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

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

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.

So you in effect are calling Elder Cook a liar, then.

[Calm]

Would that be typical sufficient information if one was a lawyer and was doing work for a person that dealt in some fashion with membership?

Say the guy wanted to sue an insurance company for not providing sufficient coverage (obsessing about insurance lately).  First step of the process surely would be providing documentation that he had a policy with the organization, right?

[sunstoned]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you in effect are calling Elder Cook a liar, then.

All I'm saying is they keep secrets.  They make claims, including Cook's, but produce no collaborating evidence.  I know you understand how important evidence is because you often do a call for references on this board.  

[Thinking]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you in effect are calling Elder Cook a liar, then.

"We always need to remember that transparency and openness keep us clear of the negative side effects of secrecy or the cliché of faith-promoting rumors."

[Avatar4321]

17 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If only there were a way that church leadership could be asked these questions and put the issue to rest. I imagine there are a few investigative journalists in Utah with proximity to leadership who could ask the questions. Getting answers may be another story.

What issue do you seem to think needs to be put to rest? The only issue I see is resolved by preaching the gospel and exhorting people to live it, which they already do

[Kenngo1969]

15 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

This may have already been addressed here....but why did anyone need an attorney?  When I left the Church in 1989, I just left.

As an attorney, this looks to me like grandstanding unless things have changed and attorneys are now needed [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

It is.

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you in effect are calling Elder Cook a liar, then.

Why do you always go there when anyone questions?  I wish I had a dollar for every time you've accused someone on here of calling a leader a liar just because they happen to disagree!

Edited February 26, 2016 by JulieM

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not true. He didn't give numbers, but he did mention indicators, two of which I have already alluded to: a proliferation of temples and rising numbers of missionaries.

 

Well sadly since the number of missionaries has declined.  And the other number we are aware of is the difference taken from the reported overall figures in 2014 and 2013.  it is the largest difference to date between any two years.  It is also the largest percent of the total to date.  Something must explain that.  We're not sure what that is. 

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Why do you always go there when anyone questions?  I wish I had a dollar for every time you've accused someone on here of calling a leader a liar just because they happen to disagree!

I only "go there" when there has in fact been a direct or implied accusation, not just "disagreeing" or "questioning." I understand the difference. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

It is.

Mfbukowski perceives it as self promotion and marketing. He may have it pegged. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

if this thread can be taken as an indication, there appears to be a significant number of former LDS Church members who, in spite of their voluntary exit, still feel a strong need to associate with members of the Church. It's interesting to observe how "Mormonism" continues to have a deep impact on the lives of those who have ostensibly left it all behind. Based on this observation, I'll bet there is a significant number of ex-members who, under the right circumstances, could be persuaded to rejoin. I wonder if it's true that for many of these former members the embers of testimony are not completely extinguished.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

if this thread can be taken as an indication, there appears to be a significant number of former LDS Church members who, in spite of their voluntary exit, still feel a strong need to associate with members of the Church. It's interesting to observe how "Mormonism" continues to have a deep impact on the lives of those who have ostensibly left it all behind. Based on this observation, I'll bet there is a significant number of ex-members who, under the right circumstances, could be persuaded to rejoin. I wonder if it's true that for many of these former members the embers of testimony are not completely extinguished.

You're exactly right on this.  There are tons of such members.  We should remain sensitive to that possibility. 

Being a part of religion often means more than believing the same as others.  Being a part of Mormonism often means a great deal to people's identity.  i'd had for any one who leaves to lose that, particularly as it likely means a great deal to them. 

[Analytics]

7 hours ago, Thinking said:

I received a response.

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

Thanks Thinking.  I would think that in general, this is sufficient.  If there were big dollars at stake (e.g., giving somebody signing authority on a corporate bank account, transferring the deed to a house), then a notarized signature would be required.  But for something like this, it seems quite reasonable to "rely upon the reasonable representations" of the clients.  Of course if it turned out that hundreds or thousands of malicious people were inclined to make fraudulent resignations through this path, then the attorney has a responsibility to take appropriate actions to verify that wasn't happening.  But so far, there have been ZERO confirmed cases of that happening.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  All we have are cynical speculations, similar to what was said about exmormon.org when it first exploded (e.g. "there is no way there could be so many legitimate stories of people becoming disaffected with the Church!  exmormon.org MUST be driven by a tiny handful of busybodies, each of which is pretending to be multiple people!") 

