Hey everyone,

Last Sunday I finally got around to emailing in our resignation letters. Didn't think I'd be hearing from anyone so soon, but today we got this in the mail:

"Dear Sister (this was on both of ours... apparently they either think my husband is a woman, or they didn't do a very good job at checking over their copy and paste job)

I have been asked to acknowledge your recent letter in which you request that your name be removed from the membership records of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I have also been asked to inform you that the Church considers such a request to be an ecclesiastical matter that must be handled by local priesthood leaders before being processed by the Church employees. Therefore, your letter and a copy of this reply are being sent to the stake president. He will also have the bishop contact you concerning the fulfillment of your request.

In view of the eternal consequences of such an action, the Brethen urge you to reconsider your request and prayerfully consider the enclosed statement of the First President."

Included was a pamphlet called 'An Invitation' which I didn't even look through because quite frankly, I don't give a crap.

Does everyone get this? Every thing I read, I'm sure said I don't have to go through the bishop. I would have gladly forwarded my resignation email to him but do not have his email address, and didn't want to ask any of the members of the ward because I'm sure they would have demanded a reason why before giving me it. We were members for JUST OVER A MONTH. I don't understand why losing us is worth a waste of the ink and postage to send this letter.

So what should I do? I don't care to talk to the bishop, but if that's the only way to get our names removed I'm guessing we will have to. Should we start expecting more love bombing than we've already been receiving and maybe a few unexpected guests?

Sorry this was so long. I'm so frustrated and this seems to be the best place to receive answers and support. Thanks so much to everyone who took the time to read this :)

. . . about losing their own faith.

Ultimately, this is not about you. Rather, ultimately this is about the hidden personal insecurities of ostensibly faithful Mormons who are afraid of succumbing to their own doubts.

As Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr observed:

"Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly sure."



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2013 07:47PM by steve benson.

That makes more sense than "doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith," lol

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . about losing their own faith.
>
> Ultimately, this is not about you. Rather,
> ultimately this is about the hidden personal
> insecurities of ostensibly faithful Mormons who
> are afraid of succumbing to their own doubts.
>
> As Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr
> observed:
>
> "Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in
> doubt. It is when we are unsure that we are doubly
> sure."

Bingo.
Excellent.

Everyone does get that letter and pamphlet. I wasn't asked to meet with the local branch president, but did receive a phone call, which I kept as short as possible. As these things go, it was relatively easy. If they want a face to face, you can definitely refuse. If the bishop calls, reiterate that you have resigned and won't be changing your mind. As to love bombing, hopefully not, but good luck with that if it happens!

I love that they include the line "in view of the eternal consequences..." Oooh, shaking in my boots!

They just cannot wrap their minds around the idea that we don't believe those consequences exist. They word it so it sounds like this hugely threatening thing, but it's just silliness.

. . . as in the Mormon god punishing them for their lack of due diligence in trying to bring an apostate to heel, or:

--they are acting out of their own personal fears of being judged by their Mormon associates who might view them as less than vigilant if they don't make the required effort to keep others from defecting;

or:

--they are afraid of their own closet doubts about their own Mormon faith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/01/2013 08:05PM by steve benson.

Yes, this is exactly what happened to me two months ago. Same words, same insert. I thought I had to go in to talk to the bishop and did. He requested I come back week after week. I was upset and wrote into this board and they said no I didn't have to see him at all. They were right. I EMAILED him and said I'm not coming back and to send off his letter to SLC. He did and I didn't have to sign anything. Then I got a letter from SLC telling me they will remove my name, with a bit of a warning attached. Then I got a final letter last week.
In summary:
1. Letter to SLC asking for name removal
2. Bishop signs form and sends back to SLC
3. Acknowledgment letter from SLC to you
4. Final letter from SLC to you

Best wishes!

All you have to say to the Bishop is, "Yes, I really did request that my name be removed. No, I don't want to talk about it. I won't be changing my mind. Please just get the paperwork done. Thanks."

