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

[ttribe]

8 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

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

I'm not from Utah, but I have to say this - forming this type of opinion about an entire state's population based on extremely limited evidence from an Internet message board is not a positive endorsement of your critical thinking skills.

[UtahTexan]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I believe there are many reasons to hire an attorney.  Leaving a church is not one of them.  

But even when people think they need an attorney, the attorney should be selective.  It gives the legal profession a bad name to take every client that walks thru the door.  I have refused to represent many clients in my career.  The thing is, without sounding more egotistical than I have already sounded, I can count on one my hand my trial losses in 26 years.  So, I often refused to represent people who I felt were guilty AND bad because I expected to win and did not want to put the guy back on the street...or because I did not believe that particular mother should get custody (drug user, etc).  

If someone came to my office and asked for legal help in leaving a church, I would tell that person, "a church cannot keep you against your will.  Just send a letter telling them you are no longer a member and be done with it."  Now, that would be different if the person had a family member stuck in a cult and needed help with getting a court order extracting them.  But that simply is not the case here.

[UtahTexan]

7 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not from Utah, but I have to say this - forming this type of opinion about an entire state's population based on extremely limited evidence from an Internet message board is not a positive endorsement of your critical thinking skills.

it was not just the comments...it was also how vehemently I was challenged on this, the number of people needing legal advice and the types of comments I have received.

But I appreciate your insult.  I have grown to expect those, too

[USU78]

7 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

It is immoral to make another human being the means to your end.  That is the categorical imperative in a nutshell.

Moreover, ALarson knows well that there are considerations besides just payment for [unnecessary] services.

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, USU78 said:

It is immoral to make another human being the means to your end.  That is the categorical imperative in a nutshell.

How is this attorney (the one you accused of doing something immoral) using "another human being as a means" to his "end"?

(Or are you now changing over to calling the members "immoral" who are using this attorney?)

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

it was not just the comments...it was also how vehemently I was challenged on this, the number of people needing legal advice and the types of comments I have received.

But I appreciate your insult.  I have grown to expect those, too

Listen counselor, as an attorney I'm sure you know that there are hard things to hear about the evaluation of evidence.  I do expert witness work in litigation.  I get criticized all the time by opposing experts and counsel.  Sometimes its warranted, most of the time it's not.  Either way, it's part of the process. 

You've "insulted" an entire population based on a very small and limited sample size.  I pointed out the problems with that and criticized your critical thinking skills based on that opinion.  I didn't personally insult you.  I criticized your opinion and how you formed it.  That's a very different thing.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ttribe

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How is this attorney (the one you accused of doing something immoral) using "another human being as a means" to his "end"?

(Or are you now changing over to calling the members "immoral" who are using this attorney?)

As has been pointed out, a particular attorney is trying to make a name for himself by being the "champion of the weak," mostly 20-something in my experience, disaffected who just cannot abide the notion that a religious institution might have a bright-line definition of what it means to be a member.  These feckless, broken weaklings, who rebel against authoritarianism of the Church, as they call it, are convinced to flock to the banner of a large and mighty attorney who will battle for them with the evil wights at 50 E No Temple.

This attorney, and those allied with him, are using these feckless, broken weaklings to their own ends.

They are unscrupulous.

They utterly lack morals.

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

As has been pointed out, a particular attorney is trying to make a name for himself by being the "champion of the weak," mostly 20-something in my experience, disaffected who just cannot abide the notion that a religious institution might have a bright-line definition of what it means to be a member.  These feckless, broken weaklings, who rebel against authoritarianism of the Church, as they call it, are convinced to flock to the banner of a large and mighty attorney who will battle for them with the evil wights at 50 E No Temple.

This attorney, and those allied with him, are using these feckless, broken weaklings to their own ends.

They are unscrupulous.

They utterly lack morals.

Uhh, not to be argumentative, but how do you know this attorney's motivation?  Has he confessed this somewhere?

