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

[VideoGameJunkie]

Remember the lawyer has done all 6500 for free.

[saemo]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Do you really think he puts that much effort into it?

With several thousand takers, that's a lot of pro bono work to be doing. And with the cost of billable hours, that would be a sizable expense that he would have to eat. A lot of money to be spending to nurse one's own vindictiveness.

1) I could create a google form in less than hour, that is a template of the resignation letter. All that has to be done then is fill in the template, click save and automagically an email is sent requesting the resignation, and the form is saved  

2) never underestimate the willingness for people to volunteer. I doubt a lawyer is spending his time on data entry.  Just get someone who works or volunteers for him to fill out the template. Back in the day (80s) I could enter 500 mail orders into a clunky old Basic form, in 30 minutes. 6500 since November, no time at all  

3) if he isn't having someone check identities, he's leaving himself open for being associated to people's fraudulent request, but I highly doubt the community he is helping would submarine him.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 2/24/2016 at 0:34 PM, smac97 said:

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

This is an important point. What constitutes a resignation having been "processed" by him? A confirmation letter sent by the Church to him as representative for the one resigning? Or just his having submitted the form?

Suppose the Church is summarily ignoring all these robo-resignations because, say, the identities have not been verified? Could it accurately be said that the resignations have been "processed"?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[why me]

I googled about resigning from the lutheran church and got this website. Quite a few people have resigned from the finnish lutheran church by using a similiar form.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroakirkosta.fi

[Analytics]

13 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Suppose the church, for some reason, simply refused to accept resignations, unless the person subjected themselves to the church’s policy for how it must be done.  Or. for that matter, suppose the church refused to accept resignations, at all.  Would the resigning member have any legal recourse?   Can the government tell a church who it can and cannot have on its membership rolls?

Don’t’ get me wrong.  If a church member wants to resign, I believe it is generally to everybody’s benefit to allow him to resign in a reasonably expeditious manner.     

I get your point.  There is a legal precedent that says freedom of religion means you can leave a church community and that the church must honor your wish to no longer be treated like a member.  About 35 years ago, a lady by the name of Marian Guinn belonged to the Collinsville (Oklahoma) Church of Christ.  Apparently, she was living with somebody to whom she wasn't married, and the church decided to punish her according to its doctrines regarding fornication.  They proceeded some lengthy excommunication proceedings, which included sending elders to track her down and call her to repentance, announcing what she had done over the pulpit, etc.  She told them she didn't want to play this game anymore, didn't want to be subjected to their harassment, and told them she resigned.  They refused, citing their own freedom of religion.

She felt harassed and emotionally distressed.  She eventually sued, and won a few hundred thousand dollars in actual and punitive damages.  See: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=10494

[ALarson]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an important point. What constitutes a resignation having been "processed" by him? A confirmation letter sent by the Church to him as representative for the one resigning? Or just his having submitted the form?

This has already been discussed earlier on this thread.  He stated that 1600 resignations were processed, not that 1600 were submitted (I know you're using "processed" above too).  The process (after the member submits his info) is explained as: 

Quote

The church typically processes and returns the confirmation to us within 2-3 weeks.

Now, there may be some of the 1600 that were submitted but not confirmed within the past few weeks when he reported the number.  Maybe he counted those that were recently submitted but not returned confirmed yet.

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Suppose the Church is summarily ignoring all these robo-resignations because, say, the identities have not been verified? Could it accrately be said that the resignations have been "processed"?

Why would the church "summarily" ignore the submissions?  If they were, I'd imagine the attorney would have stopped submitting them and would not be currently accepting more.  

It would be nice to get more information from the attorney and also some numbers reported from the church regarding resignations.  That would shed more light on this.

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[Gray]

15 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Nothing to see here folks move along....these were all those who wanted to sin, the offended, the lazy, gays, queers, non-tithe payers, non-temple attending shellac's, the so called intellectuals and feminists... We really didn't lose anything of value...in fact we're better off without them to spew their micro minded lies and distortions of the truth...I say they've weighed us down and distorted our home teaching numbers for far too long. I say don't let the door hit your arse on the way out...good riddance

I don't agree with any of that. 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

I don't agree with any of that. 