And then wait for your final letter from Headquarters.

Stand up to it as the individual that you are--with the right and ability to make your own personal choices on your own terms for your own life--and you will quickly see how much of a paper tiger the Mormon Cult really is.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2013 12:03AM by steve benson.

My brother and I resigned together, and we told them our reasons. The local bishop wrote to us expressing his disdain for our violent upbringing. He said such abuse was out of harmony with the church. I was happy to forward the bishop's comments to my TBM father.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My brother and I resigned together, and we told them our reasons. The local bishop wrote to us expressing his disdain for our violent upbringing. He said such abuse was out of harmony with the church. I was happy to forward the bishop's comments to my TBM father.

And what did your TBM father say when you forwarded the note, either to you or to the eejit?

Allows church to verify you sent the resignation but gives them a 60 day deadline.
Church HQ complies with the deadline since your notice is self-identifying...but they use up their 60 days to give the local priesthood a swipe at you (an unnecessary extraneous step, admitting that "the church considers it an ecclesiastical matter").
Whether the bishop contacts you or not they send a followup letter that your name has been removed in about 60 days...because in fact its not an ecclesiastical matter afterall...its a legal matter.
Typically local priesthood are slower to act and sometimes bluff that they can excommunicate you instead (they can mark on your name removal form that you are suspected of having committed a serious transgression).

As a personal preface, I wasn't "allowed" by the Mormon Cult to resign my membership (as some have suggested, supposedly due to my in-Cult family heritage). Rather, I resigned without seeking or being given Mormon Cult permission to do so. As far as I was concerned, it was a simple decision: Damn the demagogues; full speed ahead. To me, being "excommunicated" suggests that a believer is being kicked out of the Mormon Cult against their will. I was no longer a believer and wanted out on my own terms.

Besides, as has been demonstrated by the famous Norman Hancock case, it is unlawful for the Mormon Cult to force a member to remain in the ranks (through refusing to recognize their individual right to voluntarily resign), in order for the Mormon Cult to excommunicate them.
_____


Enter Hancock, a lifelong Mormon who decided he finally wanted out. Thanks to Hancock's determination (and putting it bluntly), his case knocked the Mormon Cult back on its abusive butt.

Hancock served notice of his membership resignation but the resignation was rejected and Hancock was summarily excommunicated by a clueless Cult court. The endgame played out with Hancock subsequently suing the Mormon Cult for multi-millions of dollars in damages, which got the Cult's attention real quick. The Cult melted like Jell-O in the hot sun and relented, thereby recognizing Hancock's inherent right to resign.

Here's a brief synopsis:

"'Excommunication of Non-Members, Norman Hancock'

"The case of Norman Hancock is an interesting one. It establishes firmly that churches cannot excommunicate members who leave during discipline, based on the Marian Guinn precedent. That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored. The state has no authority over the the disciplinary process within the church, but the person has no longer given their consent and this changes things.

"The case is standard. In 1985 the Mormon Church excommunicated Norman Hancock after he submitted a letter of resignation to the Church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the Church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommuication'; the records would show that he resigned-- that is, he had asked his name be removed from the Church roll."

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/02/mormon-alliance-home-page.html


For the blow-by-blow details of Hancock's infuriating but ultimately successful case as described in a report authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson for the "The Mormon Alliance," see: http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm

As another individual aside, one of the former Mormons who wrote in support of Hancock's right to resign his membership was John W. Fitzgerald, who was thrown out of the Mormon Cult in 1972 for his opposition to its ban on African-American males receiving the priesthood. He wrote:

"The guarantee voiced in the Constitution of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, also contains with it the concept of freedom from religion; that no individual or religious organization can coerce or force anyone to join or stay in any religious group against his or her will. . . .

"Norman L. Hancock’s suit against the LDS Church for possible defamation of character . . . was settled out-of-court when the Church agreed to drop him from membership without the taint of excommunication, which is very real in Mormon communities.

