Calm Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, ALarson said: Yes, but the paperwork is not seen by as many (in my experience). We have also had at least one member complain who found out the paperwork was sitting out on the Bishop's desk and a few members saw it and asked them about it. Good to know, thanks. 1
Amulek Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 I consider involving an attorney to be sort of like the nuclear option when it comes to name removal. Under normal circumstances, I don't see why a lawyer would ever be needed. I can certainly think of situations where one would be necessary, but those are exceptions to the rule. I suspect that the majority of people who have an attorney handle their request aren't really looking for privacy or anything like that; they're looking for a guilt-free exit from the church - one that doesn't involve having to sit down and look his/her bishop in the eye and say they want to leave. 3
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 40 minutes ago, bluebell said: How is the ward supposed to know not to contact someone who wants no more contact if that person doesn't want anyone from their ward that they have resigned? In my post I don't think I mentioned anything about the 'do not contact' vibe.
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Amulek said: I suspect that the majority of people who have an attorney handle their request aren't really looking for privacy or anything like that; they're looking for a guilt-free exit from the church - one that doesn't involve having to sit down and look his/her bishop in the eye and say they want to leave. Oh, I believe most who get to the point where they want their names removed are way past feeling any guilt over it or have any trouble knowing why they've made the decision. That may apply to a very few, but not the majority, IMO. From my experience, they just believe it's an unnecessary step to have to explain themselves and I certainly understand and respect that. 1
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I still don’t get having to or wanting to get an attorney involved. My experience now is that it is unnecessary. A few comments I've read on another board is this: "Mine was just confirmed by spending a total of 5 minutes on my cell phone. No human interaction, no handshakes or lame attempts to keep me in." "Another problem with resigning directly with the church is they are known to ignore the request, delay the process, send ward leadership to your home to intervene in the process. My brother tried to leave for two years and was met with nothing but delay and harassment. Quitmormon got it done." Me: I asked another board and these are two partial quotes! Hope that helps. Also, did you read Nehor's comment about a lost letter of resignation, he posted the below about 20 hours ago on this thread, another reason to not go the bishop route: "I know. I am involved in one. A guy submitted the request and verbally told a member in good standing he wanted to be removed. It got stuck in limbo because the previous clerk did not upload a digital copy. I could not find it. I got an affidavit written out by a member of the ward who had dealt with it but it got rejected. I am still not sure how to proceed. It seems discourteous to go back and ask for another letter but I have not been able to get the Stake President’s approval without it." Edited July 12, 2019 by Tacenda
Amulek Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 12 minutes ago, Tacenda said: In my post I don't think I mentioned anything about the 'do not contact' vibe. So you're talking about people who want to have their names removed from the church, but they're still fine with having ministering visits along with intermittent missionary visits? They want to be out of the church but they don't want anybody to actually know that they're out of the church? If such a group of people exist, they've got to be a pretty small subset among those looking to have their names removed. 1
Amulek Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: Oh, I believe most who get to the point where they want their names removed are way past feeling any guilt over it or have any trouble knowing why they've made the decision. That may apply to a very few, but not the majority, IMO. I think you would be surprised. Quote From my experience, they just believe it's an unnecessary step to have to explain themselves and I certainly understand and respect that. I didn't say anything about them having to explain themselves or why they want to leave, but I do agree that they are looking for the easiest way out.
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Amulek said: I think you would be surprised. I don't. I've been personally involved with many who have made the decision. Most of them had not attended for years and the others had put a lot of thought into the decision and believed it was right for them. I saw not guilt whatsoever. I'm not saying it never happens....but I believe for most they are past feeling any guilt by the time they get to the point of asking to have their names removed. 9 minutes ago, Amulek said: I didn't say anything about them having to explain themselves or why they want to leave,... The question is usually asked regarding their reason for making the request. I figured you'd know that would be a part of the visit or personal contact (as you say it... a look their Bishop "in the eye" visit). 9 minutes ago, Amulek said: but I do agree that they are looking for the easiest way out That's not what I stated or think, so no....we don't agree on that insinuation. Also, many Bishops appreciate members dealing with their resignation in this manner (but others may want a personal contact or visit with the member). Edited July 12, 2019 by ALarson 1
Amulek Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 14 minutes ago, ALarson said: The question is usually asked regarding their reason for making the request. I figured you'd know that would be a part of the visit or personal contact (as you say it... a look their Bishop "in the eye" visit). I imagine such questions would frequently come up, but one doesn't need to answer them. It isn't like it's an inquisition or anything. 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: 18 minutes ago, Amulek said: but I do agree that they are looking for the easiest way out That's not what I stated or think, so no....we don't agree on that insinuation. Okay, I'll bite. What is an easier way to electively have your name removed from the records of the church?
