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

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I didn't stubbornly disregard you.  I apologize if I missed something.  You are correct in thinking when you told me post-surge and end of surge, and coupled that with the surge had subsided, I took that to mean you were talking about after the surge.  If that's not what you meant, then I don't know what you meant when you used the language of "post-surge" or end of surge, or "the surge had subsided".  Last year it didn't feel like it was over and I argued that it wasn't--that, although the age change will likely result in an overall net gain, it appears we will yet see a drop in numbers. 

Anyway, if by terms like "post-surge" or the like you don't mean after the surge, then I'm happy to learn we're in agreement, at least in some measure. 

Surge, according to an online dictionary, means "to rise suddenly to an excessive or abnormal value" as in "the stock market surged to a record high," so any time following the peak of a surge could reasonably be regarded as post-surge whether or not the decline has leveled out and the number has begun to rise again.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Stating a rounded number is not a fresh report.

Why not? Because you say so?

If the year-end figure is 74,079 and, by the time October rolls around, it has increased to 84,120 and a Missionary Department executive announces in a meeting that the number has increased since year-end to approximately 84,000 or more than 84,000, are you still going to insist that the real total is still 74,079?

I'd call that misleading. And inaccurate.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, ERMD said:

Your evidence for this is?

Scores upon scores of people have reported the details of their resignation stories.  While the way individual bishops respond is all over the map, the folks in the membership department at church headquarters are incredibly consistent.  From this, you can infer the details of the church's policies.  People will just about unanimously agree:

1- Everybody at the membership department is consistently friendly and superlatively professional. 

2- If you send them a resignation letter, they will reply with a letter saying that the church believes this is an ecclesiastical matter, and that the you should take up your request with your bishop.

In scores upon scores of documented cases, my own included, we have sent resignation letters to the bishops and talked with the bishops about it, only to have the bishop simply not send in the forms, regardless of how clear we were about our request. Exasperated, the member will frequently call the membership office on the phone to ask if it has been done and if not, to please do it.  Again, the membership office is extraordinarily nice and professional, but they insist the bishop needs to handle it.  If you explain that the bishop is refusing to do his job (as mine did), they'll very graciously offer to call the bishop and prod him to do his job.  That is precisely how my resignation was eventually processed.

However, if an attorney contacts the membership office directly as is currently happening, the membership office goes ahead and processes the request.

I'm assuming if somebody makes a credible threat of legal action to the membership office, the church would expedite the request as if it were made by an attorney.  I don't know that for sure, but the church does seem to be sensitive to threats of litigation.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Analytics

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bitter exit stories on RfM, probably.

Why the pejorative?  It makes you look, well, bitter.

[stemelbow]

49 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why not? Because you say so?

If the year-end figure is 74,079 and, by the time October rolls around, it has increased to 84,120 and a Missionary Department executive announces in a meeting that the number has increased since year-end to approximately 84,000 or more than 84,000, are you still going to insist that the real total is still 74,079?

I'd call that misleading. And inaccurate.

 

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying a rounded number is less precise and thus less verifiable, less accurate in telling the story than actual verifiable numbers. 

[Scott Lloyd]

22 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Why the pejorative?  It makes you look, well, bitter.

So it is RfM you're relying on, then?

I used the descriptor because typically it accurately describes such stories. From what I've seen, most anyone who bothers to write an exit story and post it online is indeed bitter.

And if someone is bitter, it often tends to go to his credibility.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying a rounded number is less precise and thus less verifiable, less accurate in telling the story than actual verifiable numbers. 

So if by, say, July, someone from the Missionary Department says in a meeting that the number of missionaries has increased by about 3,000 since year end, you won't be robotically insisting that the number is still 74,079? Or will you?

And if a rounded number is substantially different than an old number, why is the old number more accurate? That doesn't make sense. At year-end 2014, the number of missionaries stood at 85,147. Are you saying that up through December of last year, that would have been the more accurate number to use, even if someone from the Missionary Department had given an up-to-date estimate of it being closer to 74,000 by then?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

So if by, say, July, someone from the Missionary Department says in a meeting that the number of missionaries has increased by a few thousand since year end, you won't be robotically insisting that the number is still 74,079? Or will you?

