Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Thinking

LDS Membership Numbers

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think he meant the way Tacenda wrote her comment, people had to use the QuitMormon lawyer to resign...not the notarized stuff.

Quote

“Recently the church has said that in order for them to resign, they now need.... this lawyer, his website is QuitMormon.com.”

Removed additional qualification to show implication of the comment, sort of changes the meaning, but in essence it was to resign need that specific lawyer to do ______.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I don’t think you are following me of that was a response to what I said. I said you DO NOT HAVE to use QuitMormon to resign. End of statement.

I am pretty sure we are not in conflict here.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

... I am pretty sure we are not in conflict here.

But, then, what fun would that be? ;):D 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Nope. Aside from being morbidly obese I'm in pretty good health.  I take no meds, my BP is fine, as is cholesterol, and no blood sugar issues.  Surprising, I guess, because of the obesity thing.  I was my wife's caretaker in her last months of life.  My new wife needed some caretaking due to her knee replacement surgery last year and this year.  I can and will take care of whom I love.

I think my late wife was worried about my keeping focus on the important things.  I do "suffer" from Attention Deficit Disorder, although it is mild.  She probably felt that if I had a wife to ride herd on me she was more likely to get her eternal spouse back in the resurrection.  

Perhaps my brief time as a widower allowed me to define and find myself as an individual?  🙂 

I am not your grandfather, to so dominate my wife that she has to wait for me to die before she can find out who she is.  What a repulsive concept!  I want my wife to know who she is and be an individual -- in no way would I ever try to constrain her in such a way that she would seem to have no life outside of me.  I also prefer an intelligent and assertive woman for a life partner; such a woman already knows who she is.

I would hope so, too.  

You know, I think it is a horrifying idea that a person who has lost a spouse to death should show "loyalty" by staying lonely for the rest of their lives.  If a widow(er) wants to stay alone, have at it, but if not, then feel free.  No judgement!  I could have done it -- but it would not have been a very happy existence.  In fact, after all the stress of taking care of her 24/7 in her last couple of months, my body reacted to the removal of stress rather negatively.  Came down with the worst cold (or flu) I had had in decades, started getting heart palpitations, and so on.  For a time I actually looked forward to leaving this earth, too.  Once that settled itself out, with some disappointment at not dying, I started to feel very glum that I was going to spending a lot of time all wrapped up in myself.  All my kids were grown, and nobody depended on me for anything.  Finding new love so quickly was surprising -- and put new love for life into me.  I now have a reason to live, and I am grateful for that.  One of the things I have learned is that it is possible love two women with all my heart: she who is with me now; and she who waits for me above.

If a person had a happy marriage, then why would they not wish to have another?  My new wife and her late husband considered that question some time before he contracted cancer, and decided together that if they ever lost one another by death, they should feel free to remarry.  

 

My grandfather did not "dominate" anyone (kind of a quiet guy in fact) - and it was not just him, it was all the relatives Granny took under her wing to care for.   She was just too darn selfless - felt it was her responsibility to give everyone around her anything they asked for.  

She was not lonely - she was surrounded by friends and family.  One of the kids she raised (not her own) ended up being... rather well off... and paid her bill for a really nice assisted living place where Granny became a council to everyone.  Loved it - at dinner they had this large table all the women would sit around, and my grandmother sat at the head of the table - like a queen - with two assistants who liked to sit on either side of her.  Everyone over there going through the same stage of life together, it was an amazing place and we were all so thankful she was able to spend her later years there.  

 

On my DH's side - I was there when his step-father passed away... just me, his mom, and a sister-in-law there.  His mom was not sealed to his step dad... guess that is something reserved for guys?  I don't know - but the step dad - he died clutching my mother in law weeping because they were not sealed to one another.  His last words were "but I love you - but I love you" ... his first marriage was not so great... After he died - I told my SIL and MIL "If it does not work out well for everyone, it will not work out well for me either".  

... I do not know how everything will work out after this life... Eve in her perfect form did not have kids (pregnancy was a curse of the fall) and Jesus was the "only begotten" - an "only child - think of what that means - no other begotten children - and he was begotten through a handmaid so...  we have the fallen way of doing things right now... 

