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

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

No...I didn't.  Maybe you read that.....

Well, you did in fact state: "I had quit" when citing your example of the store.  

Quote from your post on this:.

Quote

 

If I tell a store I am leaving, and walk out....I do not care if, after the fact, they have a meeting and tell people I was kicked out.  I simply do not care.  I had resigned.  I left.  I never went back.  I was gone.  I was Hasta La Vista.  I was Casper.  Me....gone.  I was out.  It over, done, fini, kaput.

What they did after that did not affect me.  I did not care.  I had quit.

 

That's why the assumption was made that you were an employee in your example.  

(I have to say that if you were not an employee, it's not the best comparison here.)

Edited February 28, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

27 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

 Oh...I forgot, your personal attack claims you are not sure I really am one

CFR

(I have not ever claimed you are not really an attorney.  Supply a quote by me stating that.  And, where have I posted any "personal attacks" against you?)

.

Edited February 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Thanks for the additional information, Calm.  So was no one allowed to resign prior to someone suing? (It seems I read this took place...a lawsuit.)

If so, I'll have to say that attorneys getting involved may be a good thing here.  Member should be allowed to resign without a church court being held on them and I'm glad that's the case now.

A threat of one, I believe.  Not sure how far it was taken.  I agree it is better this way for our current culture.

Edited February 28, 2016 by Calm

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

A threat of one, I believe.  Not sure how far it was taken.  I agree it is better this way for our current culture.

Thanks.  That is interesting.  I wonder when the first person actually (technically) "resigned" from the church rather than requesting it and then being excommunicated (such as in CountryBoy's experience)?  Do you know?

.

Edited February 28, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

No, not in themood for researchright now either.  Kick me in a few hours if you still want to know and I will go search.

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

No, not in themood for researchright now either.  Kick me in a few hours if you still want to know and I will go search.

No problem!  (It's not a big deal....I was just curious  )

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

I did not say resign from a store.  I said walk out.  as a customer.  The LDS Church cannot put anything in your file that would affect future employment unless you wanted to work for the Church.  Heavens knows if they could, I would have never gotten employed by anyone.  Bad analogy.  Further, the church does not pay me to be a member....like a store pays you to work there.

I did understand what you said.

I used a slightly modified version of your example.

Because being present as a casual customer of a store is not precisely analogous to being a member of a Church.

It is not precisely like being an employee, either. But the relationship and analogy are closer.

There CAN BE lasting  and/or wider consequences in each case: rumor-mongering that you were "excommunicated", for instance, could betimes be consequential.

The interpersonal consequences can be more impactful: you can grow distant as friends from former coworkers, just as you can grow apart from friends who remain in a church from which you formally separate. That estrangement can be more pronounced if your friends believe that you were separated for wrongdoings.

Hope this clarifies things.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thanks.  That is interesting.  I wonder when the first person actually (technically) "resigned" from the church rather than requesting it and then being excommunicated (such as in CountryBoy's experience)?  Do you know?

.

Norman Hancock sued the Church in 85, but it was settled out of court so specific details are not  available.  Also it appears it wasn't just resigning but possible defamation issues.  So I know of no date attached to the actual decision and it may have taken time to counteract the traditional way of doing things given it is still in most/many cases sent to the bishop to process.  Also iirc from another conversation, it the court process has already been initiated, it is to be completed to avoid people trying to get major issues being put on records (such as criminal actions and reasons not to have people in authority positions, moral issues not involving potential harm to others are more lenient in treatment from what I have heard).

In the past I have read a couple of people claiming they were the ones who forced the change (the multiple claims plus their location being why I am not eager to research again in this case) so I suspect there was a time period of adjustment.

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, you did in fact state: "I had quit" when citing your example of the store.  

Quote from your post on this:.

That's why the assumption was made that you were an employee in your example.  

(I have to say that if you were not an employee, it's not the best comparison here.)

Nope...the line where I said I quit was talking about the Church...I QUIT the Church

again, I was clear in the store that I walked out.....I never said I worked there. 

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

CFR

(I have not ever claimed you are not really an attorney.  Supply a quote by me stating that.  And, where have I posted any "personal attacks" against you?)

.

You said based on my argument that you doubted I was really an attorney.

[UtahTexan]

1 hour ago, flameburns623 said:

I did understand what you said.

I used a slightly modified version of your example.

Because being present as a casual customer of a store is not precisely analogous to being a member of a Church.

It is not precisely like being an employee, either. But the relationship and analogy are closer.

There CAN BE lasting  and/or wider consequences in each case: rumor-mongering that you were "excommunicated", for instance, could betimes be consequential.

The interpersonal consequences can be more impactful: you can grow distant as friends from former coworkers, just as you can grow apart from friends who remain in a church from which you formally separate. That estrangement can be more pronounced if your friends believe that you were separated for wrongdoings.

Hope this clarifies things.

Yes....to me, being a buyer in a store is a lot like being a member..you both have the chance to mutually benefit.  And if I walk out, they can't stop me.  And if they later claim they kicked me out, how does that really affect me?

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

You said based on my argument that you doubted I was really an attorney.

Please supply the quote or withdraw this accusation.  CFR  (2nd one and also please supply a quote from me containing a personal attack against you or withdraw that accusation too.)

