The church congregation functioned as a recognized unit of society. It has rules of membership, and the clear indication of rules of membership comes in the rules of disfellowshipping one from that membership. The assumption of the baptismal covenant was that one would endure to the end in keeping the commandments of God, a covenant explicitly renewed in the sacramental prayers. Thus there is an expectation of conduct for one who is to participate in the community.
When those rules of the community were violated, the only enforcement given is the exclusion of such a person from the community. There is not indication that the church formed the temporal government of the city, for the penalty is not death or incarceration. Nor is the penalty ostracism from the overall social community. The Nephite church functioned in its social setting in the way that the church had functioned from Alma’s time. It was a subset of the larger community. At times the political leadership would be part of the religious community, but it was possible to have a segregation between the church and state. Therefore, the only “punishment” available for one who did not obey the rules of the Christian church was excommunication from that congregation.
This was not an abstract issue, but one that must have been implemented. Moroni gives us the method for removing someone from the church, a process that had to be well defined only if it was put to use. In this case, the procedure was that three witnesses “of the church” were to present the person and the violation “before the elders.” This suggests that such actions were handled from inside the church organization, without the participation of whatever legal procedures might have been present in the rest of the society.
People who were “of the church” would be church members, and the unstated presumption was that those who stood as witnesses would themselves be in good standing (this is at least the implication of being “of the church”). The three witnesses fulfilled the more difficult requirement of the Deuteronomic law of witnesses:
Deuteronomy 19:15
15 ¶ One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
When this accusation was presented, it was presented “before the elders.” These “elders” might simply be the more respected members of the priesthood, but other references to the elders in the Book of Mormon appear to imply the twelve. These twelve would be the ultimate governing body, and the ones who were authorized to make decisions regarding those who were able to be associated with the name of Christ. During the presentation of the case, the person accused by the witnesses had the opportunity to repent. Judgment was rendered “if they repented not, and confessed not.” The final judgment was: “their names were blotted out, and they were not numbered among the people of Christ.” This is a cancellation of the covenant. When their name is blotted out of the records of the church, Christ’s name is also blotted out of them. This is the dual aspect of the names. They took the name of Christ, Christ took their names. When their names were blotted out of Christ, the reversal of the covenant required that the name of Christ also be blotted out from them. They were no longer sons and daughters of Christ. Their membership in the kin-community of the church was ended. They were no more kin of Christ.