I see a lot of people resigning and worried about legal issues.
But legal ramifications from any religion are against the U.S. Constitution.
I see the point of resigning from TSCC for personal fullfillment, as a final f@(k you right before slamming the door.
But since I never resigned, am I missing something in the laws?
The finer details somewhere?

Huh? Please be more detailed about your question.

There are no legal ramifications to resigning from any church. I don't get what your question is ...

Basically, why do people toss the word 'legal' around in resignation threads.
Unless youre suing for harrassment, legal should have nothing to do with it.

Once upon a time, the only way people knew how to leave the LDS Church was to be excommunicated. And if people tried to leave voluntarily, the Church would excommunicate them instead. Then someone sued the LDS Church over just such an excommunication; he won on the grounds that his membership in the church was voluntary and that he had the right to revoke his membership whenever he wanted.

So, we inform people that they have a legal right to resign from the LDS Church, and that legally speaking, the moment they say, "I'm not a church member," they cease to be a church member and can't be excommunicated.

The point of resigning for some is they can't then be exed. Others want closure. I don't know if anyone is worried about "legal" ramifications/

The only legal issues I've seen discussed are when a person resigns and the church blabs about it to others such as parents, etc. Then it kind of becomes a violation of privacy issue.

The only way out was to provide evidence for a church court and be exed.

This was against the law.

Members DO have a legal right to resign from a church. Someone in Mesa went to court and made it official. We can resign and the morg can't stop us.

I sent a resignation letter in 1982, I believe, and they excommunicated me as a result.

I told the person, first councilor who called to make the appointment with the bishop, he couldn't take away from me what I didn't want in the first place. They held the "court of love," but I didn't bother to attend. It still angers me that I wasn't allowed to resign.

I am tempted to do something about it, but I am not sure what I can.

Rose

I wish they still did this. In some cases, I know they publicly announced it and would urge members not to associate with the apostates. I would definitely resign and then sue them if they did this.

jackedmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But legal ramifications from any religion are against the U.S. Constitution.

I agree with you that people should be (and are) free to resign from any religion. But I wonder what you mean about the U.S. Constitution in your comment.

The Constitution says nothing about people "being free from legal ramifications from a religion."

All the original Constitution said about religion was in Article 6: "[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Amendment added this provision:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

So all the Constitution says is:

- A religious test can't be required for office

- Congress can't make a law establishing a religion or prohibiting religious practice.

That's it. It says nothing about "being free from religious ramifications."

however, there is a freedom to associate derived from the literal words of the Constitution-

People are 'free' to associate with others, AND FREE to dis-associate themselves from any group they may have Joined, Visited, or otherwise associated themselves with.

Since they were voluntarily entered into, they can be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, just like the legal theory that (most) employment is 'at will'.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> however, there is a freedom to associate derived
> from the literal words of the Constitution-
>
> People are 'free' to associate with others, AND
> FREE to dis-associate themselves from any group
> they may have Joined, Visited, or otherwise
> associated themselves with.
>
> Since they were voluntarily entered into, they can
> be withdrawn at any time, for any reason, just
> like the legal theory that (most) employment is
> 'at will'.

I agree, and thank you for pointing that out.

My point was that the provisions regarding religions per se in the Constitution are far more limited than many people state. The freedom of association provision applies a lot more broadly than religion.

or any other church for that matter. This does violate the constitution and would also be the same as establishing a state-sanctioned religion.

Here's some background

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent

Until legal precedents for resignation were well established, it was common for local church authorities to proceed with excommunication whenever they received a resignation letter.

Legal precedents don't mean there's a law that says a church must accept a resignation, and I don't think there is such a law. But there's no question that the Morg looked long and hard at these legal precedents and gave the local authorities their marching orders accordingly, because they only like lawsuits they can win.

Of course that doesn't mean you don't have to be vigilant. Some local bully bishop could still go off half-cocked despite orders from SLC.

Scientology often requires its "Sea organization" members to sign a billion year contract. Of course the contract cannot be enforced.

It's purely symbolic of a sea org member's "eternal commitment" to the cult.

It's laughable to those who aren't Scientologists.

But Mormonism has the same "hold" on the minds of its members -- they want you for eternity.

Thankfully, the commitment doesn't hold up in any court of law.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 03:42PM by Senoritalamanita.

