Mass Apostasy Under Way? Lawyer Claims to Have Processed 6,500 Resignations

[smac97]

Here:

Quote

Nearly 6,500 People Have Resigned from the Mormon Church Thanks to One Lawyer and a Website

Earlier this month, I posted about a new website to help Mormons leave the Church for good. QuitMormon offers free legal representation for people ready to resign their membership.

...

Mark Naugle is an attorney who has been helping many Mormons through the process. It was only recently that a software engineer reached out to Mark and helped create a website to facilitate this whole process.

QuitMormon has only been in operation for a month now. But in a message posted to the Ex-Mormon subreddit yesterday, Mark provided an incredible update:

Quote

I genuinely appreciate all of your patience throughout the process. I was not at all prepared for the massive response.

Right now we are sitting at about 6,500 resignations processed through me.

So including Mark’s work both before the website’s launch and since then, he has processed a staggering 6,500 resignations from the Mormon Church. (And counting.)

For what it’s worth, back in November, when Mark was still processing everything by hand, the count was only at 2,500 resignations. The website has made things much easier.

I don't think there is a way to verify this, but I thought it merited a mention.

Mr. Naugle has set up a website where anyone and his dog can submit a resignation request (or perhaps even several).  Mr. Naugle will not, I think, have any way of knowing which of these requests come from actual members and how many are from shills, cranks, never-mos, people who have previously resigned, etc.

I also wonder how many of these resignations are from recently-active members of the Church.  Prior discussions about "mass resignation" events have left me somewhat skeptical.  For example, in this thread there was discussion of this issue.  See also here.  

In any event, as I have said before:

Quote

That's not to say that large-scale apostasy is not possible. It might happen some day. It happened in the early days of the Church. It also happened in the primitive Church as recorded in John 6 and described by Elder Neal A. Maxwell this way: 

The more declarative Jesus was, the more tentative some followers. Is this not the same today? As long as Jesus’ church and its prophets are doing certain things of which people fully approve, there is admiration. But when modern prophets begin to be declarative, then it is a very different matter!

“The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.” (John 6:41.)

“From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.” (John 6:66.)

And by Sister Ardeth G. Kapp here: 

Sometimes we are shortsighted and are not aware of what awaits us just around the corner following our obedience. We do not “receive a witness until after the trial of [our] faith” (Ether 12:6). We don’t negotiate with our Father in Heaven on these matters. The laws are in place. We know that “there is a law. . . upon which all blessings are predicated,” and we know that when we receive any blessing “it is by obedience to that law” (D&C 130:20).

And so our Father, wanting us to qualify for all of the blessings, has given us laws and commandments. These commandments are given not to restrict us but to redeem us—not to just reform us but to exalt us. Therefore, as Nephi said, “Cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23).

Some of us will resent, resist, even recoil from the apparent restrictions imposed upon us. And so it was in the Savior’s time. There were those who didn’t like what he taught. “This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” they said. “When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?” (John 6:60–61). And we read that “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (John 6:66).

The number of people who have accepted the Restored Gospel is not a first order piece of evidence in favor of the truth claims of the Restored Gospel. The Church is as true in 2015 with 15 million members as it was in 1830 with six.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed

[Gray]

6500 is a lot in absolute numbers, but not much as a percentage of the whole. The real number to keep track of is probably members per ward. 

[Duncan]

In our stake since Nov. 2 have resigned that I know of. One was due to the gay baptism thing and the other I don't know why but she was baptized last year and is apparently "very catholic" so who knows.

[ALarson]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Mr. Naugle has set up a website where anyone and his dog can submit a resignation request (or perhaps even several).  Mr. Naugle will not, I think, have any way of knowing which of these requests come from actual members and how many are from shills, cranks, never-mos, people who have previously resigned, etc.

I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on this, but it's interesting to read through.  Thanks for posting it smac97.

I doubt that a "fake" resignation would go through and be successful.  Wouldn't the records department respond that no member with that name and information exists if it was a "shill" that the attorney was submitting it for?

I also doubt that anyone would be counted or allowed to resign more than once (technically they wouldn't be a member after the first resignation).  