Of course not, Scott.  But as has already been pointed out to round 74,079 to 75,000 is reasonable.  Meaning we can't confirm or deny that the number has risen since the reported 74,079. 

[Analytics]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it is RfM you're relying on, then?

I used the descriptor because it accurately describes them. From what I've seen, most anyone who bothers to write an exit story and post it is indeed bitter.

And if someone is bitter, it often tends to go to his credibility.

I am relying upon my own personal experiences, as corroborated by many other people I've talked with and communicated with personally.  Of course what I'm saying can be easily corroborated all over the net, from multiple sites that are dedicated to explaining how to go about resigning from the church, to articles at People.com and Salon.com. 

What, specifically, do you take issue with?  My claim that the church considers resignation an ecclesiastical matter that should be handled through your bishop?  Or my claim that if you engage an attorney or threaten legal action, the church will make an exception to that policy?

Just so you know, you really seem to be projecting on the bitterness issue. 

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Of course not, Scott.  But as has already been pointed out to round 74,079 to 75,000 is reasonable.  Meaning we can't confirm or deny that the number has risen since the reported 74,079. 

I never conceded that. I always maintained that if the number is 74,079, it is reasonable to round it to 74,000, not 75,000. If you'll look back at my posts you will see this is the case.

Did you see what I added to my last post? Up through December of last year, would you still have insisted on using the year-end 2014 figure of 85,147, even though the number was closer to 74,000 by December of last year?

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I am relying upon my own personal experiences, as corroborated by many other people I've talked with and communicated with personally.  Of course what I'm saying can be easily corroborated all over the net, from multiple sites that are dedicated to explaining how to go about resigning from the church, to articles at People.com and Salon.com. 

But largely on anti-Mormon sites like RfM, right?

Quote

What, specifically, do you take issue with?  My claim that the church considers resignation an ecclesiastical matter that should be handled through your bishop?  Or my claim that if you engage an attorney or threaten legal action, the church will make an exception to that policy?

I'm thinking that the issue you are making about the difficulty of resigning one's membership through the conventional and established means is largely overblown and outdated.

Quote

Just so you know, you really seem to be projecting on the bitterness issue. 

Just so you know, I believe anyone objectively viewing a typical Internet exit story would come away with the impression that the author was bitter.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never conceded that. I always maintained that if the number is 74,079, it is reasonable to round it to 74,000, not 75,000. If you'll look back at my posts you will see this is the case.

Did you see what I added to my last post? Up through December of last year, would you still have insisted on using the year-end 2014 figure of 85,147, even though the number was closer to 74,000 by December of last year?

I understand you didn't concede the obvious, Scott.  I will grant that it's possible the number is up to and over 75,000 right now.  But we don't know. 

[Analytics]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But largely on anti-Mormon sites like RfM, right?

I'm thinking that the issue you are making about the difficulty of resigning one's membership through the conventional and established means is largely overblown and outdated.

Just so you know, I believe anyone objectively viewing a typical Internet exit story would come away with the impression that the author was bitter.

It's fascinating that you want to frame my source as a website rather than individual people.  Why is that?  Do you have a need to dehumanize former Mormons? 

On the second point, I appreciate your speculations about how easy it is to confront a bishop with your desire to resign and motivate him to fill out and submit the papers.  If you are right and it is now easier than it was 15 years ago, that's great. In any case, I wouldn't expect you to have any empathy for the people that have troubles with it.

Yes, the authors of some exit stories are bitter.  Just like some apologists. 

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I understand you didn't concede the obvious, Scott. 

The "obvious" is that it makes much more sense to round 74,079 down to 74,000 than it does to round it up to 75,000. That's nearly 1,000 off as opposed to 79. I submit it is you who refuses to grasp the obvious.

Quote

I will grant that it's possible the number is up to and over 75,000 right now.  But we don't know. 

If a General Authority says in a meeting for missionaries being broadcast around the world that the number of missionaries the broadcast is being carried to is approximately 75,000, I will take him at his word. I'm funny that way.

