When you resign from the church, and want to have your records removed, I was told that your records are still maintained and "held" for when you decide to rejoin the fold.

I found this out by talking to my local bishop, who referred me to the stake president who confirmed this.

Then when you get your life straight, and resolve your sins, you may be re-baptized and all your priesthood and temple work is restored like you never left.

The only way that could happen is that they maintain your records, and just add an annotation that you are an apostate.

When you join the LDS church... you never REALLY leave... they keep your records forever... awaiting for your faithful return.

I.DO.NOT.CARE.
THEY.HAVE.NO.POWER.OVER.ME

I feel the same way. I resigned my membership, so I don't care if those records were simply removed to another file somewhere. As I'm not a member legally, they have no power over me.

This is why ex-Mormons should form a class action lawsuit against the LDS corporation to order them to cease and desist in this god awful practice.

Our free will and freedom to choose what religion to ascribe to should be our domain, not the church's.

It's a violation of my constitutional right of freedom of religion to hold this over my head or yours, or anyone else's for our lifetime after leaving. Only to be baptized in proxy after we're deceased is the ultimate injury to our memory.

They can do what they want to themselves. For those who've resigned - enough is enough already.

Good luck with that. It's not illegal for an organization to keep internal records. A church is allowed to remember you, just like you're allowed to remember them.

Not when you've severed ties. Who else but a cult would keep your vital records, following you until you're dead so it can dead dunk you?

That's a gross invasion of privacy! And a violation of the right of choice for the individual who made a conscious decision to leave by resigning.

NO ONE should have that cloud hanging over their head for their lifetime.

It's insidious. And it's evil.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
dead dunk you?



That made me LOL

Phrase of the day is "Dead Dunk"!

"Not when you've severed ties."

But how would the church know that you severed ties if they didn't keep your record indicating you have severed ties?

I have several ties

AmyJo have you heard of the concept of the bardo? Something where after death one faces fears or illusions? And one has to walk past it..to be. Reborn <like on the wheel of souls maybe Buddhist idea.>

Lds temple rites after death should require consent it's very offensive. Mormons actually think t hey can jerk some ghost out of the grave then change their personality eternally' rescript the dead persons life and revise their next life. Now if that's not control issues I don't know what is. It's not like the ghost requested councilling. I mean' did these guys baptize every name in their high school history book /trying to make a difference?

When youre newly dead and you see them =run. Walk through the illusions. You can get to a better place than that ; )

That's a freaky concept!

I have so many Mormon ancestors in my tree, I don't know if running away from them would solve the illusion.

Being a hybrid of Jewish/Protestant & Mormon ancestry, who knows where I'll end up, besides purgatory (A Catholic construct.)

;-0

If they don't have your permission, they don't have your permission.

It's a violation of an integral aspect of the human soul.

It's easier to go on a "Do Not Call" registry, and you can sue a company for calling your home after you're on it.

What is more profound? Body snatchers of the eternal kind. That's what.

If you don't want to be part of a class action lawsuit, fine.

There may be other ex-Mormons who are up to the challenge.

As a group, we have standing to bring such a lawsuit before the courts. It would likely go all the way to the Supreme Court, which is fine. That way when it's outlawed, the Mormons will have to oblige, like they did w/polygamy when it became outlawed.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2017 01:28PM by Amyjo.

Are you going to sue your gym? They hold records of your membership after you quit. How 'bout your bank? After you close your account, they hold on to records of your transactions for years. The church just keeps their records longer.

It is not illegal for a company to hold on to records of your membership even after you leave. You can sue all you want, but you won't win that one.

What winning the ability to resign did win was that people no longer had the mark of "excommunication" put on their record when they chose to leave on their own. Resignation updates the membership record stating that the person is no longer a member, effectively closing the account and removing it from a local ward/branch.

You're missing the whole message of the post-humous baptising.

It's against our inalienable right of freedom of conscience not to be subjected to that in this life or after death.

If you don't want to do anything about it, fine, don't.

There may be others who are interested in bringing a lawsuit against the religious cult to have it stop the deplorable practice once and for all.

If you want to be a member, that's your business.

Forcing conversion is mine. It's an affront to sensibility and reason. If you don't understand that, your bad.

"You're missing the whole message of the post-humous baptising."

This has been tried before and failed. Temple baptisms are considered "Free Speech". The courts do not and can not base their rulings off of the religious beliefs the the people suing or being sued. That would go against the establishment clause in the constitution as it would require the courts to favor one religion over another. They can't do that.

So, all they are left with is is freedom of speech, and the church can say whatever they want in their temples. There is no proof of any damage to the person who is dead, you can't even prove defamation because the person is dead and only the members of the LDS church believe the ceremony and everyone else believes it to be silly.