I have a co-worker from Ghana who was #1 child from #1 wife (20 wives).  The polygamy thing, it did not work out well.  There was no love.  It is a business type arrangement for everyone - various different wives are "property managers" of different farms they have.  Competition between the kids, and the wives - horrible hierarchy.  

 

Kids - they have one mom, and one dad.  All of us have only one dad, and one mom - that make up the two biological halves of ourselves.  If one parent is divded, disloyal, it is going to introduce competition and insecurities and all myriad of things... not sure how many journal entries you have read from polygamous families? or how many you know?  

Good in theory - I guess everyone rationalizes this stuff in theory - but until you are living with a spouse who has an affair I would suggest you don't understand what that is.

If you are ok with your wife having another husband?  Perhaps when you get to heaven she will have married someone else too?  After all - you would not want her to be alone in heaven, would you?  So did you tell her - that she should marry someone else in heaven while you got married to someone else on earth? ...

 

Back to the thread... I think a lot of women leave over polygamy. Polygamy = hell to me.  

 

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are conflating humility and acceding to your demands for apologies and explanations. I do like how you throw Christ out as an example of needing to ask forgiveness all the time. When did Christ ever ask for forgiveness from someone else....even in cases where it would seem appropriate like going to the temple as a child without telling his mother or stepfather? When did he seek constructive criticism from his critics to improve himself? When did he take the criticism of the Pharisees or the Sadduccees into account in how he taught to avoid offending others? Why did he tell people things that drove them away?

The idea that the church losing people means that the church is doing something wrong is ridiculous. It is to be expected. Jesus said few would follow him. He was always offending everyone including his followers. We are warned that if the world loves us that is a bad sign. Even the Father before the world was lost a third part of the host of heaven who defied Him while in his very presence. There is no change the church can make that will convert the world and make it pleasing to everyone everywhere. The gospel is a standing rebuke to the world, a call to repent. Yes, we should do what we can to remove stumbling blocks to people accepting the gospel and be as pleasant and nice as possible but repenting for events in the distant past whose import we cannot measure and admitting that policies or teachings are mistakes when we are not sure runs the risk of offending God. We can and should repent and forgive on our own behalf but the Church is the Kingdom of God. The prophet cannot issue an apology on behalf of the Savior without the Savior’s explicit permission. To do so would be an act of hubris.

Then again you do not accept any of this so can only see the church in secular terms. I would just advise you to accept that you will never understand our actions if you see the church in that light and that we are never going to satisfy you. You seem to want a homely half-senile grandmotherly church filled with timidity and apologies about every move; a church that marches in lockstep with every wave of secular change seeking to be loved by all. We are never going to be that but there are plenty of them out there if you need one.

We have an ambitious and seemingly impossible divine mission and we mean to accomplish it.

 

Jesus grew in stature as everyone else, and we have very few of the details of his life - there are the lost years etc. etc. 

It takes two to tango.  .... if the church was perfect and infallible, there would be no need to change any policies...

"By the people for the people" - there is a God-inspired secular organization do you agree?  To what extent do you believe the church should be "by the people for the people?"  

Had a good talk with our stake president tonight...  what to do when leaders do not have all the answers?  Why would God give us imperfect leaders with no answers who are unable to help with most things?  I think the answer is simple - to promote self-reliance and leave room for individual testimonies and personal relationships with God - no middle men.  

Mathew 17: 19 Afterward the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” .... because you have so little faith... and perhaps, just perhaps, to allow the boy the experience of being healed directly by Jesus himself.  

Good night y-all...

(and if my stake president is on here ... I'm going to be thinking about which name on here could be yours haha... thanks for the chat tonight)  

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, changed said:

Jesus grew in stature as everyone else, and we have very few of the details of his life - there are the lost years etc. etc. 

It takes two to tango.  .... if the church was perfect and infallible, there would be no need to change any policies...

"By the people for the people" - there is a God-inspired secular organization do you agree?  To what extent do you believe the church should be "by the people for the people?"  

Not at all.

4 minutes ago, changed said:

Had a good talk with our stake president tonight...  what to do when leaders do not have all the answers?  Why would God give us imperfect leaders with no answers who are unable to help with most things?  I think the answer is simple - to promote self-reliance and leave room for individual testimonies and personal relationships with God - no middle men.  

Then I presume you will be burning all your scriptures and never referencing them again as they were all written by middle men and are an impediment to you personal relationship.