I was wearing my TBM hat... I don't agree with it either...in fact I think this mass exodus of 6,500 souls is a sad indictment of where the church is today...its sad that 6,500 former members feel that it was necessary to part with the church they once called their spiritual home.  But what is equally disappointing is that so many member of this board don't seem to care either. 

I suspect that the church will continue to migrate to a more fundamentalist/traditional/hard core brand of Mormonism, shrink its claimed big tent to encompass a smaller ideological worldview and that this exodus of the more progressive thinking members will continue as they find no room for their views at the Inn.  With the purge of LBGT members, their war agaist legally married gay members, the policy of not offering baptism to their children, the rejection of Hate Crime legislation, the increasing imposition of their point of view on the Utah legislature, the micro managing of individual freedoms and rights, the call for Obedience and non criticism of leaders even when their leader are wrong and their focus on their corporate portfolios, real estate developments and for profit institutions rather than Christ like love of the needy, humanitarian aid of less than a $1.00 per member per year...will continue to have an impact.

This mass resignation, and yes it is the largest resignation in church history, is significant if for no other reason than to be the canary in the coal mine.  The church can either pay attention and take measure to be inclusive and more open and loving to its fringe or it can continue on its current path of hard core hate of some of its most vulnerable members, the gay community, continue its hyperbolic attack of its intellectuals and continue to ignore its feminist by refusing them a seat at the table.  It will continue to grow by attracting those of a similar ilk...and if that is what they're after...then I'd have to congratulate them...they are being quite successful in reaching their goal. 

The church will only further separate itself from society and become a fringe movement itself, an oddity and curiosity even more so than it is already... Truly they have become the peculiar people they claim to be.

 

PS: I know Scott Lloyd doesn't appreciate anecdotal evidence...but just this past week a very active member confessed to me that he is embarrassed by the recent actions of the church and uncomfortable to call himself a Mormon, I was shocked.  Again something is happening within the church and it has reached even the most devout members

Edited February 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake

[stemelbow]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am pretty sure this is a shortcut to hell.

I doubt a shortcut.  You won't be killed because of this, but hey if that's where you're headed anyway, what's the problem?

[rockpond]

6500 is equivalent to one full stake or two stakes if you assume that all 6500 were active.  But I understand that the numbers aren't verifiable and so those who don't wish to believe there is any impact from the policy change will disregard.

What is sad to me are the real effects I see right here... in my stake we have a family who came back to church, re-activated, after years of inactivity.  The ward members worked hard to bring them back.  The husband/father of the family was teaching the gospel principles class.  When he heard of the policy, he told the bishopric that he needed a break from the church, that he wasn't sure he could continue to be involved with such an organization.  The family has stopped coming.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I get your point.  There is a legal precedent that says freedom of religion means you can leave a church community and that the church must honor your wish to no longer be treated like a member.  About 35 years ago, a lady by the name of Marian Guinn belonged to the Collinsville (Oklahoma) Church of Christ.  Apparently, she was living with somebody to whom she wasn't married, and the church decided to punish her according to its doctrines regarding fornication.  They proceeded some lengthy excommunication proceedings, which included sending elders to track her down and call her to repentance, announcing what she had done over the pulpit, etc.  She told them she didn't want to play this game anymore, didn't want to be subjected to their harassment, and told them she resigned.  They refused, citing their own freedom of religion.

She felt harassed and emotionally distressed.  She eventually sued, and won a few hundred thousand dollars in actual and punitive damages.  See: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=10494

A few points:

1. Guinn was decided in 1989 by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Here's a link to the text of that decision.

2. Guinn involved claims for the torts of "outrage" and "invasion of privacy" The theory was that the First Amendment did not protect the speech of the church because Guinn had surrendered her membership, thus letting Guinn sue under these theories.

