Owen Pochman living the dream

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

We're legally bound to take someone's name off the rolls at their request. It's a 1st Ammendment issue.

A First Amendment issue?

The First Amendment deals with Congressional limitations on the freedom of worship, speech, the press, peacable assembly or against establishing religion, or the right to petition for redress.

The Church is not the government, so our relationship with the members is not an abridgement of the First Amendment. Now, without thinking through it too deeply, there may be a contractual obligation not to include somebody who does not wish to be included.

OTOH, as tooblue stated, it makes most sense to leave alone those who do not wish to repent.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

A First Amendment issue?

The First Amendment deals with Congressional limitations on the freedom of worship, speech, the press, peacable assembly or against establishing religion, or the right to petition for redress.

The Church is not the government, so our relationship with the members is not an abridgement of the First Amendment. Now, without thinking through it too deeply, there may be a contractual obligation not to include somebody who does not wish to be included.

OTOH, as tooblue stated, it makes most sense to leave alone those who do not wish to repent.

Unless the LDS church started taking federal funds when I wasn't looking I think Arch is right about this.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Unless the LDS church started taking federal funds when I wasn't looking I think Arch is right about this.

Sadly, for the (I think) 4th time this week, I agree with Arch as well.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Now, without thinking through it too deeply, there may be a contractual obligation not to include somebody who does not wish to be included.

I forget the cases (Oklahoma and Arizona, maybe?), but it has been ruled that freedom of religion includes freedom to choose to disassociate from a particular organized religion, and without the social stigma of excommunication. The First Ammendment was cited in the case. I'm not a lawyer, nor was I trying to write a brief. A guy was suing the Church because he couldn't just disassociate himself. His stake insisted on excommunication. The situation is now that people can simply choose to disassociate themselves.

I'm sorry if I offended your legal sensibilities. I was simply reporting what I had interpreted from some summaries of cases. It's possible that I'm wholly mistaken.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

A guy was suing the Church because he couldn't just disassociate himself. His stake insisted on excommunication.

That sounds like a pretty stupid thing for a stake to insist on. I'd like to know a little more about the case.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

That sounds like a pretty stupid thing for a stake to insist on. I'd like to know a little more about the case.

Hancock V. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985)

Hancock's lawyer argued that "continuing membership was a mutual agreement between the member and the Church, not a one-sided decision by the church. There were plenty of cases in which the civil courts had intervened in religious matters when these guidelines had been breached. He prepared to file an amended complaint that expanded the civil rights that he felt had been violated: privacy, slander and libel, intentional infliction of mental distress, assault, and false imprisonment. No church could claim immunity from legal liability for committing such acts just because it is a church. He further charged that the Church had violated its own procedures in excommunicating him."

The case was dismissed when the Church agreed that he could simply end his membership.

Here's a link:

http://www.mormonalliance.org/casere...t1/v3p1c05.htm

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I took a few moments to look for any cases on point. I found this one:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?citeid=10494

In this case, the Oklahoma Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment protected an individual's right to have their name removed from a church's membership lists.

I think the court's reasoning in this case is awful. It jumps from asserting (in IV) that the state cannot compel a person to remain with a church or to leave one, and then concludes that a church, therefore, cannot compel a person to remain a member. The First Amendment pertains to state actions. It does not govern every aspect of our private lives.

There may be a mechanism for requiring a church to remove your name from their membership lists (though you could actually argue the First Amendment would prohibit the government from compelling a church to remove a person from its lists), but it certainly wouldn't be the First Amendment, in my opinion.

I agree.

A good First Amendment analysis precludes citing it.

I see it more as an issue of contract. Association is some sort of implied contract.

[FMCoug]

If he was rightous he would have been successful in the NFL.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

If he was rightous he would have been successful in the NFL.

Excellent.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Hancock V. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985)

Hancock's lawyer argued that "continuing membership was a mutual agreement between the member and the Church, not a one-sided decision by the church. There were plenty of cases in which the civil courts had intervened in religious matters when these guidelines had been breached. He prepared to file an amended complaint that expanded the civil rights that he felt had been violated: privacy, slander and libel, intentional infliction of mental distress, assault, and false imprisonment. No church could claim immunity from legal liability for committing such acts just because it is a church. He further charged that the Church had violated its own procedures in excommunicating him."

The case was dismissed when the Church agreed that he could simply end his membership.

Here's a link:

http://www.mormonalliance.org/casere...t1/v3p1c05.htm

The way the story is written, it certainly does sound like the stake president was the thorn in the side, and as soon as the church got wind of it, they put a quick stop to it. About as I'd expect.

While I've known some priesthood brethren who've been overbearing in their callings, I'm quite surprised to read a story that seems to implicate the entire stake presidency and high council in repeat offenses of overbearance. The story almost reads a little paranoid (phone taps, etc). It also seems odd to me to sacrifice your entire belief system and heritage over the (reportedly) tyrannical actions of a few men.

It's too bad we don't have any other views to the incident.

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What does the Handbook say? Besides, are you referring to purely a hypothetical or an actual "case study"?

The instructions state that the member send a written letter to the bishop, that the bishop ensure the member understands the implications and be "satisfied that the member is not likely to be dissuaded," and then submit a form with the letter to the stake president who finalizes the process.

It also indicates that if a public announcement of the removal is necessary that it should not use the word "excommunication."