It's real simple: A member becoming an ex- member may actually be more dependant upon the Lds church than the member himself.
Why do I say that? Because if a church member wants to stay, and the Lds church wants to ex-communicate them, then it doesn't really matter what the church member does, anyway, if the church is bound & determined to ex-communicate.
If you reverse it, and if the member is distancing himself from the church, it doesn't really matter what he does to complete the process -- UNLESS and UNTIL the church takes him off the rolls.
Yes, once it becomes official.
Wait a minute. I just asked if roll removal is "automatic" (the moment of). And you said "yes?" But then you qualified it by adding, once it becomes official." So it's "automatic" even if it takes seven years "to become official?"
You're hilarious, Rip. (But thanks for showing us how Lds apologists maneuver about in plain five-word sentences)
Let me make it clear to you what I'm saying: If the church claims this guy resigned his membership in 2004, I don't have to contend anything different. What I'm saying is that his ultimate membership status, however, isn't going to be determined by his actions, but rather by the church bureaucracy.
The Lds church can tell me this guy resigned his membership in 2004 til they're blue in the face. My point is, "OK, but was he still on the official Lds rolls?"
So, let's get on the same page here: Let's move from whatever actions this guy did to remove himself -- and let's answer the direct question here: "WHEN, Rip, did THE CHURCH remove him???"
Were I to be a betting man, I'd say it wasn't 2004. So when, if it happened, DID it happen?
I thought you were a women what really are you SS?
So he was still a mormon ???