3. The behavior of the church elders in Guinn would pretty much never be replicated in an LDS context (since disciplinary hearings are not publicized, and are not conducted in an "outrageous" manner). So those tort theories would not be available. I am hard-pressed to think of a tort theory which would be available where a person filed suit over an LDS disciplinary hearing.  Moreover, the Guinn trial court decision was reversed and remanded back to the trial court for a new trial limited to claims arising from conduct occurring after Guinn resigned.  The parties then settled out of court.

4. Guinn has limited applicability, as it is only precedent in Oklahoma and it applied to a set of facts which, as noted above, would probably not be replicated in the LDS context. Moreover, a subsequent decision, also from the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, addresses the same general issue but involving claims against the LDS Church. This case, Hadnot v. Shaw, is therefore substantially more "on point" that Guinn.  Here is a link to the Hadnot case.

5. In Hadnot, the Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically addressed whether the Guinn case applied to the following facts:

• A. The plaintiffs were sisters and were formerly members of the LDS Church in Chickasha, Oklahoma.
• B. The defendants were the Church, the bishop and his counselors.
• C. Parishioners were each notified of and asked to be present at a Church disciplinary hearing called to determine their membership status. Neither attended. Following the hearing both parishioners received letters from the Church. The letter addressed to parishioner Hadnot was placed in her mailbox. This letter, which was opened and read by her husband, informed parishioner that the Church court determined her membership should be terminated because of her alleged fornication. The other sister was personally handed a letter also signed by a lay leader, which informed her of the Church court's decision to remove her from membership.
• D. The sisters filed suit, apparently for "harm from wilful or grossly negligent delivery of the expulsion letters to parishioners" based on "(a) libel, (b) intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress and © invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and placing parishioners in a false light before the public)"; and "harm from communicating the letters' contents to the public" based on "(a) slander, (b) intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress and © invasion of privacy (public disclosure of private facts, intrusion upon seclusion, and placing parishioners in a false light before the public)."
• E. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.
• F. One significant factual difference is that the Church in Guinn believed that a church member did not have the right to dissociate from it ("According to their beliefs, a member remains a part of the congregation for life. Like those who are born into a family, they may leave but they can never really sever the familial bond.). This is a radical, even dispositive, distinction between the situation in Guinn compared to the beliefs and practices of the LDS Church.

6. The Oklahoma Supreme Court specifically found that "the trial court correctly applied Guinn." Here are the specific excerpts of the decision, with commentary from yours truly:

Quote

"The church's jurisdiction exists as a result of the mutual agreement between that body and its member," and "(t)hat relationship may be severed freely by a member's positive act at any time."

I agree with this principle wholeheartedly.

Quote

"Until it is so terminated, the church has authority to prescribe and follow disciplinary ordinances without fear of interference by the state."

I agree with this principle wholeheartedly.

Quote

"The First Amendment will protect and shield the religious body from liability for the activities carried on pursuant to the exercise of church discipline. Within the context of ecclesiastical discipline, churches enjoy an absolute privilege from scrutiny by the secular authority."

I agree with this finding, and am grateful for it.

Now here is where it gets interesting:

Quote

"The church privilege extends in this case to activities or communications which occurred after excommunication if these may be termed as mere implementation of previously pronounced ecclesiastical sanction which was valid when exercised — i.e., that it was declared when Church jurisdiction subsisted."

In other words, if the LDS Church commences disciplinary proceedings, its right to continue those proceedings, and its right to enjoy the constitutional protections associated described above, then the individual cannot short circuit those proceedings by resigning.

Quote

"Within the concept of protected implementation are not only the religious disciplinary proceeding's merits and procedure but also its end product — the expulsion sanction."

In other words, the Church has the right to get to the "end product" of a disciplinary proceeding, and to do so without surrendering its constitutional protections.

Quote

"While excommunication would put an end to jurisdiction over any further offense, it does not abrogate the consequences flowing from the previously announced Church judicature."

Well said, Okies, well said.