6 minutes ago, changed said:

Mathew 17: 19 Afterward the disciples came to Jesus privately and asked, “Why couldn’t we drive it out?” .... because you have so little faith... and perhaps, just perhaps, to allow the boy the experience of being healed directly by Jesus himself.  

Maybe not. :(

I admit I do find it amusing that when Jesus gives a reason for something you feel the need to add on to it something he did not even imply simply because it supports your views. Why not just take the logical step to a kind of pantheistic idolatry and worship your own ideas and stop using the Bible those misguided middle men are trying to foist on you?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, ALarson said:

I don't know enough about this change yet to come to this conclusion.  As far as I can tell, many will still find it easier to use quitmormon.com (even with the notarization involved).

The thought just occurred to me (perhaps one or more legal experts on this board could weigh in): Could the attorney be held legally or professionally liable, for negligence if nothing else, in representing someone who requests name removal from the Church but who is not who he or she claims to be? Don't lawyers have an ethical obligation to avoid the perpetration of fraud by or in behalf of clients?

 

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They have no reason to lie. The letter from the church makes them look bad so I doubt they fabricated it and, if they did, the church could humiliate with the original.

I know. I am involved in one. A guy submitted the request and verbally told a member in good standing he wanted to be removed. It got stuck in limbo because the previous clerk did not upload a digital copy. I could not find it. I got an affidavit written out by a member of the ward who had dealt with it but it got rejected. I am still not sure how to proceed. It seems discourteous to go back and ask for another letter but I have not been able to get the Stake President’s approval without it.

I like my digital resignation done only by the member idea.

We had a fellow’s request lost three times over a period of five years. I think one of them may have been a bishop wanting to hold off. Talk about embarrassing! Eventually as a new ward clerk I ramrodded it through. I think requests should be honored post haste with minimum hassle. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The thought just occurred to me (perhaps one or more legal experts on this board could weigh in): Could the attorney be held legally or professionally liable, for negligence if nothing else, in representing someone who requests name removal from the Church but who is not who he claims to be? Don't lawyers have an ethical obligation to avoid the perpetration of fraud by or in behalf of clients?

 

Absolutely, IMO. Getting an attorney is an over-kill statement that is simply a vindictive  sticking it in your eye. 

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not at all.

Then I presume you will be burning all your scriptures and never referencing them again as they were all written by middle men and are an impediment to you personal relationship.

Maybe not. :(

I admit I do find it amusing that when Jesus gives a reason for something you feel the need to add on to it something he did not even imply simply because it supports your views. Why not just take the logical step to a kind of pantheistic idolatry and worship your own ideas and stop using the Bible those misguided middle men are trying to foist on you?

Ahh Nehor... founder of apostate sect (I thought with that name, surely we would get along better).... I'm sure if some other poster had asked you this same stuff you would have agreed the church is "for the people" - and is also sustained "by the people" or it would not be much of a church at all.  We can clarify what it means to "sustain" but... 

... and I am sure you agree that self-reliance is healthy... and agree there is no borrowed light, that we each have to gain our own individual testimony - a testimony in God (not the church).  

From the point of view of the boy who was healed - he was able to see Jesus.  In such a case, I would be happy that the apostles were not able to do it, as that would deprive me of the experience of meeting Jesus first hand.  If given the choice, would you rather be healed by Jesus himself, or one of the apostles?  

 

the last will be first, and the first will be last... the greatest among us all are not the leaders, but servants...

ok - goodnight for real everyone.  

 

Edited by changed

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The thought just occurred to me (perhaps one or more legal experts on this board could weigh in): Could the attorney be held legally or professionally liable, for negligence if nothing else, in representing someone who requests name removal from the Church but who is not who he claims to be? Don't lawyers have an ethical obligation to avoid the perpetration of fraud by or in behalf of clients?

 

Not a lawyer but if a Church member were to find out they were falsely named with no effort to verify identity and he tried to have their records removed I think a case could be brought against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Absolutely, IMO. Getting an attorney is an over-kill statement like sticking it in your eye. 

Unless the attorney does it for free with no burden required on the part of the client other than registering on a website. Of course, it appears it won't be quite that simple going forward.

I did go to the web site and poked around out of curiosity. He takes donations. And he has a side hustle going with the sale of mugs.** So it's not altogether pro bono on his part.

