in terms of the official records - still members of the church. That won't happen with people whose records have been officially removed from the church. As for a "notebook of paper records", unfortunately there's very little that can be done to completely avoid inaccuracies in those, but the church has been working to make more of those things happen electronically (which would solve the issue of not being synchronized). It may not be in place everywhere, but that's the direction it's going, so it will definitely improve.

dkarl 7y ago

> If they're removed, they're removed, at least from any lists that local leaders, members or missionaries could see. This is exactly the kind of dishonest bullshit line that local leaders use when people ask to be removed and not contacted again. I don't know how these "lists" work internally in the church, but local leaders can happily say, "Sure, we'll remove you from the list. Done! No more visits!" knowing that they haven't done what the person requested, knowing that the church will continue to send people to that person's home, even if they move hundreds of miles away. They believe this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do for a believing Mormon, which is why it's so important to call it out in public. The only way they will back off from this kind of behavior is if it harms the public image of the church.

godelski 7y ago
Exactly this, and I thought I was clear with my analogy with the sports team. I have told at least a dozen missionaries and a handful of bishops to not contact me. Yet here we are. When someone says "I'm out of here" you don't follow them around the country, calling them by name "Hey, so are you ready to come back?" To put it in other words "No means no." following people around like that is harassment and borderline stalking.
curiousgeorgio 7y ago
You're welcome to your own opinions, but I actually work with church records at a local level, and this is the truth. I have siblings and neighbors who have left, and there's absolutely no remaining evidence (that I or my local leaders can see) of their info or that they were ever members of the church. It comes down to what you're specifically asking. If you ask a local leader to remove you from a list, they may remove you from (for example) a local list of members who are open to being visited. That list would not represent your membership record in the church. In most cases, the removal from a local list like that is both appropriate and what the person actually expects (after all, it's not like your contact info was obtained from a spam list or something; you would have to have been baptized in the church, professed to believe in the church's doctrines, voluntarily consented to being a member, provided personal data, etc, so a retraction of all that is a relatively serious decision). On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters. If you asked specifically about removing your record completely, and a bishop didn't tell you how to do that, that would be a (frustrating) mistake, and I believe that leader should be corrected (it's in their handbook of instructions). It's rare enough that some leaders may just not be as familiar with the process. In either case, it sounds like you had a bad experience with that, and your frustration is understandable. People in similar situations have been very vocal about that kind of thing, but I know that in the majority of cases (many that I've seen firsthand), those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can. EDIT: The line about you volunteering information (or your parents doing so on your behalf) isn't meant to place blame, but rather to simply point out that significant, deliberate effort was put into creating your record in the church. In that light, it would be crazy for a local leader or member to knock on your door, hear you say "remove me from your list", and interpret that as full authorization to remove your record completely. You certainly have the freedom to do that, but an offhanded remark at the door isn't really appropriate for that level of action.
- dkarl 7y ago
  > On the other hand, if you want to remove your record from the church as a whole (the entire organization), you'd need to be clear about that with your bishop (local leader), and they are instructed to give you details about how to go about removing your record from church headquarters. This is exactly how my friend was treated at every step of the way. They pretended that she hadn't actually asked for the right thing in the right way. It's shameful. She asked over and over not to be contacted ever again, by anyone, by any part of the church, in any locality. And to this day, people just like you pretend that it couldn't have happened that way, that she must have done something wrong. "Gaslighting" is a word that I think is used way too lightly these days, but that's what the church did to her. It started before she left and was the reason she left. Every time she talked to people inside the church about the things that were happening to her, the reaction was, "Are you sure it didn't actually happen this other way?" They rejected her story of what happened and believed their own version instead. > those kinds of mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can I'm sorry, but I don't believe that even you can even pretend to believe that without it hurting a little bit.
  - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
    I'm sorry about your friend. If it's a case of abuse (as it sounds like), I'm truly sorry, and I don't know anyone - inside or outside the church - who would think that's okay. If she wants her name removed (and it hasn't already been done), that can definitely be done - she just needs to talk to the bishop or stake president and formally request it to be removed (it's really not a complicated process). Those stories should be heard, and there absolutely needs to be transparency. It does come with the side effect of making those cases sound disproportionately "typical", when they really aren't. I've never experienced or known a victim of abuse in the church (that I know of), but it does break my heart to hear about it happening, and I would encourage people to speak up when it does happen (especially to higher-up leaders who can do something about it). Bad people slip through the cracks (as they do in any organization). It's unfortunate, but the church is doing a lot to help prevent those wrongs and mistakes. I absolutely still stand with my assertion that "mistakes are rare and local leaders will help however they can".

jacurtis 7y ago

It actually doesn't remove it from Missionary records. Missionary records are intentionally kept separate from church records. I was a missionary and we visited people who have left the church (and had their name removed) many, many times. We have left their records behind after we were told to fuck off for future missionaries to continue to contact. If the threats get violent enough a missionary might choose to remove it from missionary records (we did this only once during my two year mission, after someone threatening to kill us and posting pictures of us at our apartment). Other threats were just shrugged off and I guarantee missionaries that came behind me re-visted that member again and probably still are to this day.

curiousgeorgio 7y ago
What "missionary records" are you talking about? I'm not aware of any official, separate missionary records. I was also a missionary and the only records/lists we saw were those kept by local wards. Were they perhaps (unofficial) manually-stored paper records kept by previous missionaries or something?
- nitrogen 7y ago
  Each mission area has an official notebook of paper records that are maintained by the two missionaries that cover that area. These records were never synchronized with other data sources. Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them (I only saw this once in two years, and nobody involved seemed to take a moment to think about the bigger picture of what they were doing). There are personal info data brokers e.g. Acxiom. Maybe the church is incorporating such sources when tracking down "lost" members.
  - curiousgeorgio 7y ago
    > Occasionally missionaries might receive a request to locate an inactive member whose active family doesn't know where to find them I've seen that too, though as I understand it, those only come from (standard membership) records that are moved from a previous ward (not removed) and the leadership doesn't know which new ward the person should geographically belong to (they might only have a rough geographic idea). The intention is one of trying to help provide assistance and support to people who are - at least in terms of the official records - still members of the church. That won't happen with people whose records have been officially removed from the church. As for a "notebook of paper records", unfortunately there's very little that can be done to completely avoid inaccuracies in those, but the church has been working to make more of those things happen electronically (which would solve the issue of not being synchronized). It may not be in place everywhere, but that's the direction it's going, so it will definitely improve.