Quote

"Parishioners admit that at no time during or after the proceedings at issue did they withdraw their Church membership. Thus the Church retained full subject matter and personal jurisdiction to adjudicate the two disciplinary cases against the parishioners. Upon excommunication, and while a parishioner remains under the church discipline, the ecclesiastical tribunal impliedly relinquishes the power of judicature over the parishioner for any other or future conduct, yet retains cognizance over the previously adjudicated matter for the purpose of implementing any extent ecclesiastical sanction."

I wish I could write like this.

The Court then shifts gears a bit:

Quote

"Sovereign only within her own domain, the church has no power over those who live outside of the spiritual community. The church may not be forced to tolerate as a member one whom it feels obliged to expel from its flock. On the other hand, no citizen of the state may be compelled to remain in a church which his conscience impels him to leave."

I quite agree with this reasoning.

Quote

"The Free Exercise Clause prohibits civil courts from inquiring into any phase of ecclesiastical decisionmaking — its merits as well as procedure."

This is generally referred to as the "Ecclesiastical Abstention" doctrine (see here for a brief explanation).

Quote

"In sum, if a matter lies within ecclesiastical cognizance, the church stands protected from any interference by the Free Exercise Clause. If it oversteps proper bounds, it will run afoul of the Establishment Clause insofar as its use of the state power may be in furtherance of a religious cause. As stated in Prince v. Commonwealth, '... religious activities which concern only members of the faith are and ought to be free — as nearly absolutely free as anything can be.'"

Just so.

Quote

"At the point when the church-member relationship is severed through an affirmative act either of a parishioner's withdrawal or of excommunication by the ecclesiastical body, a different situation arises. In the event of withdrawal or of post-excommunication activity unrelated to the church's efforts at effectuation of valid judicature, the absolute privilege from tort liability no longer attaches."

Pretty clear, I think.

Quote

"Any action at this point, if it is to be protected, must be justified by others means. Under these circumstances conditional privileges may be applicable. The church may take such steps as are reasonable to protect itself and to complete the process occasioned by the withdrawal or other termination of the consensual relationship with a member."

'Nuff said.

Hadnot rather clearly establishes what would happen if Guinn is applied in an LDS context. That is, the Church and its SOP for disciplinary proceedings would, I think, be in safe waters.  I even think that the LDS Church would be safe if it departed from SOP in a particular case and proceeded with a disciplinary council despite having received a resignation letter from the person in question.  Hadnot seems to be pretty good case law for the Church's position.  See also O'Connor v. Diocese of Honolulu, 885 P.2d 361, 371 (HI 1994) ("The reasons for excommunication are not subject to secular court scrutiny."); Allen v. Holmes, (FL Cir. Ct., Nov. 22, 2011) (link) (Plaintiff claimed that defendant made defamatory statements about her as part of an effort to oust her from the church. The court concluded that the case turns on a determination of whether the statements were lies or instead were a response to disruptive behavior by plaintiff that was inconsistent with church doctrine. Thus resolution of the case would involve an inquiry into church governance and the conduct expected of church members-- matters which the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine preclude the court from considering.);  Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 713, 49 L. Ed. 2d 151, 96 S. Ct. 2372 (1976) (In matters involving "discipline, faith, internal organization, or ecclesiastical rule, custom or law" the civil courts are bound to accept the decisions of a religious organization.); Drevlow v. Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, 991 F.2d 468, 470-71 (8th Cir. 1993) (Claims that a religious tribunal or organization violated its own rules are not reviewable by courts.).  

Moreover, I am not sure what sort of tort claim a person in a "You can't excommunicate me, I quit"-type scenario could assert against the LDS Church.  Let's say that a person, Clayton Foote, receives a letter inviting him to a disciplinary council in 2 weeks.  Mr. Foote immediately sends his bishop and stake president a letter of resignation and demands that the disciplinary council be canceled.  The stake president decides to proceed with the disciplinary council anyway (it is my understanding that the Church's current policy is to accept the resignation in lieu of proceeding with the council, but bear with me).  Mr. Foote then hires a lawyer to file a lawsuit against the LDS Church.  And the causes of action in the complaint to be filed would be . . . what?  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2016 by smac97

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

6500 is equivalent to one full stake or two stakes if you assume that all 6500 were active.  But I understand that the numbers aren't verifiable and so those who don't wish to believe there is any impact from the policy change will disregard.

