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

[phaedrus ut]

I know a good 3 dozen people who have resigned in the past 3 months.  At least half have used this lawyer. Those that resigned on their own received visits from the Bishopric/Home teachers/Stake President or invitations to meet with the bishop to discuss the request.  Of those that used the lawyer, myself included, I haven't heard of any of those types of visits happening. 

 

Phaedrus

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I know a good 3 dozen people who have resigned in the past 3 months.  At least half have used this lawyer. Those that resigned on their own received visits from the Bishopric/Home teachers/Stake President or invitations to meet with the bishop to discuss the request.  Of those that used the lawyer, myself included, I haven't heard of any of those types of visits happening. 

 

Phaedrus

Is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your view? 

[mfbukowski]

13 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"?

Yep that's the entire problem.  This is just mush.  What we have is quite probably many people who do not have membership numbers requesting what cannot be done from an institution unable to comply with such essentially nameless requests. What do you do with a request with no membership number and how does the church know that someone is not pranking the person even if it HAS the membership number?  Just think of the fun some weirdo could have resigning his entire ward if he somehow got hold of their membership numbers!

In my opinion, the church cannot even respond or do anything with these requests without some proper way of verifying them.   On the other hand if they say that is happening then they are "refusing to comply with thousands of requests to resign".   Can't win for losing, of course, as always.

Clearly the motivation here has to have this ambulance chaser become a hero to the SL Tribune crowd.

Great tactic, actually.  I wish I had thought of that and somehow been able to pull off something like that for the good guys.   But it is always easier to tear down than build up.

Edited February 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

CFR- Where did I say that?

When you said that they are "servant-leaders" to the members of the Church, you effectively left Jesus Christ out of the equation and insinuated that the they are obliged to give people what they want -- as did Aaron with the golden calf -- whether or not doing so is prudent or consistent with the mind and will of God.

Both Nehor and I said their first duty is to Jesus Christ, not to Church members as though the leaders were politicians beholden to an electorate.

In fact, I would be greatly disturbed if I perceived that they were succumbing to pressure to some noisy pressure group inside or outside of the Church at the cost of failing to adhere to the doctrine and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ. So far, I haven't seen that happening.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What constitutes "due care"? Sounds to me like you ascertained that he is pretty much taking people at their word who sign up on his website.

I've already explained. The popular anti-Mormon/apostate narrative these days is that "people are resigning in droves." If you already believe that's the case anyway, why not stuff the box a bit to help drive the point home publicly? Or so the thinking might go.

I'm assuming there are professional standards of what "due care" means.  If the Church is receiving a significant number of bogus resignations from an attorney, I would think it has solid grounds to complain against the lawyer that is sending them.  There are some lawyers here--would any of them care to weigh in on this?  

I know the question was rhetorical, but there are very compelling reasons why an enemy of the church would not want to "stuff the box" with fake resignations. Yes, somebody might think it would be a productive thing, but if they thought a little harder and talked to their lawyer about it, they'd hopefully think again.  But in any case, this whole line of thinking should be filed under, "cynical supposition." 

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

For some people, formally resigning and having the Church recognize the resignation is important.

If you want to formally resign, you are subject to the church's policies of how it will be done as interpreted, implemented and too often ignored by local leaders.  The time, hassle, discomfort, and uncertainty associated with that can be circumvented if you are represented by an attorney.

Well...seems like cheap publicity to me.  I sent in a letter asking to be removed.  I was excommunicated.  I did not attend.  My only time was spent writing the letter.  

I have been practicing law for 26 years......this attorney sounds like the kind who give attorneys a bad name....but I could be wrong.  Maybe this is common here in Utah.  In Texas, the attorney would become a laughing stock

Edited February 25, 2016 by CountryBoy

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

I know a good 3 dozen people who have resigned in the past 3 months.  At least half have used this lawyer. Those that resigned on their own received visits from the Bishopric/Home teachers/Stake President or invitations to meet with the bishop to discuss the request.  Of those that used the lawyer, myself included, I haven't heard of any of those types of visits happening. 

 

Phaedrus

To me, that is evidence that they are bogus.  The church might not even know about them.  And what an odd position to be in to know all these people resigning?  Are you the lawyer in question? 

Check your membership later and see if you have actually been "resigned".  Of course if you have your membership number, etc, it might have "taken".

It would be good to know if it is actually happening or at least have your say-so, for what that is worth, that it has happened.

Edited February 25, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

58 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Over a year has now gone by since Dehlin made his infamous prediction that within 40 years, the Church of Jesus Christ would capitulate to societal pressures, declare homosexual behavior non-sinful, and even solemnize it in the sacred House of the Lord.

