:)

Here is a comic about this topic:
http://www.thadguy.com/comic/obviously-lying/160/

“I couldn’t give a yes-or-no vote because the situation is fraught with too many variables. I would have to inquire about whether the member understood fully what he was doing, and why. If he were willing to tell me why, I might see if I could help him to gain a better understanding of something he was misunderstanding, or help him to get a testimony of a principle he rejects. On the other hand, if he seemed determined to go about seeking to destroy and undermine the Church and its members, I would accept that invitation as fast as I could.”

Are you suggesting that if a person seeks to have their name removed that they also are seeking to undermine the Church? I think the people who would do this have a grudge with the way church leaders have treated them. I think the vast majority of people who want to leave simply want the church out of their lives and the church refuses to allow them their right to be left alone so they send a letter asking to be left alone.

I would have to inquire about whether the member understood fully what he was doing, and why.

Sounds like a “yes” to me.

“Madam: I have spent the morning searching for your name among the records of baptism for the remission of sins. I was unable to find your name therein, and was thus spared the trouble of removing it therefrom. You may therefore assume that your sins have not been remitted, and that you may enjoy the full benefits thereof.”

The question was a hypothetical query to get thoughts, you are veering off into your own thread again, so please, start a blog! :)

“Let’s pretend you are a bishop. Let’s also pretend you received a letter from someone who wished to have his/her name removed from Church records. Would you attempt to convince the person to stay in the Church?”

Do members of the church assume they are not at fault when the Bishop receives this kind of letter? Is it possibile that several members of the ward did not do their jobs before a letter was written? No HT or VT, no fellowship, etc. I know for me that there have been many Sundays were no one ever spoke or even acknowledge I was even there. No HT’ers has been common for many years. It is not the Bishop’s job to activate but yours.

If you are suggesting people have their names removed for being inactive is it because it will make your HT list smaller? Why do you want their names removed?

I was looking at the ward lists for a couple of past wards and I noticed something that was interesting to me. Each ward had about 60 married couples and 15 singles on the ward roster. About 330 people in each ward. Sacrament attendance would average about 120 souls.

If the church ex-ed those who do not attend, then instead of 13 million members the number might be 4 million which is what some of the ex mormon sites claim is a closer number to actual church membership. Does the church need to count inactives to show growth to the world?

Why does a ward need to put everyone on a roster? Why not just list those who actually attend? The clerks could use larger type since there would be fewer people to list.

I’m leaving my name on so the HT percentages, temple recommend holder percentage, full tithe payer percentages all look worse and create more work for the (TBM) Elder and or HP Quorum Presidents. I don’t have to pay an annual fee so why do I and others care if our name is on some roster or not? Is it a concern to those who have to answer to why your numbers are low?

Perhaps the question to ask is why do you care if people leave if you don’t care if they are there?