It would be interesting to see the actual number of resignations.  Less than a year ago, Elder Cook stated that there were "significantly less" resignations in recent years.  If the 6500 number is accurate, that is most likely no longer true.

.

Edited February 25, 2016 by ALarson

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

.004% of the church has resigned since November...at this rate the church will dry up and disappear in 568 years...I'm sure the church is shaking in their boots

If the Church has concerns about the number of resignations referenced in this thread, I think such concerns will not be focused on the welfare of the Church, but on the welfare of the individuals who are resigning.  

I am persuaded that the Church will survive.  The membership numbers will ebb and flow, but I suspect the trend will be generally upward.  There will be instances where large numbers of people resign over a given issue.  That is unfortunate, but not unexpected.  It happened during Christ's ministry, it happened during the early days of the Church in the latter days.  

"For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." (D&C 98:15)

Nevertheless, there is always hope.  Some who leave return.  But whether they do or not, we should always be kind and patient and understanding with those who leave the fold.  (This is more a reminder for myself than for anyone else.)

Thanks,

-Smac

[stemelbow]

17 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It would be interesting to see the actual number of resignations.  Less than a year ago, Elder Cook stated that there were "significantly less" resignations in recent years.  If the 6500 number is accurate, that is most likely no longer true.

.

But it seems like that many of the 6500 were from last year, when Elder Cook made the statement.  The 6500 that he has helped has happened over time, but most recently he set up his website, as I understand it.

Either way, we need to expect people to want to leave a religion.  Throwing out a number is throwing out a number.  We don't have much context here in order to determine what this means.  I'm a bit skeptical of Elder Cook's claims, but it's true there have always been those who have left the Church.  It will always be. 

[ALarson]

Just now, stemelbow said:

But it seems like that many of the 6500 were from last year, when Elder Cook made the statement.  The 6500 that he has helped has happened over time, but most recently he set up his website, as I understand it.

Ok, thanks.  I went back to the OP and found this quote that explains more about the numbers and time frame:

 

Quote

 

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.

 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was wearing my TBM hat... I don't agree with it either...in fact I think this mass exodus of 6,500 souls is a sad indictment of where the church is today...its sad that 6,500 former members feel that it was necessary to part with the church they once called their spiritual home. 

What are your thoughts about John 6?

Quote

 47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

 48 I am that bread of life.

 49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.

 50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

 58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

 59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.

 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?

 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.

 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

 66 ¶From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Apparently a significant number of Latter-day Saints may be resigning from the Church because it is teaching things that they cannot or will not accept.  This situation, you suggest, is a "sad indictment of where the church is today."  Do you likewise indict Christ for teaching principles which His followers in Palestine could not or would not accept?  How do you differentiate the two situations?

Quote

But what is equally disappointing is that so many member of this board don't seem to care either. 

Who are the "many member{s} of this board" who don't care about the loss of so many people from the Church?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 25, 2016 by smac97

[stemelbow]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Ok, thanks.  I went back to the OP and found this quote that explains more about the numbers and time frame:

 

 

I think 4,000 since November is a lot.  I'd imagine most are from Utah or the intermountain region.

[strappinglad]

I have been told that with each new Prophet there have been some who left and with a few Prophets new splinter groups have been formed. Had Bro Packer been in charge I can just imagine the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A few points:

1. Guinn was decided in 1989 by the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Here's a link to the text of that decision....

So in general, you agree with my answer to the question I was addressing--people do have the legal right to resign from the church.

With regards to the rest of your post, isn't it true that the LDS Church used to announce excommunications in sacrament meeting?  My understanding is that this policy changed in the early 80's, which happens to coincide when Guinn first started to be litigated.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Analytics

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Analytics said:

So in general, you agree with my answer to the question I was addressing--people do have the legal right to resign from the church.

