Smoot Nails It!!!! The Facts About Jeremy Runnels

[Damien the Leper]

16 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I wonder how much of it is family and cultural related as it is about their own PR. Both JR and JD were multigenerational and my guess that most if not all of their families were mormon forever. Some of the ways that I've seen them discuss the church or their place in the community as members, particularly around their excommunication, is seen as a right and expectation (personal, social, etc) moreso than a privilege and responsibility. The candle light vigils personally drive me nuts and are the epitomy of their sense of right to membership and catered mormon identity v. privilege of membership and religious responsibility. In my head, candle vigils are there for gruesome deaths, horrifying injustices, and tragedies. Last time I had a vigil I participated in was for 9-11. This is an excommunication....no one dies here, he's not expected to leave his home and family, he's not being carted to prison for trumped up charges, he's not even expected to stop attending church. He just can't keep acting like he's a member and use that as leverage for his platform/vendetta.   

 

With luv,

BD

Well said.

For clarity, and not meant in hostility, it is a privilege to be a member of the LDS church. It is a right, via the atonement, to be part of the believing body of Christ. 

[longview]

9 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Well said.

For clarity, and not meant in hostility, it is a privilege to be a member of the LDS church. It is a right, via the atonement, to be part of the believing body of Christ. 

Not sure how to approach your statement here.  I believe you have described yourself as being a "not fully committed member" of the church.

It depends on how you access the "Atonement".  It is not a "one step process", it is not "cut and dried".  It depends on covenant relationship with God.  It requires ongoing walk with God and willingness to submit yourself to God's refinements, chastisements and teachings.  In the end, it is up to God to judge as to whether you have sufficiently embraced your part of the covenant (loving God with all your might, mind, heart, strength and soul, being a doer and not a hearer only).

It is NOT a right that is handed to you right off the bat.   It is NOT just a privilege to be a member BUT it is God who is totally loving, generous, kind in extending an invitation to ALL.  It is up to us to make our membership meaningful by trying to live by the Word of God.  Faith, Hope, Charity, Trust.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

In situations like this, where the apostasy is so clear-cut, the individual ought just to avail himself of the administrative name-removal process and have it done expeditiously and quietly.

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate course of action.  If a person has engaged in misconduct, I'm not sure it's appropriate for that person to short-circuit the disciplinary process by resigning, and I'm not sure the Church would be satisfied with such a resolution.  A disciplinary council establishes a factual record pertaining to the misconduct at issue.  This record would be important and relevant should the individual choose to re-associate with the Church years down the road and/or in a different geographic area of the Church.

This particular case is sort of unique because Jeremy Runnells has garnered for himself a lot of notoriety.  But even here a record is important.

Quote

To put everyone through the trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council while publicizing it through mass and social media seems to serve no other purpose than grandstanding and attention-getting with a misguided and vain endeavor to embarrass the Church. It strikes me as an abuse of the process.

Sometimes the "trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council" is necessary.  I think the Church has an affirmative duty to investigate some matters, and I think apostasy would be one of them:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

Disciplinary proceedings are generally painful and difficult.  But they are, in some circumstances, necessary.  This is probably why the CHI requires disciplinary proceedings for certain serious transgressions, apostasy being one of them.

I instances where a disciplinary action is based on a charge of apostasy, I think the Church can and should complete the disciplinary process and create a record.  Such records have both spiritual dimensions (see the "blotted out" verses above) and practical ones (allowing future local and general authorities in the Church to be aware of the circumstances of a person's previous disassociation with the Church).

As to the publicizing/grandstanding parts of Runnells' conduct, however, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 15, 2016 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

9 minutes ago, longview said:

Not sure how to approach your statement here.  I believe you have described yourself as being a "not fully committed member" of the church.