**Not sure how lucrative online mug sales would be. I do know it helps keep Steven Crowder in business after YouTube demonitized his channel.

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, changed said:

Ahh Nehor... founder of apostate sect (I thought with that name, surely we would get along better).... I'm sure if some other poster had asked you this same stuff you would have agreed the church is "for the people" - and is also sustained "by the people" or it would not be much of a church at all.  We can clarify what it means to "sustain" but... 

... and I am sure you agree that self-reliance is healthy... and agree there is no borrowed light, that we each have to gain our own individual testimony - a testimony in God (not the church).  

From the point of view of the boy who was healed - he was able to see Jesus.  In such a case, I would be happy that the apostles were not able to do it, as that would deprive me of the experience of meeting Jesus first hand.  If given the choice, would you rather be healed by Jesus himself, or one of the apostles?  

 

the last will be first, and the first will be last... the greatest among us all are not the leaders, but servants...

ok - goodnight for real everyone.  

 

My name comes from a nickname I acquired on my mission. I took it as a badge of honor and ran with it.

No, I do not believe the Church is by the people which implies we selected our leaders (God is in charge of that). It is sort of for the people as that phrase is to promote the common welfare but it does not really fit as most people do not want the good we bring.

Self-reliance is healthy to an extent. Brigham Young taught that some would never be exalted because they need to be commanded in all things and never develop the independence of heaven. I believe we need a testimony regarding the existence and nature of God, the validity of the gospel of Christ, and the nature of the Kingdom of God on the Earth which is the church. So yes, I have a testimony of the church and Joseph Smith and the prophets since and I consider that portion of my testimony vital.

The boy was possessed. If I was possessed (and I have some experience in this area) I would want the damned (literal adjective, not expletive) thing out as soon as possible. I give thanks for healings and blessings as if they come from God no matter who gives them. I also find your cozy desire to meet Christ a little odd as if it would be neat. True, in mortality He appeared as a normal man but I honestly think you would be put off by his severity towards sin and a possible exhortation for you to give up everything and follow him to persecution and possibly death. I probably would too. 

As to Christ in the fullness of glory he has now are you sure you want that? It brought Saul (later Paul) to great suffering and remorse. The same when Alma the Younger had a similar experience where he was wracked with torment. The Brother of Jared saw only Christ’s finger and fell to the ground in fear. Lehi got a book from him and when he read it he was afraid. Same in his vision of the Tree of Life as he wandered through the dark. Joseph Smith thought the whole landscape should be consumed when he saw the Father and the Son.

I think you are stuck in the concept of Jesus as a nice guy who does nice things. He does but He also hopes for obedience from all to His Father and his admonitions to his earthly apostles led to prisons and executions. He talked of harsh divisions at the Last Day dividing the saved and the damned. He wept over those who would not repent knowing the torment they would have to endure. He is fire and power and glory. He is beautiful and terrible. When He returns to the Earth in glory most will die because they cannot endure it. I am trying to dedicate my whole life to being worthy of seeing Him and enduring that day either alive or dead. You seem to have a naive view of the Savior as purely a Mr. Rogers type guy who will come up and hug you and say “there there”. Are you so comfortable in your own virtue that you imagine no chastisement or rebuke would come?

The talk about the greatest being a servant is not the jab at prominent positions in the kingdom you seem to want it to be. It is a call for servant leadership at all levels, a call to sacrifice and love those you are responsible for. If it were what you suggest he was giving to the wrong audience. He was giving it to his apostles, his leaders. Was it more likely Jesus was telling them that they would be at the bottom of the kingdom of God for being called or that He was making it clear what that call required. The admonition to be a servant is not a call to timidity and the false humility of bowing out of responsibilities. To aspire to become like Christ is not hubris, it is obedience to His commands. To avoid that command out of a sense of inadequacy is not humility, it is cowardice.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Not a lawyer but if a Church member were to find out they were falsely named with no effort to verify identity and he tried to have their records removed I think a case could be brought against him.

Seems that way to me as well. 

Of course, he could claim he also was defrauded by someone perpetrating the hoax, but I wonder what is required in the way of due diligence on his part.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Seems that way to me as well. 

Of course, he could claim he also was defrauded by someone perpetrating the hoax, but I wonder what is required in the way of due diligence on his part.