The clock is still running on that 40-year prediction. Here is the current reading as I write this:

38 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, 2 days, 5 hours, 5 minutes and 9 seconds.

One thing's for sure.  I really, really hope you are still around and actively posting here in 38 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days.  That would be a fun day to revisit what has changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm assuming there are professional standards of what "due care" means.  If the Church is receiving a significant number of bogus resignations from an attorney, I would think it has solid grounds to complain against the lawyer that is sending them.  There are some lawyers here--would any of them care to weigh in on this?  

What professional standards do you assume there are for "due care" in a case like this? I got the impression from your earlier post that the attorney answered your inquiry by essentially saying he is taking these people at their word that they are who they say they are as they respond on his website. On visceral level, this strikes me as careless at the very least.

Quote

I know the question was rhetorical, but there are very compelling reasons why an enemy of the church would not want to "stuff the box" with fake resignations.

 

People have done all manner of stupid things when there were "very compelling reasons" not to.

[mfbukowski]

On the other hand, the Bishops could see this as a good way of cleaning up the records, if they really do not want to have any contact with the church.

Bishops are obliged to do their best to help members, but if it is genuinely not wanted- it would only annoy people and make matters worse.   It could be a good thing for both sides.

I have always been in favor of "voting with your feet" when it comes to this sort of thing.  If you want out- out you go!  And if you prohibit me from trying to help- thats on you , not me.  Not much I can do about it.  

[phaedrus ut]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Is that a good thing or a bad thing, in your view? 

Removing any opinion about being Mormon or not Mormon I believe people have a basic right of voluntary affiliation. I also understand that any efforts made by local leaders are done so with the best of intentions.  They aren't someone at a timeshare sales meeting trying to keep someone from leaving, I believe their heart is in the right place.  However for the person trying to leave it feels like an unnecessary hindrance. 

Phaedrus

[ERMD]

Reading through this thread, I think of this:

"The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.  What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.  Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters wise. The caravan moves on.  Are there storms that rage along the way, floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on.  Ahead is the celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the caravan moves on!"

Edited February 25, 2016 by ERMD

[phaedrus ut]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

To me, that is evidence that they are bogus.  The church might not even know about them.  And what an odd position to be in to know all these people resigning?  Are you the lawyer in question? 

Check your membership later and see if you have actually been "resigned".  Of course if you have your membership number, etc, it might have "taken".

It would be good to know if it is actually happening or at least have your say-so, for what that is worth, that it has happened.

I'm not sure if it's an odd position or not.  I can say prior to the last 3 months I personally knew less than 10 people who had resigned and that was over many decades in the church. 

I didn't have my membership number when I completed his paperwork and neither did my wife.  After 45 days I hadn't received anything from him or from the church saying my request had been processed so I called member records.  I spoke to a very nice girl on the phone there who confirmed they had received my request and my resignation was official. 

Phaedrus

[Duncan]

Take this for what it's worth

"While I was working on a missionary preparation committee, Elder M. Russell Ballard made available some statistical research the Missionary Department had collected on conversions. The results of the three thousand interviews were fascinating. Although some marvelous things were going on in the Church missionary program, there were some rather sobering trends as well. For example, in the United States and Canada, only one in three eligible young men was accepting a mission call. As a result, conversions had flattened out. In 1999, there were only eighteen hundred more conversions than in 1995, even though ten thousand more missionaries were in the mission field. Those are sobering figures. " Elder Gerald N. Lund, Religious Educator, 2002

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-3-number-1-2002/personal-revelation-and-process-conversion

 

In the three stakes in my province and the one next to it only %12 of eligible young men go on a mission and then who knows how many go inactive once they come back but I know some. As I say I know two people resigned since Nov. one was due to the gay baptism policy and he was an active member, RM, BIC, PH.D. In Medicine and then a lady recent convert

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

One thing's for sure.  I really, really hope you are still around and actively posting here in 38 years, 11 months, 2 weeks, and 3 days.  That would be a fun day to revisit what has changed.

There have already been significant occurrences within a year's time to make it very, very clear the Church is not about to change in this respect, nor is it vulnerable to public pressure to do so: the compromise legislation in Utah actively supported and promoted by the Church that safeguards the free exercise of religion even as it promotes equality of rights in housing and employment; the update to the handbook making it crystal clear that a Church member entering into a gay "marriage" will be viewed as an act of apostasy; the witness and public affirmation by the president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that the handbook update came by way of divine revelation.