.

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Please supply the quote or withdraw this accusation.  CFR

.

I think he is confusing you and me. Most attorneys are glad to represent somebody who wants the help--it's weird listening to CountryBoy calling the clients of fellow attorneys wimps for being represented.

If I were buying a house and decided to send my attorney to the closing rather than go personally, my friends might think that's weird, and I'd be glad to listen to their opinion on the matter. But if the person I was buying it from started to call me names for wanting a professional there, that would make me want the pro there all the more.

I do agree with him that in principle, you can just walk away. Millions have done it that way. but if you want a formal resignation accepted, having legal representation can help.

[flameburns623]

 

 

Quote

Yes....to me, being a buyer in a store is a lot like being a member..you both have the chance to mutually benefit.  And if I walk out, they can't stop me.  And if they later claim they kicked me out, how does that really affect me?

 

 

One does not join a church nor obtain employment quite so informally as one elects to shop in a retail outlet 

An employer trains its employees as a Church teaches its members. 

Both have codes of conduct and standards of conformity, formal and informal.

In both employment and in churches, interpersonal relationships can and do flower as a normal part of participation.

And severing either relationship CAN have wider or longer consequences. (But also may not have consequences, depending upon how intertwined one's work or church life is with other life aspects).

Being a customer is much more casual. I suppose that being wrongly put on a list of persons banned from the premises might have some consequence.

But: we are clear now that each of us were using an analogy, and that our analogies were different in substantial ways. No reason to derail the primary topic.

Edited February 29, 2016 by flameburns623

[Calm]

CB and AL:

 

 

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

CB and AL:

 

 

I did not post that.  If CountryBoy has me confused with Analytics, he should own up to that.  CountryBoy also accused me of making personal attacks on him, which I have not done here.  I try very hard to avoid any type of personal insults on any other posters here, so I would like him to withdraw these 2 accusations.  

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Calm]

I agree with your description of your posting habits, which is why I made the effort (and missed it the first time, thankfully Analytics pointed out the confusion) to find the exact post.

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

I agree with your description of your posting habits, which is why I made the effort (and missed it the first time, thankfully Analytics pointed out the confusion) to find the exact post.

Thanks, Calm.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, ALarson said:

In your opinion.  You're entitled to that.  But others can have their own feelings and opinions on this topic too that are just as valid.

And, do you really think CountryBoy is making "perfect sense" when he keeps insisting he resigned from the church when he was actually excommunicated?  

False dichotomy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, JulieM said:

In a perfect world all confidential proceedings remain confidential.  You're bright enough to know this isn't a perfect world.   When someone is excommunicated, their family, friends, other ward members, etc. may learn of this.  

It doesn't take a genius to figure out why many members prefer to resign instead of going through a church court and getting excommunicated.   

If they want to go the route of using this attorney to even simplify the process further, why do you and others care so much?  Some will resign without an attorney (as some have posted).  That's fine too as this is a personal decision.

I notice you ignored the last half of my post. 

There are some conditions (I gave three hypothetical illustrations) under which the Church might have a legitimate interest in and be entitled to convene a proceeding and/or maintain an internal record as to the circumstances attending an individual's termination of membership. Even then, the matter would remain confidential in this day and age to the extent the individual wished it to remain so. 

If it's merely a request for name removal I simply can't conceive of a situation in which the Church would not, for its part, keep the matter confidential. 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[sjdawg]

On 2/24/2016 at 11:42 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

This strikes me as a great vehicle for those make who serial resignations from the Church of Jesus Christ a personal avocation.

I wonder if they get together at social functions and boast individually of how many times they have resigned from the Church.

 

Do you have any any indication of how many people have resigned from the church more than once?

[sjdawg]

On 2/24/2016 at 11:58 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

It's a bit ridiculous that mass resignation events seem to draw perennial attendees.

I wonder if he specializes in offering extraneous/unnecessary services.

attending a rally or event does not equate to serial resignations.  It is possible to attend an event simply to support a cause.  (In this particular case I can't imagine ever being bothered to attend but your correlation between attending the rally and serial resignations doesn't translate.   Does attending baptisms equate to joining the church multiple times?

 

My understanding is that people use the service because they don't want to follow the church mandated process for resigning.  They don't want to be visited by their Bishop or Stake President.  They want to send their letter and be done with it.   I agree the service isn't needed but if it is free why not take advantage of it?

 

[sjdawg]

On 2/24/2016 at 1:57 AM, mfbukowski said:

 

It is even more complex for real people who were never members, but wanted to resign anyway, but that is a secret process I cannot reveal at this time.

It's not secret it's sacred.

[sjdawg]

On 2/25/2016 at 3:42 AM, Sleeper Cell said:

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by sjdawg
deleted

[UtahTexan]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

I did not post that.  If CountryBoy has me confused with Analytics, he should own up to that.  CountryBoy also accused me of making personal attacks on him, which I have not done here.  I try very hard to avoid any type of personal insults on any other posters here, so I would like him to withdraw these 2 accusations.  

.

I apologize.  Not because you have been rude about it, but because I was wrong.  I had several people discussing and I thought I quoted properly.  I apparently did not.