Taking a step back, the church has taken concrete efforts to make the resignation process as inefficient and difficult as they legally can.  For example, a common theme on this thread is that the church shouldn't handle these requests at the home office, because it needs the local leaders to verify the identity of the person resigning.  However, even if the person sent in their membership number, AND had their resignation letter notarized, AND explained in detail that the understood the pragmatic and theological implications of resigning, the home office STILL wouldn't process the request.  They would send a letter back confirming that the resignation letter was received, but was rejected, saying that the Church believes it to be an "ecclesiastical matter" that must be handled by the bishop. However, it can only be an ecclesiastical matter if the individual acknowledge the ecclesiastical authority of the church in the first place.  If they don't, severing the relationship is simply an administrative matter.  But the church won't admit that.  Unless the person resigning has legal representation.

Because of this policy, the person that wants to resign has a choice--either have their wishes efficiently handled by a competent, sympathetic lawyer, or have it handled by the local bishop and stake president in a drawn out, uncomfortable process.

 

[ALarson]

14 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

Thanks for posting about your experience with this attorney.  I think it's pretty crazy that so many are accusing him of submitting fake resignations (even if he doesn't know they are fake).  

The church has to keep meticulous records and I have to believe that any bogus submissions wouldn't go very far.  The church would also put a stop to this attorney doing that if the number of fake submission became a large number.  

It's also funny to read that some think this attorney is "grand standing".  I doubt he's getting much from this service (and I know he's not charging the members who have used him to resign).

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well sadly since the number of missionaries has declined.  And the other number we are aware of is the difference taken from the reported overall figures in 2014 and 2013.  it is the largest difference to date between any two years.  It is also the largest percent of the total to date.  Something must explain that.  We're not sure what that is. 

We've already been over this. The number of missionaries very rapidly surged after the announcement of the age changes because of two cohorts of missionaries serving simultaneously, tapered off as expected, then stabilized and is now on a steady upward trend. The net increase at the last word from the Missionary Department has been 29 percent since the age changes. 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

 

Quote

14 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

 

Was this early on, as in Novemberish, or was this more recent?  Curious because the site says he hears back in 2-3 weeks. If this service provided a big influx it's possible it backed up the process for people in Church HQs.  I'm curious if it's now taking closer to 90 days like he says the process normally takes without using his services. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

We've already been over this. The number of missionaries very rapidly surged after the age changes because of two cohorts of missionaries serving simultaneously, tapered off <as expected>, then stabilized and is now on a steady upward trend. The net increase at the last word from the Missionary Department has been a net increase of 29 percent since the age changes. 

The Missionary department said there's been a net increase of 29%?  I thought that was your figuring based off of rounded numbers?  CFR on that, please Scott.

I know we've been over this.  We disagree, obviously.  When you said the surge had subsided, you gave no indication and neither did the brethren, that the number would decrease.  the message was after the surge the number did not decline as much as expected.  Well, the surge wasn't over. 

[ERMD]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Because of this policy, the person that wants to resign has a choice--either have their wishes efficiently handled by a competent, sympathetic lawyer, or have it handled by the local bishop and stake president in a drawn out, uncomfortable process.

 

This is not a legal matter, but an ecclesiastical matter, and as a result does not involve law but priesthood keys.  That is why it is incumbent upon the bishop to confirm the individual's desires.  It is not uncomfortable nor drawn out.  I handled many resignations.  They went smoothly and in a very friendly, well-accepted manner.  All parted on good terms.

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Missionary department said there's been a net increase of 29%?  I thought that was your figuring based off of rounded numbers?  CFR on that, please Scott.

Yes, those are Scott's estimates and rounded numbers (from the recent conference where the number of those watching was approximated and rounded off).  He's not using the statistics released by the church over on their website.  The percentage is lower when using actual, verified numbers (from just a few weeks before the conference).

.

Edited February 26, 2016 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Missionary department said there's been a net increase of 29%?  I thought that was your figuring based off of rounded numbers?  CFR on that, please Scott.

 

I think you know what I'm saying, but let me be more precise.

The number that has been given by a the executive directorl of the Missionary Department was about 58,000 at the time the age changes were announced in October 2012 general conference. At the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast in January, it was announced the broadcast was being carried to 75,000 missionaries. By my calculation, that is a net increase of just over 29 percent.

Quote

I know we've been over this.  We disagree, obviously.  When you said the surge had subsided, you gave no indication and neither did the brethren, that the number would decrease.  the message was after the surge the number did not decline as much as expected.  Well, the surge wasn't over.

You misunderstood what I meant by subside. And you have stubbornly disregarded me whe I have endeavored to clarify.

One online dictionary gives a definition of subside as "to become smaller or less prominent, as swelling" and gives decrease as a synonym. It gives another definition as "to become less intense, active or severe."

