Is There a Way to Resign From Mormonism and Not Have Parents Informed of Resignation?

[katherine the great]

12 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If your parents are so old that they can neither process or cope with their children's choices with respect to the church, then why deceive them into thinking you are still a member? Why not just stay on the roles until they pass away and then have your name removed?

 

I'm not judging either one of those choices.

[Amulek]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

You are still generalising about relationships.

Well, of course I'm generalizing. It's not possible to make a statement with respect to relationships which is universally applicable to every single circumstance that might possibly exist. Anywhere. Ever.

I mean, I'm good, but I'm not that good.

 

Quote

Not everyone is capable of having the same level of intimacy in a relationship.

I certainly agree that not everybody has the same level of intimacy in their relationships.

However, baring certain unique circumstances, I think most people are capable of having deep, meaningful relationships.

 

Quote

If my family member does not want me to talk about my spiritual journey or my political beliefs to them, I won't. That they establish that boundary is their choice, that I respect it is my choice to have the best relationship with them possible while still respecting them.

Relationships are not one-dimensional, they require mutual cooperation. A healthy relationship cannot be based on only one person's ideal.

Sure. You can have healthy, albeit limited, relationships with people whom you withhold your authentic self from. 

There's nothing wrong with having those kinds of relationships. But those aren't the people you are going to find yourself turning to when it really matters. Because you're always going to be handicapped by what you can say and what you have to avoid talking about with them. 

 

 

[katherine the great]

33 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

That said...Why does someone who hasn't been inside the church for a decade feel obliged to make some formal statement of resignation? It must be something about LDS culture.

Yes. I imagine there are numerous personal reasons people would choose to formally resign. A couple of examples: One may be to avoid excommunication if they are not living according to church standards. I don't think it is as common now for Bishops to seek out inactive members and hold church courts but I think it happened occasionally in the past. Also, as a church, we are avid record keepers and every active member is expected to minister to other members of the congregation whether they attend or not. I imagine that some people don't welcome this contact and these visits and choose to terminate their membership. Other people may have had bad experiences, have lost all belief and just don't want to continue to be on the records.

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure. You can have healthy, albeit limited, relationships with people whom you withhold your authentic self from. 

There's nothing wrong with having those kinds of relationships. But those aren't the people you are going to find yourself turning to when it really matters. Because you're always going to be handicapped by what you can say and what you have to avoid talking about with them. 

Still lots of generalising, not just about what matters but also about what is authentic. I'd say that mutual respect is what makes healthy intimacy more possible, not intimacy itself. 

[Amulek]

39 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Doesn't it depend on whether it is their business or not?

No, it depends on whether or not you are intentionally deceiving someone into believing something that you know to be false. 

 

Quote

Is it lying to have a vasectomy but not tell your wife and pretend to try to have children? Yes, I think so.

Same here.

 

Quote

But is it lying to have a vasectomy and not tell your grandmother? I don't think so. It's not her business, and even if you know she'd want to know and care that you had a vasectomy, you are not obligated to tell her.

Well, there's a slight shift in the goalposts on this half of your analogy. 

If you have a vasectomy and don't volunteer that information to your grandmother, that - in and of itself - isn't a lie. 

But if you don't tell your grandmother and pretend (or intimate) that you and your wife are trying to get pregnant, then yeah - that's a lie. 

 

Quote

I guess then the question, then, is your recorded status in the church record someone else's business?

The reality, however, is this: your parents are going to find out eventually. Who they ultimately find it out from, however, is up to you. 

 

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Still lots of generalising, not just about what matters but also about what is authentic.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with generalizing. If you think there is some specific example I have overlooked or that you think I should address, please feel free to bring it up.

I see that this thread has now been moved to the Social Hall though, so I'll lay off any further argument-style comments and leave with this (general) thought:

If one's conscious leads an individual to have his or her name removed from the records of the church, then I think said individual should have the moral integrity to sit down with those closest to him/her and have the hard conversation about that situation as well. 

 

[Meadowchik]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

No, it depends on whether or not you are intentionally deceiving someone into believing something that you know to be false. 

 

Same here.

 

Well, there's a slight shift in the goalposts on this half of your analogy. 

If you have a vasectomy and don't volunteer that information to your grandmother, that - in and of itself - isn't a lie. 

But if you don't tell your grandmother and pretend (or intimate) that you and your wife are trying to get pregnant, then yeah - that's a lie. 

 

The reality, however, is this: your parents are going to find out eventually. Who they ultimately find it out from, however, is up to you. 