It depends on how you access the "Atonement".  It is not a "one step process", it is not "cut and dried".  It depends on covenant relationship with God.  It requires ongoing walk with God and willingness to submit yourself to God's refinements, chastisements and teachings.  In the end, it is up to God to judge as to whether you have sufficiently embraced your part of the covenant (loving God with all your might, mind, heart, strength and soul, being a doer and not a hearer only).

It is NOT a right that is handed to you right off the bat.   It is NOT just a privilege to be a member BUT it is God who is totally loving, generous, kind in extending an invitation to ALL.  It is up to us to make our membership meaningful by trying to live by the Word of God.  Faith, Hope, Charity, Trust.

You misunderstand immensely.

Grace is free via the atonement. It cannot be earned. What you do with that grace determines your relationship with Christ. 

For further clarity, I'm not a member at all nor am I a Christian. My other half and I are making the conversion to Reform Judaism.

[BlueDreams]

30 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Well said.

For clarity, and not meant in hostility, it is a privilege to be a member of the LDS church. It is a right, via the atonement, to be part of the believing body of Christ. 

I would agree. I think that is blurred a little in the LDS church because of both the priesthood and temple. All endowed bare the name of Christ and are called to represent him and act in his name under the priesthood. So the clergy are also the lay members....each person is a rabbi, priest, minister, etc. So just as everyone has a right to the atonement and Christ even it it is but the "crumbs" as a manner of speaking, all members (particularly endowed ones) of the church also have a strong responsibility to represent Christ and His body when partaking of their covenants.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Damien the Leper]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate course of action.  If a person has engaged in misconduct, I'm not sure it's appropriate for that person to short-circuit the disciplinary process by resigning, and I'm not sure the Church would be satisfied with such a resolution.  A disciplinary council establishes a factual record pertaining to the misconduct at issue.  This record would be important and relevant should the individual choose to re-associate with the Church years down the road and/or in a different geographic area of the Church.

This particular case is sort of unique because Jeremy Runnells has garnered for himself a lot of notoriety.  But even here a record is important.

Sometimes the "trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council" is necessary.  I think the Church has an affirmative duty to investigate some matters, and I think apostasy would be one of them:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

Disciplinary proceedings are generally painful and difficult.  But they are, in some circumstances, necessary.  This is probably why the CHI requires disciplinary proceedings for certain serious transgressions, apostasy being one of them.

I instances where a disciplinary action is based on a charge of apostasy, I think the Church can and should complete the disciplinary process and create a record.  Such records have both spiritual dimensions (see the "blotted out" verses above) and practical ones (allowing future local and general authorities in the Church to be aware of the circumstances of a person's previous disassociation with the Church).

As to the publicizing/grandstanding parts of Runnells' conduct, however, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Thanks,

-Smac

But if Runnells resigns, the church has to comply. Holding a disciplinary council after resignation would be a huge waste of time.

Resignation would be the smart thing to do.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure this is the most appropriate course of action.  If a person has engaged in misconduct, I'm not sure it's appropriate for that person to short-circuit the disciplinary process by resigning, and I'm not sure the Church would be satisfied with such a resolution.  A disciplinary council establishes a factual record pertaining to the misconduct at issue.  This record would be important and relevant should the individual choose to re-associate with the Church years down the road and/or in a different geographic area of the Church.

This particular case is sort of unique because Jeremy Runnells has garnered for himself a lot of notoriety.  But even here a record is important.

Sometimes the "trouble and heartache of a disciplinary council" is necessary.  I think the Church has an affirmative duty to investigate some matters, and I think apostasy would be one of them:

 

But the Church nowadays does not in fact investigate each and every case of apostasy. Many people these days express their apostasy through the name-removal process, and the Church leaves it at that. So if there is, as you say, an "affirmative duty" here, it is a duty that is very, very often neglected these days.

I think formerly, in cases where name removal was requested, a disciplinary council was convened, even if the person didn't intend to be present. But it has been at least two generations since that was the normal practice.