I imagine very accurate records are kept by the church and any fake names or duplicate names submitted would be returned to the attorney with a statement of explanation.

.

Edited February 24, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

6500 is a lot in absolute numbers, but not much as a percentage of the whole. The real number to keep track of is probably members per ward. 

Well, percentage or otherwise, 6,500 seems to qualify as a "mass resignation."  That said, it's hard to say what the actual number is.  Mr. Naugle's website has no mechanism for checking on whether people using his website are members of the Church.

As a sidenote, Mr. Naugle's website generates a form for the individual to sign and send back to him.  The form includes an "Authorization as Agent" document which establishes an attorney-client relationship between the individual and Mr. Naugle, and states that "any contact, whether verbal, written, electronic, or via representatives of the Church must be directed to Mark A. Naugle, Attorney at Law."  There's a wee little problem with this.  It's called "Unauthorized Practice of Law."  The form indicates that Mr. Naugle is licensed in Utah, Washington State and California.  So if he is actively licensed in those three states, he can certainly proceed to create attorney-client relationships with clients who are residents of those three states, and those three states only.  I don't think Mr. Naugle can legally create attorney-client relationships with residents of any other state (or any other country, even though his website is designed to allow foreign nationals to sign up with him as well).

I hope Mr. Naugle has taken these considerations into account.  At first glance, however, it appears he has not.  If that is the case, and if he is now publicly bragging about having represented 6,500 people, and if some of those 6,500 people are not residents of states in which he is licensed to practice law, he may be soliciting hundreds (thousands?) of not-in-Utah-or-Washington-State-or-California clients and establishing attorney-client relationships with them when he is not authorized by law to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, it's hard to say what the actual number is.  Mr. Naugle's website has no mechanism for checking on whether people using his website are members of the Church.

Again, I would imagine he'd find out as soon as he submitted a resignation for them, wouldn't he?

Or is he just counting resignation requests submitted and not the number of those he has successfully completed?  I'm sure the church would not accept, count or allow fake resignations or duplicate resignations.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I really don't have an opinion one way or the other on this, but it's interesting to read through.  Thanks for posting it smac97.I doubt that a "fake" resignation would go through and be successful.  

.

Agreed.  But fake resignations would stuff the proverbial ballot box, would they not?  

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Agreed.  But face resignations would stuff the proverbial ballot box, would they not?  

-Smac

What are "face resignations"?  Just those submitted?  

Isn't he giving a total for completed resignations?  If not, then the number of 6500 isn't actual resignations.

- Edited....I see you corrected "face" to "fake"  

I still don't see how the church would allow "fake resignations" to be successfully completed.

.

Edited February 24, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Again, I would imagine he'd find out as soon as he submitted a resignation for them, wouldn't he?

Or is he just counting resignation requests submitted and not the number of those he has successfully completed?  I'm sure the church would not accept, count or allow fake resignations or duplicate resignations.

I suspect Mr. Naugle is simply counting the number of submissions he has received.  That is the only number to which he has access.

I'm not sure what the Church would do regarding the "Authorization Form" appended to the resignation letter which purportedly requires the Church to communicate through him rather than directly with his "clients."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CA Steve]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, percentage or otherwise, 6,500 seems to qualify as a "mass resignation."  That said, it's hard to say what the actual number is.  Mr. Naugle's website has no mechanism for checking on whether people using his website are members of the Church.

As a sidenote, Mr. Naugle's website generates a form for the individual to sign and send back to him.  The form includes an "Authorization as Agent" document which establishes an attorney-client relationship between the individual and Mr. Naugle, and states that "any contact, whether verbal, written, electronic, or via representatives of the Church must be directed to Mark A. Naugle, Attorney at Law."  There's a wee little problem with this.  It's called "Unauthorized Practice of Law."  The form indicates that Mr. Naugle is licensed in Utah, Washington State and California.  So if he is actively licensed in those three states, he can certainly proceed to create attorney-client relationships with clients who are residents of those three states, and those three states only.  I don't think Mr. Naugle can legally create attorney-client relationships with residents of any other state (or any other country, even though his website is designed to allow foreign nationals to sign up with him as well.

