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

[UtahTexan]

4 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

 

 

 

 

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.

Actually, the way people join churches, select which one to go to and leave is a lot like they shop.  

[UtahTexan]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I would like your reference as to what most attorneys do.  I have turned away many clients in my 26 years because I did not agree with their claims, did not wish to defend that kind of crime, or the promptings of the Spirit told me not to.  I have done so as a criminal defense attorney and as a personal injury attorney.  I have also done so in family law cases.

Once I quit...I could care less if it is "formally accepted".  Once I quit, I am no longer invested in what they are doing.  

And since I wrongly accused someone...I will say it to you: personal attacks are not necessary.

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

I would like your reference as to what most attorneys do.  I have turned away many clients in my 26 years because I did not agree with their claims, did not wish to defend that kind of crime, or the promptings of the Spirit told me not to.  I have done so as a criminal defense attorney and as a personal injury attorney.  I have also done so in family law cases.

Once I quit...I could care less if it is "formally accepted".  Once I quit, I am no longer invested in what they are doing.  

And since I wrongly accused someone...I will say it to you: personal attacks are not necessary.

When the "whisperings of the spirit" told you to turn down clients, did you belittle them for seeking legal counsel and tell them to put on their big boy pants and deal with their problems without help?

[UtahTexan]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When the "whisperings of the spirit" told you to turn down clients, did you belittle them for seeking legal counsel and tell them to put on their big boy pants and deal with their problems without help?

Nope.  Usually, they were clients like child molesters, wife beaters, or habitual plaintiffs.

Now, you are not comparing these kinds of folks to people too weak to leave a church on their own....are you?  Or is it just me you insult?

And I see you could provide no reference.  I am not surprised.

Edited February 29, 2016 by CountryBoy

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

Nope.  Usually, they were clients like child molesters, wife beaters, or habitual plaintiffs.

Now, you are not comparing these kinds of folks to people too weak to leave a church on their own....are you?  Or is it just me you insult?

And I see you could provide no reference.  I am not surprised.

So, you think people who hire attorneys for help with things that could be done without help are weak?  I have an acquaintance that buys and sells a ton of real estate, and always just sends his lawyer to the closings. Would you call him"weak" for hiring an attorney to do what he could do by himself? Apparently you would. That's a weird sentiment for an attorney. At least it seems that way to me.  

[Analytics]

And by the way, it's ironic that you think I personally attacked you. You are the one calling people weak. All I did was say I'm not sure I believe you are really an attorney.

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

So, you think people who hire attorneys for help with things that could be done without help are weak?  I have an acquaintance that buys and sells a ton of real estate, and always just sends his lawyer to the closings. Would you call him"weak" for hiring an attorney to do what he could do by himself? Apparently you would. That's a weird sentiment for an attorney. At least it seems that way to me.  

Seriously?  I have stated emphatically that I believe hiring an attorney to leave a church is weak.  You keep trying to enlarge that.  It is a silly, intellectually dishonest argument.  the truly sad thing is that you do not recognize that.   You dodge, insult, and make comments for which you can provide no reference.....you are right...your beliefs about what I am truly mean nothing.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by CountryBoy

[JulieM]

3 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Seriously?  I have stated emphatically that I believe hiring an attorney to leave a church is weak. 

It's obvious that you believe anyone who didn't exit the church as you did, is doing it wrong.  But many may believe how you did it feels wrong (not caring that your leaders excommunicated you).  That could be seen as weak by some for not standing up for yourself and for just allowing your leaders to do that.

Using this attorney just gives members another option or choice when resigning.  That's it.  Some will use him and some won't.  There is really no right or wrong, weak or strong.

It's a personal choice.  Members should be given the respect to make that choice without calling them names.

Edited February 29, 2016 by JulieM

[JulieM]

11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

Yes, again, this is how it should be (in a perfect world, no one would learn of the church discipline).   I agree that details from the church court proceeding most likely will be kept confidential.  But ward members (auxiliary leaders and so on) will learn of the excommunication, as well as the possibility then of family members and friends learning about it.  

Just because the person who was excommunicated wishes for it remain confidential (as you stated above), it doesn't mean that the risk isn't high that others will learn about it.

Again, this is a legitimate reason to choose to resign over allowing this option (excommunication).  The member should have that choice (and also have the choice to use this attorney or resign on their own working with their local leaders).

I do agree the church may want a record of discipline (if the person stole money from the church, or for some serious, criminal sexual abuse).  But what happened to CountryBoy shouldn't happen and I'm glad it's different now.