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Amulek said: Okay, I'll bite. What is an easier way to electively have your name removed from the records of the church? I stated that I disagree with the "insinuation" for usage of that phrase here: Quote https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/the-easy-way-out the easy way out phrase: If you say that someone takes the easy way out, you disapprove of them because they do what is easiest for them in a difficult situation, rather than dealing with it properly. And....I do disagree with that description. Edited July 12, 2019 by ALarson 1
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tacenda said: If you go to the bishop then more people know about your resignation. A lot of these individuals don't want that known. It could mean loss of jobs, friends, and even family. And a bishop could even call that person in and try to excommunicate/disfellowship vs. have them go quietly. This is my understanding. Quoting myself, I guess this isn't probably a huge reason why people resign using the lawyer. It's many things, here's another comment to my question: "Some people are tired of defending the reason they are leaving. Mormons won’t listen to anti Mormon lies and think apostates want sex, drugs, and other fleeting worldly pleasure. Bishop will Shame exmormons for the above and abandoning covenants that may affect eternal families. The lawyers won’t." Edited July 12, 2019 by Tacenda
bluebell Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 1 hour ago, Tacenda said: In my post I don't think I mentioned anything about the 'do not contact' vibe. But what would the benefits be of secretly not being a member of the church? You're right, i assumed the 'do not contact' thing because it didn't make sense to me that someone would want to resign from the church while continuing to live as if they were a member. Is secretly being a non-member a thing? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 12 hours ago, ALarson said: I don't. I've been personally involved with many who have made the decision. Most of them had not attended for years and the others had put a lot of thought into the decision and believed it was right for them. I saw not guilt whatsoever. I'm not saying it never happens....but I believe for most they are past feeling any guilt by the time they get to the point of asking to have their names removed. The question is usually asked regarding their reason for making the request. I figured you'd know that would be a part of the visit or personal contact (as you say it... a look their Bishop "in the eye" visit). That's not what I stated or think, so no....we don't agree on that insinuation. Also, many Bishops appreciate members dealing with their resignation in this manner (but others may want a personal contact or visit with the member). I think Bernard Gui is largely right. Taking the drastic step of engaging an attorney is, for a lot of these people, a way to poke the Church in the eye. The attorney sells mugs on his web site that bear his slogan. Buying such a mug tells me they are intent on making a statement, not just getting out of the Church. Edited July 13, 2019 by Scott Lloyd 1
JulieM Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think Bernard Gui is largely right. Taking the drastic step of engaging an attorney is, for a lot of these people, a way to poke the Church in the eye. That’s not at all what I’ve seen. And why would that even be poking the church in the eye anymore than just taking care of the paperwork themselves (if that’s their goal)? I think Bernard is speaking from his experience (most of us here do that), but there are very valid reasons for some to use an attorney (as have been posted on this thread by some). Many who resign are very good people who just have decided to have their names removed, imo. It’s sad when it happens but I try to understand. 1
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think Bernard Gui is largely right. About what? (That using an attorney is not necessary? Or are you referring to something else?) If it's about the attorney, he I discussed that it is necessary if the member desires no contact from their local leaders or does not want more people seeing their paperwork. 19 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Taking the drastic step of engaging an attorney is, for a lot of these people, a way to poke the Church in the eye. I don't follow you there. Also, all who resign are not up to something sinister. Many have put a lot of thought into it and simply believe it's the best decision for them. I know of at least one couple who used an attorney out of consideration for our Bishop who they knew was already very busy with a lot on his plate. I think it's best not to pass judgement here with a broad brush. Edited July 12, 2019 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: About what? (That using an attorney is not necessary? Or are you referring to something else?) If it's about the attorney, he I discussed that it is necessary if the member desires no contact from their local leaders or does not want more people seeing their paperwork. I don't follow you there. Also, all who resign are not up to something sinister. Many have put a lot of thought into it and simply believe it's the best decision for them. I know of at least one couple who used an attorney out of consideration for our Bishop who they knew was already very busy with a lot on his plate. I think it's best not to pass judgement here with a broad brush. I told you “about what,” right in the same post. He said it is a “stick it in your eye” kind of thing, and I said he was largely right and used the qualifier “for a lot of these people.” I didn’t apply it to everybody. You need to calm down and read for comprehension before reacting with the first thing that pops into your mind. Edited July 12, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 16 minutes ago, JulieM said: That’s not at all what I’ve seen. And why would that even be poking the church in the eye anymore than just taking care of the paperwork themselves (if that’s their goal)? I think Bernard is speaking from his experience (most of us here do that), but there are very valid reasons for some to use an attorney (as have been posted on this thread by some). Many who resign are very good people who just have decided to have their names removed, imo. It’s sad when it happens but I try to understand. See my response to ALarson. Read for comprehension.
Calm Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 23 minutes ago, JulieM said: And why would that even be poking the church in the eye anymore than just taking care of the paperwork themselves (if that’s their goal)? Adds to the resignation stats that QM displays on their site.
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I told you “about what,” right in the same post. He said it is a “stuck it in your eye” kind of thing, and I said he was largely right and used the qualifier “for a lot of these people.” I didn’t apply it to everybody. Ok. That's not been my experience with any I've been involved with...but it may be something you personally seen. I can respect that too. 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You need to calm down 😂 Now, that's funny coming from you! Edited July 12, 2019 by ALarson 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 29 minutes ago, JulieM said: And why would that even be poking the church in the eye anymore than just taking care of the paperwork themselves (if that’s their goal)? 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Adds to the resignation stats that QM displays on their site. And why buy the mug if there’s no attitude of defiance at play there?
JulieM Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Adds to the resignation stats that QM displays on their site. Yeah, that’s true. I was referring to the actual member who was resigning. The attorney certainly may have his own agenda. Good point! 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Ok. That's not been my experience with any I've been involved with...but it may be something you personally seen. I can respect that too. Why buy the mug otherwise?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, JulieM said: Yeah, that’s true. I was referring to the actual member who was resigning. The attorney certainly may have his own agenda. Good point! It could apply to the member as well. Engaging an attorney instead of going through established procedure is a symbolic gesture of defiance and hostility. Edited July 12, 2019 by Scott Lloyd
ALarson Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Why buy the mug otherwise? I don't know anything about a mug. My comments are regarding my personal experiences with some ward members (and one of my family members) who went the route of using an attorney.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2019 Posted July 12, 2019 Just now, ALarson said: I don't know anything about a mug. My comments are regarding my personal experiences with some ward members (and one of my family members) who went the route of using an attorney. Have you visited the website? The guy has a side hustle going where he sells mugs emblazoned with the name of his site.
Recommended Posts