It's reprehensible that converts were never told beforehand the 'church' would ex them if they wanted to leave.

This kind of behavior is what turns so many people off once they learn about it.

Never signed anything with these clowns.
That was their first mistake.

The only legal ramifications are for the church, and only if they either refuse to process your request or harass you after you've left.

Every person in a free society has an absolute right to determine who can enter their property, if they will participate in a church they belong to, and who they will meet with.

Members can tell a church they're uncomfortable with any part of the expectations and the state won't force them to do dead dunkings, to have VTers, to pay tithes or whatever a church wants them to do.

It isn't likely that someone who is active would cut off home teachers or refuse to wear regulation underwear. Still, it's every member's legal right to refuse to do any of these things.

Thank you all, but it brings up another question,
Does it matter if youre excommunicated or resigned, as long as you are out?
Does it influence your relationships in predominantly mormon communities?

jackedmormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you all, but it brings up another question,
> Does it matter if youre excommunicated or
> resigned, as long as you are out?
> Does it influence your relationships in
> predominantly mormon communities?


Great question, but I'll start a separate thread for it as this one already has a lot of responses and not a ton of room before it is closed.

In Mormon communities it's a humiliation to be exxed and some excommunicated people have lost businesses or been forced to suicide.

Damn straight it matters! Why let somebody excommunicate you if you haven't done anything wrong? Excommunication is about some sort of perceived "sin." For doubting the church, they always accuse you of apostasy, even if it is not.

Another reason why resignation is the answer is because to do so, you are thrusting a poker into the collective eye of the church. They hate it. When you resign, you've won.

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1127964,1127964#msg-1127964

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1127964,1128120#msg-1128120

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1127964,1128108#msg-1128108



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 08:11PM by steve benson.

Nothing in the Constitution exactly about the right to resign from a religion, but I kept reminding myself, as a disaffected member, of freedom of association. I can associate as an American with whom I wish as long they aren't enemies of the state. If I hang out with enemies of the state, I could be accused and be guilty of treason.

From the useful Mormonnomore site, linked in other posts on this thread: "The right to freedom of religion also includes the right to unilaterally resign from a church."

I've sometimes wondered if the legal decision saying that the LDS church can't keep people from resigning was based in any way on contract law? I can enter a contract and under certain conditions I can revise or break the contract. I can't be forced to sign--and what if I am deceived into signing due to a group's false claims about itself or membership conditions? I don't like the church's position here.

As to the reasons for resigning rather than being excommunicated, the community shunning and humiliation (symbolic murder) seems to be the main stick that the LDS church uses against citizens. There is no law about your community having to make nice with you all the time. We just expect civil and fair treatment as members of a community. But organizations and groups have the power to ruin an individual through their treatment of their "member." Defamation requires some sort of documenting of promoting falsehoods about someone, but people can also be harmed if someone attacks his or her right to privacy. The LDS church routinely gets into very private issues of individuals and then makes these public through rumor and hearsay in a ward. Is the law completely silent about this problem with regard to religious groups?

I think the legal thicket for the LDS church, excommunication, and resignation, has to do with violation of privacy and defamation. What if someone actually isn't an adulterer, but for one reason or another a charge of fornication sticks to the person's character through local church leaders' investigations? People being shunned and losing jobs due to such false accusations, or due to resigning or being falsely excommunicated seems like a damage to their reputation, and one wonders if there are any protections for citizens against a religious organization so damaging their reputations because they cease to believe and participate in the organization, or are only heretical enough to earn the organization's ire.

Richard Packham on his page about resigning from the church talks about how, prior to the church receiving your resignation, they can do any Kangaroo court with you they wish, but that after they have received the resignation, they are legally powerless to subject you to any church discipline. I think most recently disaffected members are interested in knowing what the church can and cannot do while they are legally a member, pre-resignation. They can excommunicate you of course, but they cannot legally do you physical harm or seize your property (though they can through their actions break up your family and lead you into the serious legal and financial waters of divorce).

I have been tempted to become an investigator and go through with the "evil bath" in a white dress obtained by me...no jump suit with the rust stains for me. And then once I have been love bombed sufficiently, I will send a letter of resignation.

I think it just might be fun...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 09:37PM by pioneerrose.