Those definitions are closer to my intended meaning than what you are insisting. I didn't say last year that the surge had bottomed out, and that is not necessarily what subside means.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The number given by an official of the Missionary Department was about 58,000 at the time the age changes were announced in October 2012 general conference. At the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast in January, it was announced the broadcast was being to 75,000 missionaries. By my calculation, that is a net increase of just over 29 percent.

Wow....Not again.  

That 75,000 number was an estimate or approximate number (of course).  The year end number (given on the church newsroom website) published a few weeks prior to the conference was just over 74,000...close to 74,100, IIRC).   As much of a stickler for precision as you are, I'm surprised you keep insisting on using the rounded off estimate of how many may have been watching the broadcast, when the exact number of missionaries had just been published by church leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

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. 

Evidently, in your view, they don't take it seriously enough to follow the conventional procedure to accomplish it.

And there have been a number of first-hand attestations here that the conventional procedure is not unreasonable and is not as long and drawn-out as you make it out to be.

[Scott Lloyd]

30 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Wow....Not again.  

That 75,000 number was an estimate or approximate number (of course).  The year end number (given on the church newsroom website) published a few weeks prior to the conference was just over 74,000...close to 74,100, IIRC).   As much of a stickler for precision as you are, I'm surprised you keep insisting on using the rounded off estimate of how many may have been watching the broadcast, when the exact number of missionaries had just been published by church leaders.

I've answered this already as well.

The number given on the Newsroom site is more than likely a year-end 2015 figure. That is the pattern the Church follows. The statistical report given at April general conference always reflects the numbers as they stood at the end of the prior calendar year. Undoubtedly, the number of missionaries had already increased to 75,000 by the time the Worldwide Missionary Broadcast occurred in latter January, as that's the number that was announced at the beginning of the broadcast.

Go back now and check the the report on Newsroom. Have any of the figures (not just the number of missionaries) changed since you cited it before? No. Doesn't that indicate to you that it is a year-end snapshot and that it is not continuously updated in real time?

Check it from time to time. I think you'll find that the numbers remain static, which wouldn't make sense if it were updated continuously, as you seem to think it is.

"Wow, not again" indeed.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, ERMD said:

This is not a legal matter, but an ecclesiastical matter, and as a result does not involve law but priesthood keys.  That is why it is incumbent upon the bishop to confirm the individual's desires.  It is not uncomfortable nor drawn out.  I handled many resignations.  They went smoothly and in a very friendly, well-accepted manner.  All parted on good terms.

I disagree.  In essence, it is an administrative matter. If somebody doesn't recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the Church, the legal rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association dictate that he has the right to disassociate himself from a church without going through the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo of the church. 

The degree to which it is an easy, fast, and smooth process depends upon the specific bishop and stake president.  Some handle it nicely as you apparently do.  Others try to flex their priesthood muscles and make the process long and confrontational.  Others are nice but ignore the request, thinking that doing so is in the best interest of the individual.  Others are just incompetent and just don't know how to get it done.  And even if the bishop is the nicest guy on the planet, somebody just might not want to talk to him in person about this--talking about religious disagreement is usually uncomfortable--especially if you like the person you are talking with.

The Church can request that resignations be handled through ecclesiastical channels, but it doesn't have the legal right to demand it be handled that way.  The Church's membership record area pushes hard for the Church's preference that this go through ecclesiastical channels, but as a matter of policy will acquiescence if the person resigning has an attorney or threatens legal action. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I disagree.  In essence, it is an administrative matter. If somebody doesn't recognize the ecclesiastical authority of the Church, the legal rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association dictate that he has the right to disassociate himself from a church without going through the ecclesiastical mumbo jumbo of the church. 

The degree to which it is an easy, fast, and smooth process depends upon the specific bishop and stake president.  Some handle it nicely as you apparently do.  Others try to flex their priesthood muscles and make the process long and confrontational.  Others are nice but ignore the request, thinking that doing so is in the best interest of the individual.  Others are just incompetent and just don't know how to get it done.  And even if the bishop is the nicest guy on the planet, somebody just might not want to talk to him in person about this--talking about religious disagreement is usually uncomfortable--especially if you like the person you are talking with.

The Church can request that resignations be handled through ecclesiastical channels, but it doesn't have the legal right to demand it be handled that way.  The Church's membership record area pushes hard for the Church's preference that this go through ecclesiastical channels, but as a matter of policy will acquiescence if the person resigning has an attorney or threatens legal action. 

The Church is entitled to establish its own reasonable administrative procedures in this as in other matters.