So, people combat it the only way they can, with more free speech, which is why you have people like Bill Mather performing "unbaptism" ceremonies for people which the church can do nothing about. They can't sue him because it's free speech and carries as much "real world" weight as the LDS's temple ceremonies.

Don't get me wrong. Now that I'm out of the church, I see it as the horrible practice it is. But it's their time to waste and the courts can't do anything about it.

Also, are you truly worried that a practice being done by a religion you don't believe in can "force" your "conversion" They perform a ceremony, they update their records, it doesn't actually mean anything unless you believe that the LDS church is true and the God you believe in takes their record systems as meaningful.

The Mormon church did have to stop doing it for Holocaust victims. It lied and continued, but it was an agreement between the Jews and the Mormons to not baptize deceased Holocaust victims.

If it can do it for them, why not anyone else who finds it reprehensible?

That's where a court order could interject and make them stop.

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're missing the whole message of the
> post-humous baptising.
>
> It's against our inalienable right of freedom of
> conscience not to be subjected to that in this
> life or after death.
>
Double negatives aside, where is this 'right'? What document? What precedence?

You can be offended til the cows come home but to assert there is an 'inalienable right' is to invite questions.

If you simply think it's someone's 'bad' that he/she doesn't agree with your reasoning, that is immaturity at best.

I would love to see the reaction of the judge when he reads the complaint and comes across the phrase "a violation of an integral aspect of the human soul".

The Do Not Call list is codified in law by congress. I doubt that they would be willing to pass any laws dealing with integral aspects of human souls. But I could be wrong... congress has done some weird stuff in the past.

It was codified in law because enough people complained to the point something was done about it. That's how laws get passed.

Your rights stop where mine and others begin.

The Mormon church does not have the right to post-humously baptize anyone who requested they be left alone in life and went to the length to remove their name from church records - not only for time. It shouldn't be a game in perpetuity - that whenever you die you can count on being rebaptized even if it is against your wishes.

You sound like a Mopologist to try and rationalize the practice of dead dunking.

I'm with you, Amyjo. I got my name off the records, and have sent letters demanding they not re-baptize me after death. They said they "won't initiate" it, but someone could still do it. I DON'T WANT IT. How dare they take all I have left (my name) after I'm gone, and use it for something I am so against?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2017 01:34PM by brettys.

I have a JD degree, but am not a licensed practicing attorney, or I might try going up against the morg. I've been a paralegal for close to 30 years now, but know a good Constitutional case when I see one, and this is one.

If someone were to bring such a lawsuit you, me and others who are likeminded have actual standing to bring a suit against the church for our being subject to post-humous baptism after we're dead, against our wishes.

They will continue to ignore us, unless the courts intervene and demand them to cease and desist once and for all. Same thing happened with polygamy.

It takes the rule of law and order to tell the church what it can and cannot do in the eyes of the law. Otherwise it would have seceded a long time ago, and Utah would be a sovereign nation-state subject only to Mormon laws.

A good Civil Rights law firm might be interested in it on a contingency basis or pro bono. Or even perhaps the ACLU would be interested in taking it on behalf of those affected (which is really everyone who isn't LDS.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2017 06:17PM by Amyjo.

I don't know if we have to show how we would "be harmed" by this practice in order to sue. If there was a website where people could go to add their names to a list of those who demand not to be dead baptized, it might cause enough worry in the church to stop being so pushy. It needs to be out there for all to see. Bad PR is the only way to make the mo church change.

The Mo church doesn't care about 'bad' publicity, or it wouldn't have banned gays and their children from membership.

It will continue to dead baptize decedents for as long as it can get away with it. That's been its modus operandi, and publicly shaming it isn't going to make it change.

Only the courts can make it do that, based on its history.

It's entrenched in its temple rituals, as part of its 'busy work.' When it has a "Cease and Desist" order, with possible fines and penalties for violating it built in, only then will it stop its practice once and for all.

It doesn't respect our rights, and as far as it doesn't have to, it isn't going to.

This is probably the same for any organization that keeps historical records of membership. For example, we know that Eleanore Roosevelt was a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR) who resigned from that organization when it refused to allow Marian Anderson to preform in its Constitution Hall because of Ms. Anderson's race. DAR records will show that ER was a member from - to - .

My Morg records will show that I was a member from - to - . They may also indicate that I resigned my membership on -. To me, that date is a sign of honor.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2017 01:01PM by BYU Boner.

We do not have full right of ownership on the records kept while we were in the mormon church. What we did in that organization is a matter of record which mormons filed and can refer to later.