 

And not telling, but not pretending either, fits in the original question.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And not telling, but not pretending either, fits in the original question.

In 'hypothetical world' that's fine.

In the real world, however, Grandma is going to be sitting next to you at Thanksgiving dinner and say something like, "So, when am I going to be a Great Grandma." At which point you either tell her you aren't ever planning on having kids, or you can (directly or indirectly) deceive her into believing that it may happen in the future...at which point you would be lying. 

 

[Storm Rider]

On 1/27/2020 at 6:29 PM, lostindc said:

I would like to quietly resign from Mormonism without putting loved ones through the process of dealing with this resignation.  Apparently, parents, ex-spouses, etc. are informed of a their loved one's resignation (currently reported by many on exmo reddit, facebook groups, and those within my region.  Is there a way to quietly resign without leadership inflicting pain by announcing my resignation?

Hello, I have a degree of confusion about your motivation for making a formal break from the Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that you have not been participating in church activities for many years and I also suspect that your family is aware of your disinterest in the Church. 

Do you think it would be possible to just carry on as you have been doing? Doing so assures you that your family will not be hurt and nothing changes. If your commitment is to your family relationships (which I respect and understand) then why formalize something that you have already done. You have succeeded in separating yourself from the Church already. What is of most value to you and what do you gain by a formal separation?

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

It can be. 

If you are purposefully holding back information about a change which has taken place (e.g., one's membership in the church) with the intent of deceiving someone into thinking that no change has taken place, then that sounds an awful lot like lying in my book. 

 

So if an institution like a church purposefully withholds information from its members to make it's past look better that it really was, is that lying? 

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, katherine the great said:

I know you're serious! That's why I said "Oh please...". God created us as "human" with a variety of personalities including the personality that avoids conflict. I don't see God withholding eternal blessings from them for being unwilling to enter into conflict when they are old and tired. You can believe whatever you want but I don't see it that way at all just as I don't see God withholding eternal blessings from Isaac for favoring the macho, worldly son.

I think most conflict can be avoided but being that avoidant with your own children? That seems to me more like abdication.

Also, I am not convinced that Esau was the more worldly son. If the story is accurate and Jacob pulled off that deceit from the sale of the birthright to the deception then Jacob was positively Machiavellian. I wish I knew more of ancient standards of manliness so I could know which was the more attractive but I am guessing that the whole thing is basically designed to make Esau look more an orangutan than a human. I mean I get why Jacob would don Esau's clothing but he put goat hair on to pretend to be Esau. That is hardcore and probably not considered attractive.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

So if an institution like a church purposefully withholds information from its members to make it's past look better that it really was, is that lying? 

How is it possible that there is anyone left not bored to death of this accusation?

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/28/2020 at 2:10 PM, lostindc said:

The site also states that when we resign there's a high chance relatives receive contact about the resignation.  I am getting the same feedback on the local level here and then in facebook groups and reddit.

This suggests an interesting disconnect between the insider perspective and the outsider one.

[why me]

On 1/28/2020 at 11:25 AM, Calm said:

Depends on the family. We shouldn’t be giving advice when we know nothing about the situation. Imagine it was a teen who had abusive parents who beat him for not attending church (unfortunately one of the most abusive families I have ever heard of personally were ‘strong’, generational members, what I don’t  get is how so many of their children are still good faithful members).  

I believed that the person was an adult who just didn't want to hurt his family. Eventually, they will find out. Difficult to conceal it when dinner prayer time comes etc.

[katherine the great]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I mean I get why Jacob would don Esau's clothing but he put goat hair on to pretend to be Esau.

I’m guessing you’ve never been afraid of your mother. 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So if an institution like a church purposefully withholds information from its members to make it's past look better that it really was, is that lying? 

I never said that every incident of withholding information is deceitful. 

However, if you intentionally withhold information from someone with the intent of deceiving them into believing something which you know to be false, then yeah, I think that's the functional equivalent of a lie.

 

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Hello, I have a degree of confusion about your motivation for making a formal break from the Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that you have not been participating in church activities for many years and I also suspect that your family is aware of your disinterest in the Church. 

Do you think it would be possible to just carry on as you have been doing? Doing so assures you that your family will not be hurt and nothing changes. If your commitment is to your family relationships (which I respect and understand) then why formalize something that you have already done. You have succeeded in separating yourself from the Church already. What is of most value to you and what do you gain by a formal separation?

Why would it be confusing? If it matters for the believers that a nonbeliever is a member in-name-only, then why can't it matter for the nonbeliever to not be on the rolls?

[CA Steve]

55 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I never said that every incident of withholding information is deceitful. 

