When Did The Current Practice Of Resigning From The Church Via Letter Begin

[Calm]

Are you sure it was a lawsuit against the lds church and not another one you are thinking of? If so, do you have a reference to it so I can read more about it?

[Saints Alive]

I wonder how the process differes for the person returning from excommunication and the person returning from resignation. In theory the process is identical, in practice surely there are different emotions and stages of return.

[Damien the Leper]

I think you just highlighted the difference between those who do and don't believe... Willingness to accept and believe things that don't make sense. I don't think planetary orbits or gravity make sense but I accept their reality.

It goes deeper than that. As I said in another thread, the answers to my questions and concerns were no longer sufficient enough for me to maintain faith integrity.

I read Gerald Schroeder's book "The Science of God" and came away from it thinking "What the help was that?" A friend recommended it to me but all it did was make things worse. For me, faith is not a substantive vessel by which I am able to attain greater knowledge. In fact, my faith was more oppressive than it was liberating. When I finally acknowledged that I couldn't believe anymore, I was at first devastated and hurt. But as time goes on, I feel a greater sense of peace and much less burdened by certain things I consider to be trivial.

[DH]

No, I can confirm the earlier post that indicated that the church instituted the resignation process in response to a lawsuit over "excommunication". I recall that very clearly.

I'm not clear on what you're saying "no" to. I made no claims as to why the Church instituted the resignation process, only potential motives of people who choose to resign by sending in a letter, based on what resignees have told me.

[DH]

I wonder how the process differes for the person returning from excommunication and the person returning from resignation. In theory the process is identical, in practice surely there are different emotions and stages of return.

Interesting question (and one that I can't answer--sorry!).

[Ticketyboo]

I may be splitting hairs on this issue, but it is one that I'm fully conversant with. First of all, it is not a letter of resignation, it is a letter stating that you wish to have your name removed from the membership rolls.

In 1995 my then member wife wished to stop HT visits from occuring & asked for her name to be removed. Now, she thought she was removing her name from the HT list, the Church thought she was removing her name from the membership rolls. Hence she is no longer a member because there were no checks & balances in those days.

In 1998 I became a member & have dealt with name removal requests in my various PH guises since.

Someone who no longer wishes to be considered a member of the Church can write to their Bishop, or Church headquarters stating that they wish to have their names removed. Often they might cite particular reasons for that decision in the letter. If such opinions are stated, then they will probably be addressed by the Stake President or his delegate if that person later seeks to be readmitted through baptism.

Not wishing to digress too far, it would usually devolve to the Bishop & another PH holder to visit with the person requesting name removal to ensure that this action is their intent. They are informed that the SP will hold on to the letter for a 4 week cooling off period, before forwarding it to Church HQ. The whole process being completed in roughly 12 weeks. They are informed that at any point in the process that they change their mind, the process can be stopped.

However, if they continue with the process they are effectively cancel their baptism & confirmation. Should they wish to join the Church at some future date it would require these ordinances to be perfomed again.

The meetings have always ended with our asurances of the ongoing friendship of the members and the welcome that would always be extended.

A letter is then delivered to the person stating all of the above, with contact names and numbers should they reconsider.

Now all of this may sem a little long-winded, but I for one prefer that everyone be made fully aware of the consequences. It may very well be wishful thinking on my part as my wife can't take the step for re-baptism & I can't help feeling that it would have been less of a stretch had her name removal not been processed so expeditiously.

[Saints Alive]

It may very well be wishful thinking on my part as my wife can't take the step for re-baptism & I can't help feeling that it would have been less of a stretch had her name removal not been processed so expeditiously.

I am having trouble understanding this part... Are you saying that your ex wife cannot be re-baptised because she wasn't fully informed?

[Calm]

I think he is saying his wife is reluctant to come back with rebaptism seeming a bigger hurdle or bigger deal to her than it would have been if she was simply listed as a "do not contact" where she could just show up at church and start without anything official needing to be done.

He can correct me if I am wrong, of course.

[Saints Alive]

Thats what I figured, I just assumed if she explained what happened the Church would bend over backward to get her back in full fellowship as soon as possible. Especially since it wasn't her intention to leave in the first place.

[Ticketyboo]

Sorry for not making it clear SA, and thank you Cal for clearing it up; yes it seems a bigger hurdle.

Neither my wife (not ex) nor I have any issues with the action that was taken, I'm just happier that such an occurence is less likely today.

The Church has always been very accomodating to my wife and she has always readily sustained me in meetings with the various SP. I know that the SP in 1995 would have given anything to be able to reinstate her on a technicality, as he was still SP when I joined & brought the whole question up when I found she wasn't a member anymore.

Just to wade in a little further on the main topic, usually if a person is scheduled for a meeting with the SHC a letter requiring name removal would not normally be accepted as it might be viewed as a means of circumventing possible disciplinary measures.

I guess that herein lies an important distinction, one can simply request name removal & cite no reasons, whereas a meeting with the SHC should bring everything to light.

However, I can equally foresee certain circumstances in which it might be considered far more expeditious to "encourage" a name removal.

[Ticketyboo]

Perhaps I should elucidate a little further, the importance that weightier transgressions are indeed processed by the SHC become obvious in their recording.

I was once contacted directly by the Area Presidency to warn that an ex member had recently been released from jail after serving his sentence for child molestation & incest, and he might be attending in our area.

Had he just removed his name from membership, there would have been no way of knowing who he was.

As it was, we never saw him, so let's not derail the thread.

[Walden]

I wouldn't attribute the same motives to every person who resigns from the Church, but yes, I agree with you that some people might do it in order to avoid the stigma. But I still think that others who leave the Church see no point in going through the church court process. I mean, why bother with all that, when it is sufficient to simply tell Church leaders you resign?

I'm not sure of the motives, but I can tell you that had the church called a court for my resignation, I would not have taken the time to attend, nor would I have cared (I left the church of my own free will, due to intellectual and integrity concerns, not due to any indiscretions). If one doesn't believe in the church, and believe that it is phony, then why would they care about a church court?

[Damien the Leper]

I'm not sure of the motives, but I can tell you that had the church called a court for my resignation, I would not have taken the time to attend, nor would I have cared (I left the church of my own free will, due to intellectual and integrity concerns, not due to any indiscretions). If one doesn't believe in the church, and believe that it is phony, then why would they care about a church court?

It would be ecclesiastically abusive if a SP were to decide to have a court on you after your resignation. What would it prove? Nothing. Maybe to satisfy some narcissistic need to have the last word but I haven't encountered anyone in the church like that.

[Saints Alive]

It would be ecclesiastically abusive if a SP were to decide to have a court on you after your resignation. What would it prove? Nothing. Maybe to satisfy some narcissistic need to have the last word but I haven't encountered anyone in the church like that.

However, if it is suspected you did something that would require a counsel befor your resignation, that is noted and if your decide to rejoin you must go through the Discipline Counsel before you may begin the process of rejoining the church. Also, if you do anything after your resignation that would warrant a discipline counsel, you must repent of that before you may be rebaptised.

[Damien the Leper]

However, if it is suspected you did something that would require a counsel befor your resignation, that is noted and if your decide to rejoin you must go through the Discipline Counsel before you may begin the process of rejoining the church. Also, if you do anything after your resignation that would warrant a discipline counsel, you must repent of that before you may be rebaptised.

I couldn't handle that kind of legalism. More power to those who can.

[Saints Alive]

I couldn't handle that kind of legalism. More power to those who can.

hopefully I will never put myself in that situation. I can't imagine many that would.