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

Uhh, not to be argumentative, but how do you know this attorney's motivation?  Has he confessed this somewhere?

ttribe is apparently under the impression that one can only convict upon confession.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

As has been pointed out, a particular attorney is trying to make a name for himself by being the "champion of the weak," mostly 20-something in my experience, disaffected who just cannot abide the notion that a religious institution might have a bright-line definition of what it means to be a member.  These feckless, broken weaklings, who rebel against authoritarianism of the Church, as they call it, are convinced to flock to the banner of a large and mighty attorney who will battle for them with the evil wights at 50 E No Temple.

This attorney, and those allied with him, are using these feckless, broken weaklings to their own ends.

They are unscrupulous.

They utterly lack morals.

"Trying to make a name for himself"?  Seriously?  And, how do you know that?

Good grief!  He's offering a service for free (and probably spending very little time doing it or having someone that works for him do it).   I highly doubt this is a very large percentage of his client base.  

You did make me laugh though.  Hilarious post! 

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[Wiki Wonka]

On 2/24/2016 at 11:32 AM, MorningStar said:

Why would anyone need a lawyer to resign?

I believe that the point of involving a lawyer is so that you do not have to become subject to visits from bishops or others who are required to follow up to make sure that you understand the spiritual consequences of resigning. Bishops are, if I understand correctly, required to do this. By going through a lawyer, the person resigning can avoid these meetings and have the resignation processed more quickly.

However, it raises the question: Would it theoretically be possible for someone to submit a resignation request to the lawyer on behalf on another (perhaps unsuspecting) church member and have that resignation be processed without the member's knowledge?

Edited February 29, 2016 by Wiki Wonka

[ttribe]

9 minutes ago, USU78 said:

ttribe is apparently under the impression that one can only convict upon confession.

No.  I'm not.  But I thought it would be the easiest and most direct route to the conclusion.  No need to get nasty with me, I'm just trying to get what your foundation is for stating this guy's motivation.

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

However, it raises the question: Would it theoretically be possible for someone to submit a resignation request to the lawyer on behalf on another (perhaps unsuspecting) church member and have that resignation be processed without the member's knowledge?

This has been discussed on the thread earlier (I don't expect you to have read all 20 pages  )    Theoretically, I think it's possible someone may try this.  But, I can't imagine it getting very far (they do try to verify the person's identity, personal information and they do ask for their membership #, etc....although someone could know another's info).  I also have a difficult time believing many (if any) would attempt this.  The member also gets a confirmation that the resignation was processed, so I would think the gig would be up at that point.

.

Edited February 29, 2016 by ALarson

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No.  I'm not.  But I thought it would be the easiest and most direct route to the conclusion.  No need to get nasty with me, I'm just trying to get what your foundation is for stating this guy's motivation.

Nasty?  Me?  I'm adorable, as anybody knows, and a big puffball of a grandpa.

[USU78]

12 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I believe that the point of involving a lawyer is so that you do not have to become subject to visits from bishops or others who are required to follow up to make sure that you understand the spiritual consequences of resigning. Bishops are, if I understand correctly, required to do this. By going through a lawyer, the person resigning can avoid these meetings and have the resignation processed more quickly.

However, it raises the question: Would it theoretically be possible for someone to submit a resignation request to the lawyer on behalf on another (perhaps unsuspecting) church member and have that resignation be processed without the member's knowledge?

How does hiring an attorney prohibit a Bishop from verifying a congregant's desire to resign, including via personal visit, phone call, text or email?

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Wiki Wonka said:

I believe that the point of involving a lawyer is so that you do not have to become subject to visits from bishops or others who are required to follow up to make sure that you understand the spiritual consequences of resigning. Bishops are, if I understand correctly, required to do this. By going through a lawyer, the person resigning can avoid these meetings and have the resignation processed more quickly.

However, it raises the question: Would it theoretically be possible for someone to submit a resignation request to the lawyer on behalf on another (perhaps unsuspecting) church member and have that resignation be processed without the member's knowledge?

This question has been raised here. A couple of inquiries were put to the attorney, who essentially responded that he does not make follow-up efforts to verify the identity of people using his website. Somebody quoted him as saying something to the effect that he is "entitled" to assume his clients are representing him in good faith.

So, from my admittedly non-expert opinion, it would in theory be quite possible for someone to wreak the sort of malice you envision here.

 

Edited February 29, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[flameburns623]

1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

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.

To officially, formally join Lutheran (Missouri or Wisconsin synod) or Anglican churches you have to take adult catechism classes and meet with the pastor.

To get "saved" in a Baptist church may be as simple as 'walking the aisle' in answer to an altar call.

But to become a formal member, welcome to receive at the communion table, eligible to serve as a deacon or elder, usually requires several formalities, including a valid water baptism by immersion by a Trinitarian church, and the verbal or signed assent to a covenant or pledge.

The real issues are the consequences of leaving a church. These can be minimal as ypu say: or more significant.

Look--I owe my employer NOTHING. I am free to quit without even a polite letter. I can just stop showing up. And I have done that once, with no consequences whatever.

I have left several jobs in my life for reasons good or bad.

Leaving a job, like leaving a church, is usually rather casual. But leaving a job has often meant becoming somewhat estranged from many of the friends I left behind: they didn't stop being friends, usually, but we had less-and-less time for each other. That happens in leaving a church, too.

And in one case, leaving a job, voluntarily and in good stead, almost certainly led to misunderstandings which cost me another employment situation.

I took a job with substantially less pay and benefits in order to go to school. I ultimately didn't go back to school, but my new employer did promote me several times, bringing me close to my former pay.

Then I applied for a job which asked me to provide a salary history: when the prospective employer saw the break in pay continuity, they questioned me very closely and ultimately said that such a deviation in pay made them uncomfortable: they asked repeatedly if I was sure that I had not been terminated for cause. I was finally passed over for another candidate.

I have a friend who collected worker's compensation for an injury at work. He retained a lawyer to protect his rights. He continued to work for that large national company for a year after the worker comp thing was settled. Then he left, giving a full two weeks notice. He stayed in the same field, just worked for a different employer. The local branch has tried to rehire the guy, but the corporate HR department refuses to approve him: no reason is given and he assumes he has been quietly blackballed due to that comp claim so long ago.

Something like these sort of things theoretically could happen in the process of leaving the LDS Church. Especially if one lives in a densely Mormon area or mainly has friends or associates who are mostly Mormon. Hence my reason for suggesting that belongung to a church is more like the relationships of a job than like a casual shopping experience.

[flameburns623]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

How does hiring an attorney prohibit a Bishop from verifying a congregant's desire to resign, including via personal visit, phone call, text or email?

I asked earlier.

The attorney sends the request directly to Salt Lake City. With an implied warning to process promptly or risk litigation. SLC is lawsuit-shy and will usually expedite the removal of the name and advise the local bishop after the fact.

[USU78]

Just now, flameburns623 said:

I asked earlier.

The attorney sends the request directly to Salt Lake City. With an implied warning to process promptly or risk litigation. SLC is lawsuit-shy and will usually expedite the removal of the name and advise the local bishop after the fact.

The Church is under no obligation to do so.  The relationship between congregant and Church is rife with legalities, including an express and implied covenant in the Church not to disclose confidential communications, including penitential proceedings.  The State has no interest in those proceedings and cannot interfere in them.  An attorney may only represent a client in state-sponsored/run proceedings, both in and out of Court.  Attorneys may have a right to practice in rabbinical and RC courts, but they have no privileges in the LDS Church's disciplinary councils and proceedings.

That the Church may accede to a request to communicate with an attorney upon written request by a congregant, it is not obligated to do so, and no accession implies any right/privilege in the attorney to participate in any way.

So let's not get too excited about this useless attorney's useless service, for which he gets paid precisely what the useless service is worth.

[Wiki Wonka]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This question has been raised here. A couple of inquiries were put to the attorney, who essentially responded that he does not make follow-up efforts to verify the identity of people using his website. Somebody quoted him as saying something to the effect that he is "entitled" to assume his clients are representing him in good faith.

So, from my admittedly non-expert opinion, it would in theory be quite possible for someone to wreak the sort of malice you envision here.

 

I imagine for the member that such an occurrence would, at most, be an annoying task of straightening out the paperwork. However, it does not seem possible to me that a lawyer could process something on behalf of someone whose identity they have not verified and then simply disclaim any responsibility if they find out that person wasn't who they said they were. It seems that it would open them to some risk. (If this has been discussed in the last 20 page then please excuse me for asking again - I'll probably go through them later).

[flameburns623]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The Church is under no obligation to do so.  The relationship between congregant and Church is rife with legalities, including an express and implied covenant in the Church not to disclose confidential communications, including penitential proceedings.  The State has no interest in those proceedings and cannot interfere in them.  An attorney may only represent a client in state-sponsored/run proceedings, both in and out of Court.  Attorneys may have a right to practice in rabbinical and RC courts, but they have no privileges in the LDS Church's disciplinary councils and proceedings.

That the Church may accede to a request to communicate with an attorney upon written request by a congregant, it is not obligated to do so, and no accession implies any right/privilege in the attorney to participate in any way.

So let's not get too excited about this useless attorney's useless service, for which he gets paid precisely what the useless service is worth.

If you read the thread, most of the resignees have done nothing ro merit disciplinary action. No malfeasance is involved.

Usually the members aren't doing anything except resigning.

Which resignation, under law, is effective immediately upon delivery to an appropriate Church representative.

What people are attempting to fend off are attempts by local church representatives to put pressure on them to change their mind.

At least one poster in this thread has reported that as a mature adult, his MOTHER was contacted when he resigned.

Others reported considerable needless delays.

Someone indicated that upon their resignation letter being tendered, a bishop's court was convened. 

In one case someone said their initial resignation was ignored for decades until he resubmitted it.

Which explains why folks find this attorney's intervention useful. Although I found the process of resigning not so cumbersome.

Edited March 1, 2016 by flameburns623
Spelling

[ALarson]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So let's not get too excited about this useless attorney's useless service, for which he gets paid precisely what the useless service is worth.

Well, 6,500 ex-members disagree with you and found his service to be very useful to them (several of them have posted on this thread).

I'm not ever planning on using his service (and I'd imagine you aren't either), but that does not mean his service is "useless".

[UtahTexan]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Listen counselor, as an attorney I'm sure you know that there are hard things to hear about the evaluation of evidence.  I do expert witness work in litigation.  I get criticized all the time by opposing experts and counsel.  Sometimes its warranted, most of the time it's not.  Either way, it's part of the process. 

You've "insulted" an entire population based on very small and limited sample size.  I pointed out the problems with that and criticized your critical thinking skills based on that opinion.  I didn't personally insult you.  I criticized your opinion and how you formed it.  That's a very different thing.

If that is true what you do, then you truly had no right to make your comments.  You ask my "sample" group?  6500 who hired an attorney along with those here who defend it.  To me, that is a sufficient sample.  I am amazed that you would not think so.

[UtahTexan]

2 hours ago, flameburns623 said:

To officially, formally join Lutheran (Missouri or Wisconsin synod) or Anglican churches you have to take adult catechism classes and meet with the pastor.

It is easy.  I grew up Lutheran.  Missouri Synod.  Went to Lutheran schools thru the 6th Grade.  And when I quit to become LDS...it was VERY easy

To get "saved" in a Baptist church may be as simple as 'walking the aisle' in answer to an altar call.

Yep..and leaving is just as easy

But to become a formal member, welcome to receive at the communion table, eligible to serve as a deacon or elder, usually requires several formalities, including a valid water baptism by immersion by a Trinitarian church, and the verbal or signed assent to a covenant or pledge.

I became Baptist in my confused search after leaving the LDS Church.  It was easy to join, be the Music Leader and leave when I realized the lack of true authority

 

Look--I owe my employer NOTHING. I am free to quit without even a polite letter. I can just stop showing up. And I have done that once, with no consequences whatever.

Not relevant, as I was not talking about employment

 

 

Edited March 1, 2016 by CountryBoy

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

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

Oh man, you get a rep point just for mentioning the categorical imperative!  What are we talking about?