However, if you intentionally withhold information from someone with the intent of deceiving them into believing something which you know to be false, then yeah, I think that's the functional equivalent of a lie.

 

Well it seems we agree on basics here. I suppose where we differ might be in the how much information is necessary to actually share.

I think honesty is an important part of relationships, but I also think tact and discretion play important roles too. Say, for example, I am not a big fan of a particular dress my wife likes. When she wears it and asks me how it makes her look, do I directly tell her my real opinion or do I find some tactful way to dance around the question, leaving her feeling good about herself? Or, how about someone who no longer believes in a literal Book of Mormon (or insert any basic truth claim by the Church) but still enjoys being part of all the church culture and liturgy? Is that person obligated to share their opinion whenever the subject some up? Should someone who wants to resign from the church make sure everyone in their family and all their LDS friends know they are leaving AND WHY? Where is that line between dishonesty and discretion in cases where a large portion of ones friends and family still believe?

[MiserereNobis]

In Catholic belief, Catholic baptism leaves an indelible mark on your soul that can never be removed. That means "you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave" muahaha  

[Tacenda]

20 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So if an institution like a church purposefully withholds information from its members to make it's past look better that it really was, is that lying? 

Two thumbs up!👍👍I hope posters understand, like the church not wanting to hurt testimonies for all those years like Elder Packer's statement.. that the truth isn't always useful..someone might not want to hurt loved ones. Especially the older members that aren't aware of the warts or stumbling blocks because of lack of a computer or smartphone.

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Why would it be confusing? If it matters for the believers that a nonbeliever is a member in-name-only, then why can't it matter for the nonbeliever to not be on the rolls?

Simple - If I wanted to resign; if it was a priority then I would resign. However, the writer shared that (s)he wanted to do it quietly so as not to disturb, affect, cause a problem for their extended family members. That desire conflicts with the desire to resign. 

My confusion is trying to understand what was the priority - to resign or not. If the issue, the priority, was the family then just carry on. Having some organization have your name on file does mean a hill of beans if the individual has moved on. 

I have been a member of many organizations in my life and I don't "resign" from the organization. At times, I just quit and forget about it. 

You created a strawman - As a believer I couldn't care less if another individual is a member in name only, which directly conflicts with your proposition. I don't meet others just to determine their church membership. I interact with a host of people from all walks of life, cultures, races, and religions. I have never once tried to first determine if an individual was a member of the Mormon Church. 

[Amulek]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Well it seems we agree on basics here. I suppose where we differ might be in the how much information is necessary to actually share.

Perhaps. As I mentioned before, I certainly think that things like time/place/manner are legitimate things to consider when it comes to sharing these sorts of things.

 

Quote

I think honesty is an important part of relationships, but I also think tact and discretion play important roles too.

I agree. For example, when my wife's uncle left the church several years ago, he made it a point to always order wine or spirits whenever we would go out for family dinners, even though his parents had expressed how much they disliked having alcohol served in their presence. I always considered such behavior to be in poor taste - like it was sort of his passive-aggressive way of reminding everyone (but especially his parents) that he had left the church. 

Now, in all fairness, I get that some people just like to have a drink with their meals, and I don't have a problem with that. But when you insist on never trying to accommodate your own parents' (reasonable) wishes, then I think that's kind of a jerk move. Others may feel differently though. 

 

Quote

Say, for example, I am not a big fan of a particular dress my wife likes. When she wears it and asks me how it makes her look, do I directly tell her my real opinion or do I find some tactful way to dance around the question, leaving her feeling good about herself?

You should honestly answer the question your wife is actually asking - which, in many cases, has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the garment itself. Because, let's be honest, if she had wanted your fashion advice she would have taken you with her when she went shopping for the dress in the first place.

But make no mistake, she does want you to be honest. And you can be honest without being hurtful. 

 

Quote

Or, how about someone who no longer believes in a literal Book of Mormon (or insert any basic truth claim by the Church) but still enjoys being part of all the church culture and liturgy? Is that person obligated to share their opinion whenever the subject some up?

Again, I think this kind of comes back to time/place/manner. There are tons of people who hold...less than orthodox views about any number of gospel related principles, and they are all welcome at church. 

 

Quote

Should someone who wants to resign from the church make sure everyone in their family and all their LDS friends know they are leaving AND WHY? Where is that line between dishonesty and discretion in cases where a large portion of ones friends and family still believe?

I think the "why" that is determinate is not the one pertaining to why you are leaving the church, but why you are withholding that information from your closest loved ones.