I would be past 100 by the time the 40-year clock runs out, so I may not get there with you. But if I'm able, I pledge to be still actively posting and I will be only too happy to sound the death knell for this foolish prediction.

Will you be around then to see it?

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What professional standards do you assume there are for "due care" in a case like this? I got the impression from your earlier post that the attorney answered your inquiry by essentially saying he is taking these people at their word that they are who they say they are as they respond on his website. On visceral level, this strikes me as careless at the very least.

People have done all manner of stupid things when there were "very compelling reasons" not to.

The standards I assume to exist are judgment-based, with the intention that you don't go around causing trouble by representing people that either don't exist or don't want to be represented by you. 

Let me put it this way.  Assume the church gets a resignation letter.  It makes a good-faith effort to comply with the request, only to find out that the resignation letter was some sort of joke, fraud, or harassment.  If somebody does that once, it's irritating.  But if it happened hundreds of times, and if it was discovered that an attorney was orchestrating the joke/fraud/harassment in order to make some stupid point, I'd expect the victim to sue the attorney.  And if I found myself on the jury at such a trial, I'd be inclined to give BIG punitive damages to the victim.

In general, exMormons take resigning from the Church seriously.  That is the point. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

As an example of what I'm talking about, consider what Cold Steel said (quoted below).  If somebody eventually comes to the conclusion that something she had dedicated a significant portion of her life to is a fraud, she might just want to walk away without having to get lectured somebody who thinks that the decision to be honest with herself will result in her and her family, being consigned to a fiery HELL...forever!!!!

 

You do realize that Cold Steel was talking about what the apostate church had done in the past (and possibly present depending on the denomination) in his view, not the authorized church, don't you?:

Quote

that gave the apostate church enormous influence over others who believed that those apostolic keys were passed on to the bishops. With a simple declaration, you or your family could, in their minds, be consigned to a fiery HELL...forever.

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What professional standards do you assume there are for "due care" in a case like this? I got the impression from your earlier post that the attorney answered your inquiry by essentially saying he is taking these people at their word that they are who they say they are as they respond on his website. On visceral level, this strikes me as careless at the very least.

People have done all manner of stupid things when there were "very compelling reasons" not to.

A "due care" standard would apply in all cases.  Those standards (for all licensed professionals) are usually written to apply generally.  In a lawyer's situation, I presume the applicable due care standard would be from the State Bar governing the practice of law where he is claiming these cases occur (I'm guessing Utah, since that's where the Church is headquartered).

As to how it would be interpreted in these cases, that's another matter altogether.

[Analytics]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

You do realize that Cold Steel was talking about what the apostate church had done in the past (and possibly present depending on the denomination) in his view, not the authorized church, don't you?:

 

I thought he was talking about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Was he talking about a different apostate church?

[Avatar4321]

On 2/24/2016 at 1:26 PM, 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'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

How would the Church even know this guy is actually authorized to speak for these individuals?

[Avatar4321]

On 2/24/2016 at 3:00 PM, JAHS said:

What's to stop someone from sending in a resignation request for someone else without them knowing about it? Doesn't the church have to contact the person or their  Bishop to verify the request is real?

Precisely what I'd like to know

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I'm not sure if it's an odd position or not.  I can say prior to the last 3 months I personally knew less than 10 people who had resigned and that was over many decades in the church. 

I didn't have my membership number when I completed his paperwork and neither did my wife.  After 45 days I hadn't received anything from him or from the church saying my request had been processed so I called member records.  I spoke to a very nice girl on the phone there who confirmed they had received my request and my resignation was official. 

Phaedrus

Fair enough.  Thanks for the response.

[sunstoned]

On 2/25/2016 at 5:42 PM, 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.     

The church use to do this very thing.  The only way you could leave the church was through excommunication.  The church was sued over this, and hence the change.

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church could put the speculation to bed by releasing the numbers. It would be very easy. If things are better than ever I would expect to see a downward trend in resignations. But then again, maybe releasing that information would be very disturbing to some people.

I tend to believe that if the numbers were faith promoting at all they would be make public.  People and organizations usually keep secrets for a reason.  To me secrets are a red flag.

[Thinking]

On 2/24/2016 at 4:35 PM, Thinking said:

I just sent the following message to whoever reads the messages from the contact page.

"How do you verify the the identity of the person who is requesting resignation?"

I'll let you know if I get a response.

I received a response.

Quote

Hello,

 

We ask for personal information including date of birth, full name, address, and membership number (if available). We also require the person resigning to sign the form. We are entitled to rely upon the reasonable representations of our clients.

 

Ryan