So if, in an age where quiet name removal is an option, someone is clearly and defiantly in apostasy and wants a publicized disciplinary council as a means of garnering public opinion and embarrassing the Church, I stand by my opinion that it is an abuse of the process to force the convening of such a council.

 

Edited February 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Damien the Leper]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the Church nowadays does not in fact investigate each and every case of apostasy. Many people these days express their apostasy through the name-removal process, and the Church leaves it at that. So if there is, as you say, an "affirmative duty" here, it is a duty that is very, very often neglected these days.

I think formerly, in cases where name removal was requested, a disciplinary council was convened, even if the person didn't intend to be present. But it has been at least two generations since that was the normal practice.

So, in an age where quiet name removal is an option, someone is clearly and defiantly in apostasy and wants a publicized disciplinary council as a means of garnering public opinion and embarrassing the Church, I stand by my opinion that it is an abuse of the process to force the convening of such a council.

 

I wish I could give you +1k.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

But if Runnells resigns, the church has to comply.

Well, not necessarily.  The Church could accept such a resignation, but I do not think it is required to do so.  The secular law is not entirely settled on this issue, but there are precedents under which the Church could continue a disciplinary action against a person even after he has resigned.  See here.

Quote

Holding a disciplinary council after resignation would be a huge waste of time.

Not necessarily.  As I said, creating a record pertaining to charges of apostasy would not be a waste of time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But the Church nowadays does not in fact investigate each and every case of apostasy.

I should clarify here that I am content to let the Brethren determine when investigating a case of apostasy is or is not appropriate.  However, the CHI provides that a disciplinary is mandatory in cases where certain types of misconduct is alleged.  And by "alleged" I mean when evidence suggests that a member of the Church may have committed the act.  That seems like a very low threshold.

The types of misconduct requiring a disciplinary council include murder, incest, sexual abuse of a child, serious transgression while holding a prominent church position, predatory or repeated or widely known transgressions, and . . . apostasy.

Again, I am content to let the Brethren determine when investigating a case of apostasy is or is not appropriate.  But I wonder if we are seeing instances where the CHI is not being followed by the local authorities.  I have a hard time faulting the local authorities for "looking the other way" in some circumstances.  Disciplinary proceedings are, as I have said, an unpleasant and unhappy part of administering the affairs of the Church.  But there are times when such proceedings are necessary.  And according to the CHI, apostasy is one of those times.

Quote

Many people these days express their apostasy through the name-removal process, and the Church leaves it at that. So if there is, as you say, an "affirmative duty" here, it is a duty that is very, very often neglected these days.

Well, perhaps not "neglected."  Perhaps the Brethren are content to let a resignation stand in the place of a disciplinary proceeding culminating in an excommunication.  I will leave such matters to them.  My point is that I think the Church has the option of continuing with a disciplinary proceeding, notwithstanding a resignation.

Quote

I think formerly, in cases where name removal was requested, a disciplinary council was convened, even if the person didn't intend to be present. But it has been at least two generations since that was the normal practice.

So, in an age where quiet name removal is an option, someone is clearly and defiantly in apostasy and wants a publicized disciplinary council as a means of garnering public opinion and embarrassing the Church, I stand by my opinion that it is an abuse of the process to force the convening of such a council.

Well, I love ya, you know that.  But I can't agree.  Bro. Runnells has a right to a disciplinary proceeding.  He does not "abuse" anything by availing himself to a proceeding to which he is entitled by right.  Similarly, I don't think the Church "abuses" anything by completing a disciplinary proceeding subsequent to a resignation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not necessarily.  The Church could accept such a resignation, but I do not think it is required to do so.  The secular law is not entirely settled on this issue, but there are precedents under which the Church could continue a disciplinary action against a person even after he has resigned.  See here.

Not necessarily.  As I said, creating a record pertaining to charges of apostasy would not be a waste of time.

Thanks,

-Smac

If a person resigns then they are no longer a member nor are they entitled to the blessings of the church. Continuing with the excommunication of a non-member is redundant.