If, as someone previously mentioned, you are trying to keep the information from your parents because you believe their learning of it would alter their estate planning, then yeah - that seems like a pretty selfish / immoral deception in my book. 

But if all you are trying to do is avoid disappointing your parent's and hurting their feelings, I really don't think that's a good enough reason to justify holding back the truth from them. 

By analogy, it would be like not coming out to your devout LDS / Catholic parents that you are gay. Should you withhold that information from them just because they aren't going to take it well?

Should you try to deceive them into believe you are straight for the rest of their natural lives just to keep the peace?

No, you should sit down and have the hard conversation with them. That's the right thing to do. 

And it's the right thing to do if you depart from the faith as well. 

 

[Calm]

How old are your parents, Amulek, and do they have health issues or are they relatively healthy?

And is your relationship relatively equal with them or do they relate more in a parent-child dynamic, still intent on fixing the problems in your life, protecting you, setting up a reward/punishment system to guide you into the behaviours they want you to have?

I suspect personal experience has the biggest impact here, because I agree with you have said, yet I still have a range where I see silence as possibly the better way because it allows the relationship to continue in otherwise healthy paths.  There are areas where people are incapable of growth in their lives as their habits are so strong and they are unaware of the impact of them and can't handle the full truth and understanding that and not demanding they fit into a mold they can not belong in so that one can dump feelings of guilt or anger or out of a need to be completely, openly honest so that one can feel better about oneself is a loving, charitable choice.  

I would always suggest trying to communicate with others unless years and years of experience informed one that communication would lead to unnecessary pain that would get in the way of what healthy communication existed.  Sometimes growth comes better by pushing strengths and understanding and avoiding sensitive areas that may trigger uncontrollable or overly emotional reactions.

[CA Steve]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

You should honestly answer the question your wife is actually asking - which, in many cases, has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the garment itself. Because, let's be honest, if she had wanted your fashion advice she would have taken you with her when she went shopping for the dress in the first place.

But make no mistake, she does want you to be honest. And you can be honest without being hurtful. 

Yeah, no.

While she may think she wants me to be honest, the reality is after 40 years of marriage I know she is more interested in having her confidence built up regarding how she looks.. That dress, which I do not like, actually illicit complements from others who do like it. So while I may not like it, I know she will be happier if she wears it because others like it. And no, there is no point is going to all that explanation just to be honest, I want to get to the dinner on time. I am not sure if or how long you have been married but total honesty all the time is a quick route to divorce. Knowing when to express an opinion and when not to, is a recipe for a long and happy marriage.

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Again, I think this kind of comes back to time/place/manner. There are tons of people who hold...less than orthodox views about any number of gospel related principles, and they are all welcome at church. 

Yeah, no again. Maybe you welcome all those people back at church and are interested in hearing about their differing views, but there are a lot who do not and who are not interested in hearing different views about belief. Holding back on those views isn't dishonesty, it is being aware of the group within which you are participating and reacting accordingly. 

 

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

But if all you are trying to do is avoid disappointing your parent's and hurting their feelings, I really don't think that's a good enough reason to justify holding back the truth from them. 

What is wrong with trying to not hurt the feelings of your parents? Or more so trying not to alienate them? Of course that is a good enough reason. Strong relationships are not just based on honesty, they also are based on knowing when to share and when not to share and every situation is different. Group dynamics are just not that simple. 

 

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

By analogy, it would be like not coming out to your devout LDS / Catholic parents that you are gay. Should you withhold that information from them just because they aren't going to take it well?

Should you try to deceive them into believe you are straight for the rest of their natural lives just to keep the peace?

There is no one right answer here but If you knew your parents were going to disown you because you came out to them, and you valued the relationship you have with them in spite of that knowledge, then no, you should do everything to avoid that confrontation. While you may label that deception, I label it discretion in pursuit of a greater goal. And by the way, I know those who are doing exactly this and who still continue to enjoy the company of their family because of it.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 1/28/2020 at 5:03 PM, Storm Rider said:

Hello, I have a degree of confusion about your motivation for making a formal break from the Church of Jesus Christ. I suspect that you have not been participating in church activities for many years and I also suspect that your family is aware of your disinterest in the Church. 

Do you think it would be possible to just carry on as you have been doing? Doing so assures you that your family will not be hurt and nothing changes. If your commitment is to your family relationships (which I respect and understand) then why formalize something that you have already done. You have succeeded in separating yourself from the Church already. What is of most value to you and what do you gain by a formal separation?

The reverse of this question could also be asked. Why do Latter-day Saints view the formality of name removal so offensive that their kids are scared to tell them.