"[It is time for the Church to take] a long look at their policy on excommunication and their practice of ignoring requests of individuals to have their names removed from the rolls of their church.

"The LDS Church is a pseudo-democracy. It never claimed to be a democracy like the one we believe in, where secrets ballots are taken, and it is nobody’s business how one votes."

(John W. Fitzgerald, "Freedom from Religion," in "Salt Lake Tribune," 6 March 1985, p. A-17)

John W. Fitzgerald (or Dr. Fitzgerald, as I knew him) was my principal at Morningside Elementary in Salt Lake, where I attended 3rd and 4th grade. I remember him being a strong, thoughtful man who played the violin beautifully and who, sadly enough, announced to all of us students assembled in the school cafeteria on November 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.

At any rate, I personally phoned Hancock (who was living in Mesa, AZ at the time) to congratulate him for his courage and tenacity in standing down the Mormon Cult. He graciously and matter-of-factly accepted the compliment. What Hancock did in behalf of individuals seeking to sever their membership with the Mormon Cult was an absolutely amazing personal story; an historically ground-breaking event in the annals of LDS-inflicted bullying; and a stirringly significant reminder of what can be done to fight and win against tyrannical theological overreach.

Yo, Salt Lake: Beware the Storm of Norm!

:)

Very interesting story Steve, Thanks.

Good post Steve.

Hancock deserves a big thanks from all of us, he really paved the way. Raising my glass of merlot right now!!

I never had "the pamphlet" - feel almost deprived I never got one. In fact, I had to chase up COB to confirm my resignation had been processed appropriately!

I didn't get the pamphlet either. I stated in my resignation letter (about seven years ago) that I was contacting my attorney, who was also my uncle, so that if they had any further questions they could deal with him. The COB letter was like yours and I did nothing further. Within a week or two a very, very short letter came from the bishop and stake president stating that my name had been removed. You don't have to do anything except, maybe, confirm that you are the correct person so they don't remove the wrong name by accident.

It urks me that they keep calling it name removal when your name merely gets "moved" to another data base. Why can't they use proper English and call it what it is. RESIGNATION ! Or at least change of membership status. But NOOOOOO. They have to use that stupid designation that doesn't mean a thing.

If I got your letter I would write back to COB and say, "There must be some mistake. I asked to RESIGN my membership and you are talking about some kind of name removal. What in the Heck does that mean? Are you acknowledging that I officially resigned or not? Stupid cult talk.

You have officially informed them that you're no longer a member of their church but they didn't get it. That's frustrating.

I'd phone the bish and leave a message say you don't want a visit and he can get on with the paperwork. Also, phone member records with the same message.

Good luck and congratulations on your resignation.

The mormoney church cannot let go for two simple reasons----money being first and arrogance second.

My suggestion would be to be very concise in speaking with the bishop telling him to move forward NOW with the paperwork. And, from my experience, do not give him a chance to ask any questions. In retrospect, I so wish I had had the presence of mind to do this when I was asked, in all seriousness, had I given this very serious matter, very serious thought and had I spoken with my children about this very serious matter? (the last question came most likely because I was a fairly recent widow).

I LOOK AT THESE MORMONEY TACTICS NOW AS BULLYING, and who needs to have that in their lives?

I commend your courage and can tell you from my personal experience that you have a wonderful journey ahead of you.

I know. "Why can't people leave the church and leave it alone"?

Why can't people leave the church and be left alone? Why the bullying? Why the "you don't know what you're doing," or "you should be scared because it cancels your joke of eternal oaths and promises."

They have to think they have the upper hand. If you quit going but don't go through this stupid resignation process, they track you down forever. If you do resign but your teenage children don't want to yet, they'll be tracking them down even harder. Of course we all knew exactly what we were doing when we were 8 years old and agreed to get dunked, but we have no clue what we're doing when we're in our 20s or 40s or 60s, have studied our asses off and decide it's not for us.