If the church has the audacity to tell someone that their resignation is invalid then the church deserves to be in hot water. The church cannot take the choice of resignation away from anyone. If it believes it has the authority to do so then it is no better than Scientology. 

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.  As I said, creating a record pertaining to charges of apostasy would not be a waste of time.

But how can any record be created when no record is made?

This gets back to my position that a formal and complete record of such proceedings should be made, and that persons attending such hearings for apostasy should be allowed to make their own records, as well.

Otherwise, it looks like the Church is trying to hide something.

[Damien the Leper]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not necessarily.  As I said, creating a record pertaining to charges of apostasy would not be a waste of time.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then the church can write it down. End of story.

Choosing to excommunicate a resigned person is like an employer trying to fire a resigned employee. It's juvenile and tantamount to a child's temper tantrum because they didn't get their way. The LDS church is better than this. It has better things to do than excommunicate a resigned person.   

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

If a person resigns then they are no longer a member nor are they entitled to the blessings of the church. Continuing with the excommunication of a non-member is redundant.

Not necessarily.  Say that someone is accused of molesting a child (and that such molestation did, in fact, occur, and also that this person was not convicted in secular court of the charge).  This person's stake president notifies him that a disciplinary council will be held.  This person promptly resigns his membership in the Church.  20 years later this person has moved to another country and has a rekindled interest in joining the Church and seeks permission from the First Presidency.  The Church investigates its records and finds that this person resigned.  And because there was no disciplinary council convened, there is no reference to the charge of child molestation.  And this individual does not disclose to the Church the prior charge of sexual molestation.  Given these circumstances, would not a record formed by a disciplinary council be a potentially useful thing for the First Presidency to take into account?

Quote

If the church has the audacity to tell someone that their resignation is invalid then the church deserves to be in hot water.

"Hot water?"  What does that mean?

Quote

The church cannot take the choice of resignation away from anyone.

Nobody has suggested that.  The right to disassociate from a religious group is not in dispute.  The question is whether the religious group can continue and complete a disciplinary proceeding which an individual has attempted to short circuit by resigning.  I am aware of American jurisprudence holding that a religious group can do this.  I provided a link to it earlier.  Here it is again. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Then the church can write it down. End of story.

Choosing to excommunicate a resigned person is like an employer trying to fire a resigned employee. It's juvenile and tantamount to a child's temper tantrum because they didn't get their way. The LDS church is better than this. It has better things to do than excommunicate a resigned person.   

The distinction between accepting a resignation and excommunicating someone is a matter of A) a meeting and B) the Church's internal records.  The Church has First Amendment rights pertaining to both of these.  And again, I am aware of American jurisprudence holding that a religious group can do this.  I provided a link to it earlier.  Here it is again. 

This is all theoretical anyway.  It appears that the Church presently allows people to resign in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding.  I am not criticizing or second guessing that.  I am suggesting that the Church has a theoretical option of continuing with a disciplinary proceeding, notwithstanding a resignation.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

But how can any record be created when no record is made?

Records are kept of disciplinary proceedings.  I'm not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

[consiglieri]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Records are kept of disciplinary proceedings.  I'm not sure why you are suggesting otherwise.

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmm.

You may not have been party to a conversation earlier this week on another thread.

There I was advocating for complete records (including audio-taping) of disciplinary hearings involving charges of "apostasy."

This arose in the context of John Dehlin's being refused to record his disciplinary proceeding or even have a note-taker present.

My feeling was that having an official and complete record of such proceedings would make it so John Dehlin can record and note-take as much as he wanted, and then if he chose to make those notes or records public, the Church could then present the full and complete record of the proceedings if the Church felt things were taken out of context.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  Refusing Dehlin that ability makes it sound like the Church doesn't want others to know what happens in the hearing.

Others thought this would intrude on "privacy rights" of others present at the hearing.