I think such a weak method of identification could bring up a case for negligence.

Edit: Here is an odd case where a lawyer tried to represent someone without their consent: https://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/2014/01/lawyer-files-lawsuit-without-contacting-signing-client-first.html

Edited by The Nehor

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think you are following me of that was a response to what I said. I said you DO NOT HAVE to use QuitMormon to resign. End of statement.

I am pretty sure we are not in conflict here.

Ok.  I must have read what she posted wrong.  I didn't see where she stated that everyone who is resigning is now required to use QuitMormon.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

We had a fellow’s request lost three times over a period of five years. I think one of them may have been a bishop wanting to hold off.

I think delays like this are what led to attorneys getting involved.

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Eventually as a new ward clerk I ramrodded it through. I think requests should be honored post haste with minimum hassle. 

Yes, and I agree with Scott.

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe that’s why they want you to go through your local leader. Cuts down the risk of fraud and pranks. If this guy is going to take these people on as “clients,” he should assume the burden of certifying through notarized document or affidavit or whatever legal means that they are who they say they are. The Church is right to require it. 

Members need to understand that one of the reasons that people ask for their names to be removed is to be left alone. Absent name removal, home and visiting teachers keep calling. They may even be asked to help clean the chapel.

IMO the process should be simple.

  • A person requests name removal.
  • The bishop verifies the identity.
  • Done.

The verification could be something like this.

We have received a request for you to terminate your membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In order to do that we need you to verify that it was you who made the request, and not a third party.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, ALarson said:

  I didn't see where she stated that everyone who is resigning is now required to use QuitMormon.

It is not a very likely idea (unlikely only one lawyer anywhere allowed to submit resignations, so understandable if that wasn’t read that way imo).  Good chance she didn’t mean it that way imo (especially since she didn’t understand Nehor’s correction), but I think important enough to correct in case she did or others read it as meaning that. If Nehor hadn’t caught it, I was going to mention it. I have seen quite a bit of confusion over the years over the resignation process. Best to keep accurate info in and easily misunderstood info out. 

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I think such a weak method of identification could bring up a case for negligence.

Edit: Here is an odd case where a lawyer tried to represent someone without their consent: https://blogs.findlaw.com/strategist/2014/01/lawyer-files-lawsuit-without-contacting-signing-client-first.html

Any info on what the State Bar decided about the ethics violation?

Given he was so convinced he was right about the law, yet was wrong, I am guessing he probably doesn’t have much of a practice. It’s a wonder how he managed to pass the bar. 

He has one review from 3 years ago of one star. 

Found another review from 2014:  “He did a poor job in representing me. He assumed what I wanted and didn't talk to me about what he was doing.”

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, changed said:

 

My grandfather did not "dominate" anyone (kind of a quiet guy in fact) - and it was not just him, it was all the relatives Granny took under her wing to care for.   She was just too darn selfless - felt it was her responsibility to give everyone around her anything they asked for.  

She was not lonely - she was surrounded by friends and family.  One of the kids she raised (not her own) ended up being... rather well off... and paid her bill for a really nice assisted living place where Granny became a council to everyone.  Loved it - at dinner they had this large table all the women would sit around, and my grandmother sat at the head of the table - like a queen - with two assistants who liked to sit on either side of her.  Everyone over there going through the same stage of life together, it was an amazing place and we were all so thankful she was able to spend her later years there.  

Well, then why bring your grandfather into it all, as if he had to die before your grandmother "could find out who she was"?  What you wrote implied that your grandfather dominated her life.  I'm glad that wasn't the case.

My stepmother was a little like your grandmother.  My mom died when I was seven, and a year and a half later my father married a woman whom he knew from work whose husband had died of a rare heart ailment. She had had an unhappy marriage, but wouldn't divorce him because she took "in sickness and in health" seriously, and out of her strong ethics took care of him until he died.  I remember her helping anyone in the family who needed it, something that continued throughout her life. Her third husband came down with a brain tumor and she nursed him for several years until he died.

Your grandmother sounds like an elect lady.

I wrote a response to the rest of what you wrote, but decided that it would just cause more pointless sparring.  So, I edited my post to delete it all.  