Edited February 29, 2016 by JulieM

[USU78]

49 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It's obvious that you believe anyone who didn't exit the church as you did, is doing it wrong.  But many may believe how you did it feels wrong (not caring that your leaders excommunicated you).  That could be seen as weak by some for not standing up for yourself and for just allowing your leaders to do that.

Using this attorney just gives members another option or choice when resigning.  That's it.  Some will use him and some won't.  There is really no right or wrong, weak or strong.  

Its a personal choice.  Members should be given the respect to make that choice without calling them names.

Some, I suppose, are less troubled by this attorney's violation of the categorical imperative than others. 

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

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.

Thank you for owning up to making your mistake.  I certainly understand how that can happen on here when a lot of people are posting near the same time...it can be confusing.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Some, I suppose, are less troubled by this attorney's violation of the categorical imperative than others. 

Where has this attorney violated any moral obligation or law?

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Where has this attorney violated any moral obligation or law?

You already know the answer 

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You already know the answer 

Nope, I don't.  There is nothing immoral about this attorney offering his legal services for something he believes in (and at no charge). 

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[california boy]

Why are members of the church going on for pages about how these former members are resigning instead of worrying about why they are resigning. Don't shoot the messenger. It is hardly this attorneys fault people are resigning. 

[consiglieri]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

CB and AL:

 

 

Scott Lloyd made a similar though more deprecating remark about me in another thread a couple of weeks ago.

I thought this was standard operating procedure.

 

[flameburns623]

10 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Actually, the way people join churches, select which one to go to and leave is a lot like they shop.  

Hmm.

Before I could take full advantage of Catholic sacraments, I had to take catechism. And interview with a priest.

Before I joined the Mormon Church the first time, I had to take six or eight lessons with missionaries. And have an interview with a bishop. And be dunked in a tank of water in a rite called "baptism".

After I left Mormonism and spent a decade or so exploring other faiths, I found that many Buddhist and Hindu groups--while they welcome visitors and seekers--set pretty high bars for receiving such as formal initiates.

Upon returning to Mormonism, I not only had to retake lessons with missionaries and meet several times with a bishop--I also had to meet with a stake president. And I had to repeat my baptism.

When I drifted into LDS inactivity and began visiting Protestant churches with my first wife: each had its own policies and practices for receiving folks into "full fellowship", usually involving classes, meetings with a pastor, and often some sort of "covenant" or pledge or public profession. Some deemed both my Catholic and LDS baptisms suspect and would have required me to be baptised by their clergy.

When I decided to return to the RCC, I had to first "regularise" my second marriage according to Catholic canon law, in a judicial proceeding which took nearly a year. Then I underwent the rites of confession, confirmation, and conditional matrimony in order to restore me to the sacraments.

Yep. I jump through hoops like these each and every time I shop at a new retail outlet.

NOT!

Even Sam's Club only asks me to fill out a brief form and pay a small fee.

Applying for a job , getting hired, and then quitting or being fired still seems to me a closer analogy. But you like your own analogy better and the conversation has moved on. So: no worries! Be happy!

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, CountryBoy said:

Seriously?  I have stated emphatically that I believe hiring an attorney to leave a church is weak.  You keep trying to enlarge that.  It is a silly, intellectually dishonest argument.  the truly sad thing is that you do not recognize that.   You dodge, insult, and make comments for which you can provide no reference.....you are right...your beliefs about what I am truly mean nothing.

 

I was simply trying to figure out why you think it is weak to hire an attorney in this case but not others. You've provided some criteria for what makes it weak. I have tested your reasoning to see if getting legal help when it isn't necessary always implies the client is weak.

I believe that in general, if engaging an attorney is the easiest, fastest, or least dramatic way to get something done, it isn't "weak" to use that option. I would have thought just about every attorney would agree with me on this. You have proven me wrong about that.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Analytics

[UtahTexan]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

It's obvious that you believe anyone who didn't exit the church as you did, is doing it wrong.  

Not true.  I would think that anyone who needs help leaving any Church is weak.  It is too easy to do.  It has nothing to do with "doing it like i did'  But, I am becoming more understanding...you are teachin g me that folks from Utah are simply not as independent.  Not as strong.  I was unaware of that till you explained it to me.

But many may believe how you did it feels wrong (not caring that your leaders excommunicated you).  That could be seen as weak by some for not standing up for yourself and for just allowing your leaders to do that.