I hope Mr. Naugle has taken these considerations into account.  At first glance, however, it appears he has not.  If that is the case, and if he is now publicly bragging about having represented 6,500 people, and if some of those 6,500 people are not residents of states in which he is licensed to practice law, he may come to regret soliciting hundreds (thousands?) of not-in-Utah-or-Washington-State-or-California clients and establishing attorney-client relationships with them when he is not authorized by law to do so.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

When the relationship is legally set up in the states where Mr. Naugle is licensed does that mean from that point forward no one from the Church can legally talk to the client? What happens if a HT or VT drops by?

 

Thanks

[MorningStar]

Why would anyone need a lawyer to resign?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What are "face resignations"?  Just those submitted?  

Isn't he giving a total for completed resignations?  If not, then the number of 6500 isn't actual resignations.

- Edited....I see you corrected "face" to "fake"  

I still don't see how the church would allow "fake resignations" to be successfully completed.

.

I agree with you.  My point is that Mr. Naugle is, I think, only reporting the number of resignation requests submitted by him, not the number of resignations which the Church facilitates and completes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Smac,

When the relationship is legally set up in the states where Mr. Naugle is licensed does that mean from that point forward no one from the Church can legally talk to the client? What happens if a HT or VT drops by?

Thanks

I doubt it.  I think absent a court order or some other legal restriction (such as those placed on debt collectors, attorneys, etc.), a lawyer cannot prohibit Person X from speaking to Client Y.

I'm open to correction on that point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I suspect Mr. Naugle is simply counting the number of submissions he has received.  That is the only number to which he has access.I

It looks like he follows the entire process through (sending in the resignation and then receiving the confirmation from church headquarters).  So, I doubt he'd be successful submitting duplicates or "fake" names.  He also is most likely counting completed resignations, not just those submitted.

Here's info from his website:

Quote

 

What information do you collect?

In order to process your resignation we will need to collect some personal information. Your information is stored securely, and is ONLY used in conjunction with your resignation. We will not spam you, or sell your information.  Your full name (matching the church records)  Your birth date  Your address  If you know it, providing your membership number can speed up the process, but is NOT required  Your email address, so we can let you know the status on your resignation  If you are a minor, you will usually need signatures from both of your parents (depending on custody)

Is any personal information shared?

Your personal information is only used to process your resignation. You can opt-in to be included in our anonymous statistics if you choose. Anonymous statistics include: (all optional) age, gender, geographic region, number of years as a member.

How long does the resignation process take?

We usually mail your resignation letter within one week after you have provided all the necessary information to us. The church typically processes and returns the confirmation to us within 2-3 weeks. Done on your own, the resignation process typically takes around 90 days.

Can I pay you for this service?

This service is, and always will be free

 

 

Edited February 24, 2016 by ALarson

[Duncan]

Hmm, I wonder if Mr. Naugle is making a buck or two off of this or is it for free? if it's the first option I wonder if he works for the Law offices of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Hmm, I wonder if Mr. Naugle is making a buck or two off of this or is it for free? if it's the first option I wonder if he works for the Law offices of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe

It's free.  (Read the last line of the information I quoted above.)

[JAHS]

When the church directly receives a request for resignation from a member isn't it SOP to send it back to the person's Bishop to have him handle the process starting at that point? 

[why me]

19 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Why would anyone need a lawyer to resign?

This is a good question. They don't. The proper channels are simple enough. Just contact the bishop and the process begins. And this is what makes the site a little suspect and not very reliable for actual numbers of resignations. However one will see if there is mass resignations from the memberhip records that are read during general conference. This will give a more correct picture of the situation.

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Why would anyone need a lawyer to resign?

You don't.  But it generates publicity for the lawyer and purportedly makes the Church look bad.  That's a twofer!

Thanks,

-Smac

[rpn]

Quote

When the relationship is legally set up in the states where Mr. Naugle is licensed does that mean from that point forward no one from the Church can legally talk to the client? What happens if a HT or VT drops by?