 

Edited February 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Please get back on topic.

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please get back on topic.

If stemelbow and ALarson will let me be, I'll be happy to do just that.

 

[Analytics]

I'll put it back on topic by trying to explain a viewpoint.  The church states that it wants resignations to go through bishops because resignations are an "ecclesiastical matter."  That is the church's stated reason.  However, the person that wants to resign generally wants to resign because he or she rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church.  So here's the question: even if the process is easy (as I'm sure it often is), why should somebody that rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church be subject to an ecclesiastical process in order to resign?

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll put it back on topic by trying to explain a viewpoint.  The church states that it wants resignations to go through bishops because resignations are an "ecclesiastical matter."  That is the church's stated reason.  However, the person that wants to resign generally wants to resign because he or she rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church.  So here's the question: even if the process is easy (as I'm sure it often is), why should somebody that rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church be subject to an ecclesiastical process in order to resign?

I would call it an administrative matter stemming from ecclesiastical purposes.

And I would repeat that the Church -- and any organization, for that matter -- is entitled to establish its own reasonable administrative procedures for such matters as enrolling and disassociating members.

I don't speak for the Church on this, however. And having never served as a bishop or a stake president, I have no experience in this. I'm just giving my own common-sense view.

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'll put it back on topic by trying to explain a viewpoint.  The church states that it wants resignations to go through bishops because resignations are an "ecclesiastical matter."  That is the church's stated reason.  However, the person that wants to resign generally wants to resign because he or she rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church.  So here's the question: even if the process is easy (as I'm sure it often is), why should somebody that rejects the ecclesiastical authority of the church be subject to an ecclesiastical process in order to resign?

If I may offer a viewpoint.  Before I officially resigned, I felt this way.  My bishop was a co-worker, a neighbor..and a good friend ..but he was not my leader.  In this event, I still did want to meet with him to ask my own questions and give him my letter personally.  I did this on my terms..requested not to meet in the Bishop's office or even at the church.  I requested as others do nowadays..that if we were to meet, it would be in my home..on my turf.  It helped me do it this way.  In this case..the letter was sent..but there was no mention again of a meetup or requested meetup from the bishopric.  It helped to do it this way for all of us concerned.

[USU78]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I never conceded that. I always maintained that if the number is 74,079, it is reasonable to round it to 74,000, not 75,000. If you'll look back at my posts you will see this is the case.

Did you see what I added to my last post? Up through December of last year, would you still have insisted on using the year-end 2014 figure of 85,147, even though the number was closer to 74,000 by December of last year?

Come on, Scott.  The 75,000 is 1.24% too high.  And you know there is no such thing as a margin of error for any stats that annoy those for whom Mormons are a problem.

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would call it an administrative matter stemming from ecclesiastical purposes.

And I would repeat that the Church -- and any organization, for that matter -- is entitled to establish its own reasonable administrative procedures for such matters as enrolling and disassociating members.

I don't speak for the Church on this, however. And having never served as a bishop or a stake president, I have no experience in this. I'm just giving my own common-sense view.

Mormons don't have a code of canon law.  Unlike our Italian friends.  The procedures to be followed are as much law of a Church as the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots."

Don't fall for the false distinction that is being sought for who the heck knows what purpose.

[bcuzbcuz]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would call it an administrative matter stemming from ecclesiastical purposes.

And I would repeat that the Church -- and any organization, for that matter -- is entitled to establish its own reasonable administrative procedures for such matters as enrolling and disassociating members.

I don't speak for the Church on this, however. And having never served as a bishop or a stake president, I have no experience in this. I'm just giving my own common-sense view.

When Bishops do not process requests for membership resignation, are they doing so because of their own inertia or is it church policy? Delay, delay, delay.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

When Bishops do not process requests for membership resignation, are they doing so because of their own inertia or is it church policy? Delay, delay, delay.

I dunno. I'm not convinced the delays happen all that often these days, in any event.

 

[UtahTexan]

On 2/25/2016 at 3:33 PM, 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 Tcas, the attorney would become a laughing stock

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Bitter exit stories on RfM, probably.

Do you think those exit stories are made up?