Certainly.  Membership in the Church is a bilaterally voluntary association.

Quote

With regards to the rest of your post, isn't it true that the LDS Church used to announce excommunications in sacrament meeting?  My understanding is that this policy changed in the early 80's, which happens to coincide when Guinn first started to be litigated.

As I recall, the speculation making the rounds some years ago was that some fellow named "Norm Hancock" in Arizona wanted to resign in the mid-80s, that the Church's policy at the time was to convene a council and excommunicate someone who was "resigning," that he threatened to sue, and that the Church changed its policy thereafter.  I have no way of knowing how much, if any, of this story is accurate.

As regarding the Church's previous policy, I see the wisdom in changing it, and I'm glad it did.

Thanks,

-Smac

[USU78]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Nevertheless, there is always hope.  Some who leave return.  But whether they do or not, we should always be kind and patient and understanding with those who leave the fold.  (This is more a reminder for myself than for anyone else.)

Because a family member of mine sent in one of these letters back in November, I made inquiry.  A person who resigns over a matter of politics or policy who is otherwise in good standing at the time of resignation has a significantly easier time procedurally getting reinstated than one who was not in good standing because of sin (other than, say, the sin of pride).  Upon sincere repentance and application for rebaptism, however, the road to full fellowship is as easy as the repentant wishes to make it.

[mfbukowski]

12 hours ago, JulieM said:

I'm just correcting your exaggeration.  I'm as calm as can be  

smac97 was questioning the accuracy of this report in his OP, and you refer to it as your only evidence that people are saying the church is falling apart?  That's a misrepresentation and I'm pointing that out.  Nothing more.

Judging by the rep points, others understood the post.  Hyperbole is often used in humor.

But at least you and Al agree, it seems.

[Analytics]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an important point. What constitutes a resignation having been "processed" by him? A confirmation letter sent by the Church to him as representative for the one resigning? Or just his having submitted the form?

Suppose the Church is summarily ignoring all these robo-resignations because, say, the identities have not been verified? Could it accrately be said that the resignations have been "processed"?

It's a valid question.  Rather than speculating, I dropped an email to Mark Naugle and asked.  By "processed", he means that he has received all of the needed information and authorizations, and has sent the resignation request to the Church.  The Church is in the process of confirming the resignations and sending confirmations back to Naugle, who is then forwarding the confirmations back to his clients.  Naugle is making the same assumption that the Church is making--that the resignation requests he is receiving are valid and made in good faith.

I'd presume nobody is abusing these professional services by "resigning" from an organization of which they are not a member or by fraudulently submitting the names of third parties.  If anybody does, I'd be as inclined to think they are doing so in order to harass Naugle and make what he is doing look illegitimate.   

[HappyJackWagon]

I don't know how accurate the numbers from this attorney are, but there is a serious problem in the church and it's tragic. The people who go through the process of resigning are motivated but there are so many others who simply go inactive or attend as secret non-believers. But we'll always be guessing on numbers. Why? Because the one source that knows won't tell.

The D&C is full of stories of apostasy and discipline etc so it doesn't feel like it would be a stretch for the church to release some accurate numbers on activity rates and disaffiliation. Let's have an accurate State of the Church address by a leader. It's our church. Don't we deserve to know how things are going? The church knows the numbers of resignations, the true growth of membership, the growth/decline of tithing income etc. The longer they stay quiet the more we'll have to speculate.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

It would be interesting to see the actual number of resignations.  Less than a year ago, Elder Cook stated that there were "significantly less" resignations in recent years.  If the 6500 number is accurate, that is most likely no longer true.

.

One might wonder how many of those 6,500 are part of the cohort that typically would resign anyway in a given year but have availed themselves of the services offered by Naugle for whatever reason. Thus the 6,500 might not reflect as great a spike as one might think.

Of course, one could speculate that the availability of Naugle's services emboldened some individuals who possess neither the fortitude nor the drive to have resigned under more conventional procedures. But that's all it would be -- speculation.