First, the rules prohibit an ATTORNEY from talking with a party who has an attorney for the specific issue (with irrelevant exceptions).  There is no professional or legal prohibition for anyone other than attorneys who represent the church in membership matters from contacting a person about their resignation or any other matter.   It would seem weird to me if the Church replied at all directly to the attorney (though the authorizations do seem to give permission from the resigned member to send the attorney the final letter): after all, the person who writes the letter is not an attorney for the church, but someone in the membership department.  

And it further seems strange to me to argue that the letters to the membership department resigning that orders no contact other than with the attorney would act to create a problem when the HT/VT or Bishop contacted the church member.   Seems to me that a nuisance issue would only arise when local leaders and others who had personal knowledge of the request, and after the resignation was final.   So wouldn't the resigning member be better off doing the resignation locally so the local leaders are in the loop? 

As for the unauthorized practice of law,  how can anyone give a legal opinion about lds church resignations: it isn't a legal issue.  They might be able to give advice about what it means to be a member in a particular state, but is what this attorney doing practicing law at all?    In any case, one can seek advice and form an attorney client relationship with someone who isn't licensed in their state, so long as they are giving advice from an office in the state they are licensed in.  

[Mystery Meat]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

As a sidenote, Mr. Naugle's website generates a form for the individual to sign and send back to him.  The form includes an "Authorization as Agent" document which establishes an attorney-client relationship between the individual and Mr. Naugle, and states that "any contact, whether verbal, written, electronic, or via representatives of the Church must be directed to Mark A. Naugle, Attorney at Law."  There's a wee little problem with this.  It's called "Unauthorized Practice of Law."  The form indicates that Mr. Naugle is licensed in Utah, Washington State and California.  So if he is actively licensed in those three states, he can certainly proceed to create attorney-client relationships with clients who are residents of those three states, and those three states only.  I don't think Mr. Naugle can legally create attorney-client relationships with residents of any other state (or any other country, even though his website is designed to allow foreign nationals to sign up with him as well).

 

-Smac

I actually think this is not a violation of rules of ethics or state bars, but it is a very gray area. I know plenty of attorneys who represent clients in states where they are not licensed, but do the work (at least transactional work) from a state in which they are. I do not think that is a violation of rules of ethics.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, rpn said:

As for the unauthorized practice of law,  how can anyone give a legal opinion about lds church resignations: it isn't a legal issue.  They might be able to give advice about what it means to be a member in a particular state, but is what this attorney doing practicing law at all?    In any case, one can seek advice and form an attorney client relationship with someone who isn't licensed in their state, so long as they are giving advice from an office in the state they are licensed in.  

Here's the text of the "Authorization as Agent" form generated by Mr. Naugle's website:

Quote

I, ___________________, hereby authorize and assign Mark A. Naugle as my attorney and agent, to speak and act on my behalf in all matters concerning my relationship with and resignation from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Any contact, whether verbal, written, electronic, or via representatives of the Church must be directed to Mark A. Naugle, Attorney at Law.

As far as the resignation letter itself, it's on Mr. Naugle's attorney letterhead.  And here are the last two paragraphs of it:

Quote

Any and all correspondence with me or my family should be made via my attorney, Mark A. Naugle. Please see the completed and attached ‘Authorization as Agent’ form.

Should the church refuse to remove my membership, legal action may ensue.

So he's using his attorney letterhead.  He is representing himself as "attorney and agent" of the people using his website, and he is asking them to sign a document that "authorizes" Mr. Naugle to be their attorney and speak exclusively on their behalf as an attorney.  And he is threatening litigation if the Church communicates with his clients, presumably including those who are not residents of the three states in which he is authorized to practice law.

All of this sounds very "Attorney-setting-up-an-attorney-client-relationship"-ish to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 24, 2016 by smac97

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, MorningStar said:

Why would anyone need a lawyer to resign?

Because of the implicit threat.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

I actually think this is not a violation of rules of ethics or state bars, but it is a very gray area. I know plenty of attorneys who represent clients in states where they are not licensed, but do the work (at least transactional work) from a state in which they are. I do not think that is a violation of rules of ethics.

Perhaps so.  I hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac