Analytics Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 20 minutes ago, Pa Pa said: Wait; why would anyone need legal representation to resign from the Church? BTW, I am not asking in jest. From my experience, it's a combination of a couple of things. First, if you do it on your own you are subjecting yourself to the Church's policy for how it must be done. This policy includes the bishop trying to talk you out of your decision, the bishop filling out paperwork, submitting it to the stake president, a waiting period, sometimes a manipulative letter from the Church with threats of what will happen to the souls of yourself and your loved ones if you don't change your mind, and finally the membership department actually processing the request. I can appreciate why the church might want to go through all of that to try and change your mind and make sure you understand what you are doing, but on the other hand, it is a long, uncomfortable, drawn out process. Second, bishops and stake presidents don't always execute the process according to the church's own instructions. Sometimes they forget, don't get around to it, don't know how to do it, or feel inspired to deviate from their responsibilities in the matter. If you hire an attorney, you can take control of the whole process and do it on your own terms rather than on the terms of the Church and its volunteers. 1
Guest Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 22 minutes ago, Buckeye said: You don't, obviously. But an attorney can help people who want to avoid confrontation because the church can only make contact through the attorney. So so bishops, RS presidents, etc. showing up on your door to make sure you haven't changed your mind. Also, it's free and saves hassle of doing research to figure out how to resign and filling out the paperwork. And according to this guy, it's about 3 times quicker than doing it yourself. Following the requirements of scripture, we keep a record of members...so someone knocking at your door because of a home teaching or visiting teacher is hardly "confrontation". What I find odd is that people need such coddling that they view contact with even friends. As to the "three times quicker"...where can the numbers be found for normal time?
Johnnie Cake Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: It's difficult but is done by proxy. The Presiding Bishop (since no other bishop has jurisdiction over non-existing people) has to first baptize an individual as a proxy for the fake name and create a record, hold a bishop's court, and then delete the record. No stakes are involved unless the non-existent person was also ordained to the Melchizadek priesthood, and then the court has to be held on the stake level It ties up an enormous amount of time and effort needlessly. 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. Yeah imagine that...doing someone else's work by Proxy...gee the gall of this lawyer...he has no shame 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2016 Posted February 24, 2016 8 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Exactly...its all a show...we can't trust these kinds of people...they're apostates and yeah can't trust an apostate In some cases, I don't doubt that's true.
Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 39 minutes ago, Buckeye said: You don't, obviously. But an attorney can help people who want to avoid confrontation because the church can only make contact through the attorney. So so bishops, RS presidents, etc. showing up on your door to make sure you haven't changed your mind. Also, it's free and saves hassle of doing research to figure out how to resign and filling out the paperwork. And according to this guy, it's about 3 times quicker than doing it yourself. I don't have a problem with him doing this if he wants to as long as it doesn't add steps to what the Church has to do. It may even make it easier for all I know. If someone feels better to resign, while I am sad that they got to that point and would do much if possible to help they feel a greater bond to the faith and the community, I do think it shouldn't be a hassle to resign nor should there be confrontation about it. It does make HT and such easier to remove names of those who want to be removed, but that is a burden I think few would mind if the people really wanted one there. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Calm said: I don't have a problem with him doing this if he wants to as long as it doesn't add steps to what the Church has to do. It may even make it easier for all I know. If someone feels better to resign, while I am sad that they got to that point and would do much if possible to help they feel a greater bond to the faith and the community, I do think it shouldn't be a hassle to resign nor should there be confrontation about it. It does make HT and such easier to remove names of those who want to be removed, but that is a burden I think few would mind if the people really wanted one there. The burden is to have to try to contact those who do not want contact but don't have the fortitude to say so up front. 1
Thinking Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 23 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: Yeah imagine that...doing someone else's work by Proxy...gee the gall of this lawyer...he has no shame I think I'll start a proxy resignation website for people who want to help those who have passed on to resign their membership. Of course the deceased will have the option of accepting or not accepting the resignation. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, Thinking said: I think I'll start a proxy resignation website for people who want to help those who have passed on to resign their membership. Of course the deceased will have the option of accepting or not accepting the resignation. If you're determined to waste your time in that manner, I really don't think anyone is going to be interested in trying to stop you.
Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The burden is to have to try to contact those who do not want contact but don't have the fortitude to say so up front. Some of the lack of fortitude may come from anticipating being pressured into continuing contact. Perhaps one of the unintended positive consequences will be that expectations will shift and people will relax and be more open about how they are feeling. 1
ttribe Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you really think he puts that much effort into it? With several thousand takers, that's a lot of pro bono work to be doing. And with the cost of billable hours, that would be a sizable expense that he would have to eat. A lot of money to be spending to nurse one's own vindictiveness. I have no idea if the attorney in question is motivated by "vindictiveness" and don't care to speculate. That being said, my recommendation (after working in financial forensics for the last 10 years) - never, ever, underestimate how far someone will go to satisfy vindictiveness in any context. 1
Sleeper Cell Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 47 minutes ago, Analytics said: From my experience, it's a combination of a couple of things. First, if you do it on your own you are subjecting yourself to the Church's policy for how it must be done. This policy includes the bishop trying to talk you out of your decision, the bishop filling out paperwork, submitting it to the stake president, a waiting period, sometimes a manipulative letter from the Church with threats of what will happen to the souls of yourself and your loved ones if you don't change your mind, and finally the membership department actually processing the request. I can appreciate why the church might want to go through all of that to try and change your mind and make sure you understand what you are doing, but on the other hand, it is a long, uncomfortable, drawn out process. Second, bishops and stake presidents don't always execute the process according to the church's own instructions. Sometimes they forget, don't get around to it, don't know how to do it, or feel inspired to deviate from their responsibilities in the matter. If you hire an attorney, you can take control of the whole process and do it on your own terms rather than on the terms of the Church and its volunteers. Suppose the church, for some reason, simply refused to accept resignations, unless the person subjected themselves to the church’s policy for how it must be done. Or. for that matter, suppose the church refused to accept resignations, at all. Would the resigning member have any legal recourse? Can the government tell a church who it can and cannot have on its membership rolls? Don’t’ get me wrong. If a church member wants to resign, I believe it is generally to everybody’s benefit to allow him to resign in a reasonably expeditious manner.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 22 minutes ago, ttribe said: I have no idea if the attorney in question is motivated by "vindictiveness" and don't care to speculate. That being said, my recommendation (after working in financial forensics for the last 10 years) - never, ever, underestimate how far someone will go to satisfy vindictiveness in any context. I don't doubt at all that some people will go to great lengths in their vindictiveness. That said, I wonder whether this guy might be cutting corners by being less than diligent in verifying identities. That's all I'm saying.
theplains Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 27 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said: Can the government tell a church who it can and cannot have on its membership rolls? No. Neither can the government tell the LDS Church not to proxy baptize for dead people who have not given their consent. Regards, Jim
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 45 minutes ago, Sleeper Cell said: Suppose the church, for some reason, simply refused to accept resignations, unless the person subjected themselves to the church’s policy for how it must be done. Or. for that matter, suppose the church refused to accept resignations, at all. Would the resigning member have any legal recourse? Can the government tell a church who it can and cannot have on its membership rolls? Don’t’ get me wrong. If a church member wants to resign, I believe it is generally to everybody’s benefit to allow him to resign in a reasonably expeditious manner. I think as soon as you hand over a written signed letter of resignation to a church official you are legally resigned, whether the church recognizes it or not. You don't have to do anything else.
Calm Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't doubt at all that some people will go to great lengths in their vindictiveness. That said, I wonder whether this guy might be cutting corners by being less than diligent in verifying identities. That's all I'm saying. Maybe he has some interns that do the work needed for a pittance or the software most of the work.
VideoGameJunkie Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 He claims he's doing all these pro Bono for free.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 (edited) 21 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said: 6500 since November is a lot. .004% of the church has resigned since November...at this rate the church will dry up and disappear in 568 years...I'm sure the church is shaking in their boots Edited February 25, 2016 by Johnnie Cake 1
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 37 minutes ago, theplains said: No. Neither can the government tell the LDS Church not to proxy baptize for dead people who have not given their consent. Regards, Jim Yes they have. It's your word against mine. Doncha love epistemology?
JAHS Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said: .004% of the church has resigned since November...at this rate the church will dry up and disappear in 568 years...I'm sure the church is shaking in their boots And I am pretty sure that 99.9% of those resigning were already long time inactives and on their way out anyway, regardless of any recent actions by the church.
Johnnie Cake Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 4 minutes ago, JAHS said: And I am pretty sure that 99.9% of those resigning were already long time inactives and on their way out anyway, regardless of any recent actions by the church. And I say good riddance....
mfbukowski Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't doubt at all that some people will go to great lengths in their vindictiveness. That said, I wonder whether this guy might be cutting corners by being less than diligent in verifying identities. That's all I'm saying. He couldn't possibly be verifying identities. The church doesn't give out membership rolls
strappinglad Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 I think the Church should be pro- active on this issue. I recommend( pardon the pun ) , that every issue of the Ensign have a page specifically for resignation . Also, as has been suggested, a bracket outside the stake offices with forms and instructions . In addition the scouts of each ward could make sharpened sticks so that resigners could use them to kick against or put out that offending eye. Back in the day, such folks just never showed up to church and went on their merry way. Mind you, there have been Bishops that went through the ward list and sent Elders to homes to ask if they wanted their names removed. Funny how many said 'NO '. That's just one of many reasons why I will never be a Bishop. I would make it a priority to assess the ward membership.
theplains Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 minutes ago, strappinglad said: I think the Church should be pro- active on this issue. I recommend( pardon the pun ) , that every issue of the Ensign have a page specifically for resignation . Hopefully the LDS Church has better things to print in Ensign than to worry about who is resigning. Jim
TrespassersW Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: sometimes a manipulative letter from the Church with threats of what will happen to the souls of yourself and your loved ones if you don't change your mind I would very much like to read a sample of one of these letters if someone wouldn't mind sharing (redacted of any personal information, of course). I've known a good many stake presidents, and of course, they're only human, but I'd be very curious to see some examples of the threats and manipulation being employed.
Recommended Posts