I countered that the only person with any right to privacy at the hearing was the person on trial.

The discussion went south from there.

Hope you are having a pleasant Presidents' Day!

[smac97]

1 minute ago, consiglieri said:

Hmm.

You may not have been party to a conversation earlier this week on another thread.

There I was advocating for complete records (including audio-taping) of disciplinary hearings involving charges of "apostasy."

This arose in the context of John Dehlin's being refused to record his disciplinary proceeding or even have a note-taker present.

My feeling was that having an official and complete record of such proceedings would make it so John Dehlin can record and note-take as much as he wanted, and then if he chose to make those notes or records public, the Church could then present the full and complete record of the proceedings if the Church felt things were taken out of context.

This makes a lot of sense to me.  Refusing Dehlin that ability makes it sound like the Church doesn't want others to know what happens in the hearing.

Others thought this would intrude on "privacy rights" of others present at the hearing.

I countered that the only person with any right to privacy at the hearing was the person on trial.

The discussion went south from there.

Hope you are having a pleasant Presidents' Day!

I recall the discussion.  I am not persuaded that an audio tape is required.  For the Church's purposes, a written summary is sufficient.  And a written summary is, I think, much less susceptible to inappropriate disclosure.  This benefits both the Church and the person subject to discipline.

Since a disciplinary council is a Church meeting, the Church gets to determine how it is administered.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about this.  You raise a fair point.  I don't find it absurd or utterly wrongheaded.  But I just don't agree with it.  I think the Church's position is reasonable as well.  In such circumstances, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

I'm good with anything that can stop either side from hiding behind the worthless excuse of "We don't know what all was said, therefore...(insert further nonsense and rationalizations)."

[Jeanne]

On 2/13/2016 at 3:32 PM, canard78 said:

50 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

If a person resigns then they are no longer a member nor are they entitled to the blessings of the church. Continuing with the excommunication of a non-member is redundant.

If the church has the audacity to tell someone that their resignation is invalid then the church deserves to be in hot water. The church cannot take the choice of resignation away from anyone. If it believes it has the authority to do so then it is no better than Scientology. 

Sure, if Runnels feels the church is a destructive influence in the world that does harm to his active friends and family then he is entirely justified in taking action to try to convince them that the organisation is negative and fraudulent. 

But if he takes that action he shouldn't them be surprised if the organisation he's trying to tear down asks him to leave. His attempt to position himself as a humble doubter simply asking questions and being attacked for doing so is dishonest and disingenuous. 

To my understanding...and I resigned myself, the minute I put the stamp on the letter..I am out.  Legally out.  Anything after that is interference.

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, I love ya, you know that.  But I can't agree. 

Yeah? Well I think you are being a 6 foot 3 man. (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Jeanne said:

To my understanding...and I resigned myself, the minute I put the stamp on the letter..I am out.  Legally out.  Anything after that is interference.

Well, pretty much.  As a practical matter, the Church has to receive the letter, confirm it is from you, update its records, and so on.

And then there is the theoretical option of the Church completing a previously-initiated disciplinary council, notwithstanding a resignation.  Here's more information on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Jeanne]

51 minutes ago, Valentinus said:

Then the church can write it down. End of story.

Choosing to excommunicate a resigned person is like an employer trying to fire a resigned employee. It's juvenile and tantamount to a child's temper tantrum because they didn't get their way. The LDS church is better than this. It has better things to do than excommunicate a resigned person.   

Not only that..resigned members would be no show..and the Bishop would find cops at his door if he proceeded. At least that is how a resigned person would feel.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yeah? Well I think you are being a 6 foot 3 man. (wink-wink, nudge-nudge).

Rowr!  

[Jeanne]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, pretty much.  As a practical matter, the Church has to receive the letter, confirm it is from you, update its records, and so on.

And then there is the th.eoretical option of the Church completing a previously-initiated disciplinary council, notwithstanding a resignation.  Here's more information on this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the info