You just have no understanding.  They were no longer my leaders the day I quit.  I did not "allow them" to do anything.  They were not my leaders anymore.  

Using this attorney just gives members another option or choice when resigning.  That's it.

Options?  lol.  Just quit.  Its easy

 It's a personal choice.  Members should be given the respect to make that choice without calling them names.

I have not called them names.  I have said they are weak

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Scott Lloyd made a similar though more deprecating remark about me in another thread a couple of weeks ago.

I thought this was standard operating procedure.

 

I said you were "some kind of lawyer." Or perhaps the phrase I used was "some kind of attorney." (Don't have time to look it up now.)

That's true, isn't it? Are you not some kind of lawyer? If so, what's deprecating about it? For that matter, what's deprecating about it even if you're not?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Not true.  I would think that anyone who needs help leaving any Church is weak.  It is too easy to do.  It has nothing to do with "doing it like i did'  But, I am becoming more understanding...you are teachin g me that folks from Utah are simply not as independent.  Not as strong.  I was unaware of that till you explained it to me.

Don't paint folks from Utah with that broad brush. Many of us have far more independence -- and common sense -- than is being conveyed in the impression you are receiving here.

[flameburns623]

16 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

It's obvious that you believe anyone who didn't exit the church as you did, is doing it wrong.  

Not true.  I would think that anyone who needs help leaving any Church is weak.  It is too easy to do.  It has nothing to do with "doing it like i did'  But, I am becoming more understanding...you are teachin g me that folks from Utah are simply not as independent.  Not as strong.  I was unaware of that till you explained it to me.

But many may believe how you did it feels wrong (not caring that your leaders excommunicated you).  That could be seen as weak by some for not standing up for yourself and for just allowing your leaders to do that.

You just have no understanding.  They were no longer my leaders the day I quit.  I did not "allow them" to do anything.  They were not my leaders anymore.  

Using this attorney just gives members another option or choice when resigning.  That's it.

Options?  lol.  Just quit.  Its easy

 It's a personal choice.  Members should be given the respect to make that choice without calling them names.

I have not called them names.  I have said they are weak

Doctrine and Covenants 81:5

5 Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.

[UtahTexan]

6 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

Hmm.

Before I could take full advantage of Catholic sacraments, I had to take catechism. And interview with a priest.

Before I joined the Mormon Church the first time, I had to take six or eight lessons with missionaries. And have an interview with a bishop. And be dunked in a tank of water in a rite called "baptism".

After I left Mormonism and spent a decade or so exploring other faiths, I found that many Buddhist and Hindu groups--while they welcome visitors and seekers--set pretty high bars for receiving such as formal initiates.

Upon returning to Mormonism, I not only had to retake lessons with missionaries and meet several times with a bishop--I also had to meet with a stake president. And I had to repeat my baptism.

When I drifted into LDS inactivity and began visiting Protestant churches with my first wife: each had its own policies and practices for receiving folks into "full fellowship", usually involving classes, meetings with a pastor, and often some sort of "covenant" or pledge or public profession. Some deemed both my Catholic and LDS baptisms suspect and would have required me to be baptised by their clergy.

When I decided to return to the RCC, I had to first "regularise" my second marriage according to Catholic canon law, in a judicial proceeding which took nearly a year. Then I underwent the rites of confession, confirmation, and conditional matrimony in order to restore me to the sacraments.

Yep. I jump through hoops like these each and every time I shop at a new retail outlet.

NOT!

Even Sam's Club only asks me to fill out a brief form and pay a small fee.

Applying for a job , getting hired, and then quitting or being fired still seems to me a closer analogy. But you like your own analogy better and the conversation has moved on. So: no worries! Be happy!

Ever joined and/or left the Baptist?  Methodist? Lutheran? Episcopalian?  And leaving the LDs Church AND Catholic Church was as easy as mailing a short letter (LDS) and telling my Priest (Catholic) Though the Catholic Church still considers me a member, I guess, because I still get mail and offering envelopes.

[UtahTexan]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Don't paint folks from Utah with that broad brush. Many of us have far more independence -- and common sense -- than is being conveyed in the impression you are receiving here.

Funny thing is...I NEVER thought what I think now until this thread.  

[UtahTexan]

15 minutes ago, flameburns623 said:

Doctrine and Covenants 81:5

5 Wherefore, be faithful; stand in the office which I have appointed unto you; succor the weak, lift up the hands which hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees.

In response, I guess I could quote Gen George Patton

Edited February 29, 2016 by CountryBoy