I do wonder why you post here, though.  Like a number of others, your goal appears to have no higher purpose than to vent your anger over how you were treated in times past.  If that is the case, I hope you achieve some satisfaction by it.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Calm said:

It is not a very likely idea (unlikely only one lawyer anywhere allowed to submit resignations, so understandable if that wasn’t read that way imo).  Good chance she didn’t mean it that way imo (especially since she didn’t understand Nehor’s correction), but I think important enough to correct in case she did or others read it as meaning that. If Nehor hadn’t caught it, I was going to mention it. I have seen quite a bit of confusion over the years over the resignation process. Best to keep accurate info in and easily misunderstood info out. 

Got it.  I'd missed that phrase (or read it differently), but I can see now why there was confusion.  I also misunderstood Nehor's comments.  Thanks for explaining :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Well, then why bring your grandfather into it all, as if he had to die before your grandmother "could find out who she was"?  What you wrote implied that your grandfather dominated her life.  I'm glad that wasn't the case.

My stepmother was a little like your grandmother.  My mom died when I was seven, and a year and a half later my father married a woman whom he knew from work whose husband had died of a rare heart ailment. She had had an unhappy marriage, but wouldn't divorce him because she took "in sickness and in health" seriously, and out of her strong ethics took care of him until he died.  I remember her helping anyone in the family who needed it, something that continued throughout her life. Her third husband came down with a brain tumor and she nursed him for several years until he died.

Your grandmother sounds like an elect lady.

I wrote a response to the rest of what you wrote, but decided that it would just cause more pointless sparring.  So, I edited my post to delete it all.  

I do wonder why you post here, though.  Like a number of others, your goal appears to have no higher purpose than to vent your anger over how you were treated in times past.  If that is the case, I hope you achieve some satisfaction by it.

 

My grandfather dominated her life - not because he was domineering, but because she was so concerned with caring for him.  Example - she broke her hip - was told she would never walk again, was told most people her age with that injury died in a year... not granny - because she had grampy to take care of.  She was back up and on her feet in no time.  It is hard to capture situations and people in only a few words I suppose ... a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing ...  I think the lessons learned when single are as valuable and needed as the lessons learned when married.  

I'm in a mixed-faith family, so trapped in the church.  I guess I come here to vent to avoid venting to those I love.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Unless it was discussed previous to the letter being sent the bishop or a counselor will contact the person to verify the request.

And, this is exactly what many don't want to deal with (at least from the feedback I've gotten from those using quitmormon.com).  I can understand that, and some have reported they felt grilled by the leader regarding their desire to have their names removed.  Others ran into delays or complete oversights with getting the requests sent into Salt Lake.

But the, others don't seem to mind discussing it with their Bishop (or other church leader).  

It's great they have the choice, IMO.

Edited by ALarson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, changed said:

Ahh Nehor... founder of apostate sect (I thought with that name, surely we would get along better).... I'm sure if some other poster had asked you this same stuff you would have agreed the church is "for the people" - and is also sustained "by the people" or it would not be much of a church at all.  We can clarify what it means to "sustain" but... 

... and I am sure you agree that self-reliance is healthy... and agree there is no borrowed light, that we each have to gain our own individual testimony - a testimony in God (not the church).  

One can have a testimony of a number of things. 

10 hours ago, changed said:

From the point of view of the boy who was healed - he was able to see Jesus.  In such a case, I would be happy that the apostles were not able to do it, as that would deprive me of the experience of meeting Jesus first hand.  If given the choice, would you rather be healed by Jesus himself, or one of the apostles?  

How about being healed a father, Brother, or a family minister? In the end all healing is by the authority of the Priesthood.

10 hours ago, changed said:

the last will be first, and the first will be last... the greatest among us all are not the leaders, but servants...

True  leaders are servants. That’s the point.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Thinking said:

 

I think delays like this are what led to attorneys getting involved.

Yes, and I agree with Scott.

Members need to understand that one of the reasons that people ask for their names to be removed is to be left alone. Absent name removal, home and visiting teachers keep calling. They may even be asked to help clean the chapel.

IMO the process should be simple.

  • A person requests name removal.
  • The bishop verifies the identity.
  • Done.

The verification could be something like this.

We have received a request for you to terminate your membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In order to do that we need you to verify that it was you who made the request, and not a third party.

That was 15 years ago. Today we do things expeditiously.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...