The mormon church also uses these records for their dead dunkings and other temple rites so they can do the mock rites to restore membership and such to the dead.

Organizations and people don't keep permanent records on non-criminals out of a sense of security or hope, but out of a kind of paranoia and profound institutionalized insecurity.

They keep records of every person ever baptized and any child born of in a family if one parent was or is a member.

I asked about that one time. The answer I got was: "we think eternally."

This is a church that thinks there are angels keeping records also!

There is nothing they can do with those records outside of their church though. It's a "So What" issue with me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2017 01:06PM by SusieQ#1.

I wonder if the "you're allowed to be forgotten" laws of Europe apply to the mormon church?

I think a former mormon in Europe can demand that records be removed.

I think it doesn't happen in the church. The church is able and has the means to find ways to go around such laws and regulations, though it is true that our data privacy laws are stronger than in the US. Members' data is transferred to SLC anyway, where it is kept forever.

If someone wants to be baptized again, the church can check their record and restore lost ordinances or they can know if the person was guilty of a sin that needs purging.

it's pretty annoying. I wonder if they count in the people who have left when they say how many members there are.

maybe a hacker could go in and erase records.

Not likely... they have massive backups stored in Mormon Mountain.

Like it or not, you are in the church records, forever... and there is nothing you can do about it.

Plus, there is almost a 100% chance you will be dead dunked after you die by a future ancestor.

This is why ex-Mormons need to group together and bring a class action lawsuit. We're not only doing it for ourselves, but for future posterity.

A future ancestor? Are you Marty McFly? XD

This Mormon Mountain of which you speak sounds interesting. Where is it?

At the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. The old granite quarry.

I really don't care if they have my "records" or not. The reality is, that if you come from a long line of Mormons, have Mormon children and grandchildren then your name and status will probably be linked to them.

In this day and age of digital information you can always rest assured that somebody has your info. Somebody that you wish hadn't. Information never just "goes away". It is fair to expect them to keep a record of those who leave. And what harm does it cause? So what?

As far as a lawsuit, you would have to show that somehow you are harmed by them having your records still intact and they can make an argument that they do have a right to keep records of people who do leave the ranks for liability purposes, a fair argument. And then your name and records would still be linked to the church even more permanently now.

Your out!!! Your free!!! They are leaving you alone!!!!

All the more reason to force excommunication rather than go away quietly.

As Groucho Marx said, I'd never join a club that would have me as a member.

However, I've been kicked out of finer establishments than this.

They are in the drivers seat. They brought charges and kicked you out in hopes you might become contrite enough to repent and return under their rules and guidance.

The purpose of resigning is NOT to "remove your name from church records". That's just a stupid and misleading euphemism the church uses because it makes it sound like they are in charge of the process.

The purpose of resigning is to terminate your membership in the church. It does in fact do that.

I received my pre printed fill in the blank "Ecclesiastical matter" letter on January 3rd.but never heard from local bishop or stake or any follow up letter from SLC. So as far as I am concerned I am more then done and the cult and all of its despicable people can take a leap off of a high mountain.

This isn't supposed to be here, but it is!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/03/2017 08:17PM by moremany.

I accept that names are never actually moved from their files. I also believe that resigned and Xed former members are still counted in the claimed 15 million member number. Would that provide a better legal issue if they are using our names to improperly support false advertising?

No, your name is just one of 15 million, if they singled you out personally as an endorsement then maybe that would work, but on it's face it wouldn't.

Removing Mormonism from your windshield is more like it. Resigning is like turning your (ass) wipers on.

Whatever busy work and paper shuffling they feel they need to do to occupy their time is of no concern to me. I "resigned" nearly 30 years ago by requesting to be excommunicated in a letter to the stake prez before there was any such thing as resigning. When they informed me of my "court" date, I told them whatever they needed to do was not my concern as long as I was no longer a member of their church, but that I would not be participating. I said everything I needed to say in my letter requesting excommunication, so leave me the f**k alone!

I don't care what they do with the records. If I cancel a credit card, my records remain in their files as well.

I have my final out letter and will shove it back at them if they try to treat me as one of their members.

We have always known this to be the case.

And it's moot, because I'm not Mormon

"I feel the same way. I resigned my membership, so I don't care if those records were simply removed to another file somewhere. As I'm not a member legally, they have no power over me."

Actually, they never did have any power over you, unless you allowed it. Same after you resign.

Which is why I don't bother resigning and wasting my time, and giving them power. I quit in my mind, and now I'm free. No need to fret endlessly about what they do with my records, or whether they dead dunk me or whatever.

The more time they waste on me the better.

If you don't want them bothering you, just become a threat by sharing information they don't want to hear.

The question is who pays the attorney fees and court fees. And how likely is it that the plaintiff will prevail?

The attorneys will only accept a case if the plaintiff provides a substantial "retainer fee" which is an advance payment for the work that the attorneys will perform. They are NOT cheap!

In a situation where the attorneys don't believe there is much chance of prevailing, that tends to increase the size of the retainer. If the lawsuit is lost, the defendants will likely counter sue for their attorney fees, and that will be a substantial amount.

RfM poster Amyjo has been proposing a lawsuit without considering who will pay the fees and how much those fees will be. I suggest that $400,000 is a good starting point. That would be 1000 people paying $400 each.

If that doesn't sound like a sum that can be raised, then people on RfM should cease and desist from mentioning a lawsuit.

I agree that a law suit is not likely to happen and wouldn't work even if the money was forthcoming.

However, no one has a right to try to shut down discussion with directives on what we "should" or should not say on RfM.

Sorry, but you are the one who is out of line.

I am an exmormon, but first time poster. This April will be two years since I confronted some of the church authorities in my Ward with some of the evidence that
I had found concerning the BOA, BOM, the fraud trial of JS, etc. I remem
ber being hurt, angry, and scared.
I later was treated like an infectious apostate. I've been lurking here for about a
year or so. I'm with Amy Jo. But there should be a list of demands to be settled.
All those years wasted, all that money down the drain, choices made that benefitted the church instead of me, even the lo
ss of a marriage. They want to claim me in my death by secret temple rituals. WTH?.

Right now you are pissed, and rightfully so! You are the victim of a fraud and want justice. I understand. Many years ago I was where you are now.

The tithing and marriage are gone. Spent. You can't get it back. They will always say that you voluntarily made choices to pay your tithing and you made decisions that cost you your marriage. They will deny accountability and legally be correct, if not morally.

What to do now? Living well is always the best revenge. Don't look back. Rebuild, explore pursuits you wanted to but couldn't before. You now have a ten percent raise and weekends off! Spend Sundays worshipping the Sun at the beach. Forests, Mountains and parks await.

There are no "lists of demands to be settled". Your DONE!

It was easy for me, I never paid any tithing, never went on a mission and frankly, I was not missed when I left. Other than the odd phone call from membership records or a nosy Mormon neighbor they really don't seem to want me back.

Spend time and effort on the relationships and personal self that you lost to the Church. Spent your effort on the things that are out there, not on the things they took. If you fight them they win. They have you fighting with them and again have your time and money occupied thinking about them. You will never have a clear victory, odds are they would just throw you a small bone of maybe several grand to just go-away and in the end you would take it because fighting them is so futile.

In time they will become an increasingly distant memory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2017 09:43AM by Whiskeytango.

Hello and welcome to RfM. I'm with you too on this.

The only way to get the church to cease and desist is to get a court order prohibiting it from maintaining files on former LDS members, non-members, never-Mos, you-name-it.

All of us have "standing" to bring a class action lawsuit, were one to be brought before the courts, as it affects our civil right of privacy to be left alone and free from church ties in both life and after death.

If I choose to be LDS is one thing. I've chosen to not be, and resigned my membership. That *should* be enough to suffice for now and in perpetuity. Mormonism is the only religion I know to practice this death cult of religious rites upon deceased former members - whether it excommunicated them before death or someone resigned makes no difference to the mischief makers.

Their quote unquote *rights* stop where yours and mine begin.

It's basic Civil Rights. Those who say it doesn't matter after we're dead and gone, don't understand how offensive it is to us or they wouldn't go there.

Plus, I'm Jewish by birth. That's a double whammy to a Jew. I'm not even a Gentile according to both Mormon and Jewish doctrine. Yet because I have Mormons on one side of my family there is no "opt-out" provision for me and others of my posterity after we're dead. Why isn't there? That is something that should go without saying. If I don't will myself to be a Mormon now, don't subject me to it after I'm gone and powerless to object.

That's the ultimate anti-Semitic act there is, worse than death itself.

If someone were to bring a class action lawsuit, please SIGN ME UP. Let it go all the way to the Supreme Court. Once the justices realize they are subject to this as well as you, me, and everyone else - I don't see how it wouldn't be a slam dunk victory for our side!

Ultimately we're talking about history. I don't like the idea of trying to retroactively erase my history, no matter how embarrassing. For me that's a tad too Orwellian.

I'm happy to be divorced, but my marriage is still on record with the state, along with all sorts of records such as joint tax returns.

Resignation severs your membership and helps you move on from it, but it doesn't change the past.