Each of us is automatically out of the mormon church when we tell them we are out. We can turn in a letter and when they receive it, we are no longer one of them legally. We can also tell them face to face or by email.

In the US we have freedom of religion and freedom of association. We say when we're no longer a member of an organization. Only the mafia and mormons have trouble with this idea.

They can ask us to give them a temple recommend and they can ask us to attend a meeting with the bishop or ask us to sign papers stating whatever they want. But it's up to us if we want to do any of that because as nonmembers, mormon church people have no more official sway over us.

It might be easier to follow their extra steps, but it certainly is not legally required.

We have a right to say, "I'm no longer a member of your church. I already quit. Kindly stop treating me as if you're in charge of me. Goodbye."

And do not tell them that you wish "name removal".
Simply tell them that you are no longer a member. Watch their heads explode when they cannot manipulate you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2018 11:46AM by Dave the Atheist.

Just as an additional point: it's not legally required for you anyone to follow their steps even if you ARE still a member.

It may be "ecclesiactially required," but never legally required. Ever.

Their tea party, their stuffed animals, their rules. The opinions of Ken and Barbie aren’t considered by the courts, but I’d lawyer up just in case.

Like

^^^^ I like it too!

This is exactly the point I tried to make with my inactive son's "minister" a while ago. (see my post - You'll do it our way").

I whole-heartedly agree that there is no legal requirement to put your resignation in writing, it is simply enough to say I no longer belong to your organisation.

IMHO,the requirement for a written resignation is nothing more than authoritarian games playing. No matter which way one chooses to leave TSCC, a person's name is never completely removed from the records.

But if an employee says, "I quit as of today, their pay and benefits will reflect that they resigned as of that day. HR might not like it that they didn't follow established procedures but that doesn't mean they are still employed.

Anyone can quit a church for any reason and do it in any number of ways.

I prefer “smashing the shackles of slavery”, but your way works too.

I LOVED being able to resign!

It's like the difference between having to ask to be excused from the table as a kid (and maybe being told, "Not until you've finished your spinach.") versus being able to stand up, thank the provider of the meal, taking your plate to the kitchen, rinsing it and putting it in the dishwasher when YOU choose to do so.

We are adults. We have our own power.

On the other hand, I would not have wanted them to excommunicate me since I had done nothing wrong and would have had to come up with a bogus sin to accomplish it.

By custom and practice, membership in an organization is formalized by some written request, or act of commitment, or both. There is some act that communicates to the organization your interest in being a member, and supporting whatever it is the organization stands for, and a corresponding act admitting you to membership. That is just how organizations work. If you are a child, the act of membership is controlled by parents.

Similarly, as a matter of social custom and practice, leaving an organization after such a commitment has been made, also involves some formal social process, like a letter of resignation. These formalities allow organizations to function, and the law would most certainly recognize this in the appropriate legal context.

So, can you "resign" by merely announcing your resignation? Well, maybe, but arguably, the more formal your prior commitment, the more important is a formal resignation. In Mormonism, from the point of view of the organization, you are a member unless you formally resign. This is in keeping with standard custom and practice for organizations generally, and I find nothing unreasonable about such a policy.

How about legally? This is more complicated, because it depends on the legal context. But, as an attorney of 30 years, I can certainly imagine both a civil and criminal context where membership in an organization was relevant, and where the parties argued about the status of such membership. Suppose a person committed a violent act in the Church, or on a Church outing, say murder or rape, and the victim attempted to hold the Church legally accountable on some legal theory. As a juror, would you accept a defense made by the Church that included a claim that the perpetrator was not a member because he had orally resigned? Maybe, but probably not.

In short, social custom and practice have legal significance all the time, in a wide variety of legal contexts, where criminal, and or civil liability is an issue. So, how one resigns can be important.

I believe that many people who refuse to formally resign from the Church by claiming that this is somehow succumbing to Mormon authority are really just trying to avoid the negative consequences of such a formal act; perhaps still unsure that they want to let go. Asking a member to submit a resignation letter is not a display of authority, it is a normal request supported by custom and practice that benefits both parties.

"I am no longer part of this ward or organization. Process the paper work and don't count me as a member. Goodbye."

Henry wrote

"...How about legally? This is more complicated, because it depends on the legal context. But, as an attorney of 30 years, I can certainly imagine both a civil and criminal context where membership in an organization was relevant, and where the parties argued about the status of such membership. Suppose a person committed a violent act in the Church, or on a Church outing, say murder or rape, and the victim attempted to hold the Church legally accountable on some legal theory. As a juror, would you accept a defense made by the Church that included a claim that the perpetrator was not a member because he had orally resigned? Maybe, but probably not."

I am not an attorney, nor am I American, but I think our legal systems are pretty similar.So as a juror in a case like that above, I would be asking for clarification as to when the oral resignation was submitted and would expect to be shown paperwork generated by the church. After all they are supposedly a record keeping organisation and if they had indeed accepted an oral resignation there would be paperwork on their end to back up this claim.

By the way there are no negative consequences for me in resigning, I was ex'd many years ago.

I am no longer a mormon and I told my bishop to not contact me anymore. That said I didn't do a more formal resignation. I don't care if the mormons still have me on their books. That is their problem not mine. They lie about so many things why not lie about me still being a member?

If any mormons want to visit me and talk about the church I'm open to that but I don't think it will go the way the think it will. Once you see the man behind the curtain it is hard to un-see it.

I'm not sure what legal ramifications there would be for not formally requesting a resignation. All of my friends and family members know that I'm not a mormon. The church may have power over my TBM family but not over me. I'm out of the cult. End of story.

People don't seem to realize that it isn't LDS Inc that sets up the rules for resigning. The US legal system does. If LDS Inc had their druthers, you wouldn't be able to resign at all. They didn't invent the rules. The rules were imposed on them.


No, technically, you don't have to write a letter. But you know, it is handy to have some sort of record that you actually resigned. Also, LDS Confidential Records in SLC knows how to process a resignation. Your bishop may or may not have a clue. Better to write the records office.

“If LDS Inc had their druthers, you wouldn't be able to resign at all. They didn't invent the rules. The rules were imposed on them.”

That is so true. I was in a bishopric back in the 1980s and I had to participate in a “court of love” and excommunicate just to make some poor guy who didn’t want to be a member anymore an ex-member.

"People don't seem to realize that it isn't LDS Inc that sets up the rules for resigning. The US legal system does."

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

I keep a copy of my final out letter from the church. It can be used as a legal document against them if they ever attempt to treat me as one of their members.

It isn't the legal system.

Any organization can set up any rules they want for being members or for resigning.

The legal system is only an issue if an organization claims that anyone who ever attended is still a member and they have no way to resign.

They set up a procedure and if people follow it, they're out. If they leave in other ways, they are also out.

My only point is that my final out letter is an official letter from the church's headquarters, with a signature of one of their representatives. I have a a valid document that will hold up in any court against them if they ever attempt to treat me as one of their own.

Personally, I loved resigning! It gave me the chance to TELL them that I was no longer a member. I TOLD THEM that my temple marriage and all other ordinances were null and void. I TOLD THEM that my children had nothing to do with the temple or the Mormon church. I kept my letter to one page, but I was able to TELL them all my valid reasons for resigning. At the end, I TOLD them I wanted no further contact, and I meant it.

I felt it was an opportunity to vent--even if they probably didn't read the letter, and I received a mass-printed form letter, without my name even on it, from them. No "thank you for your years of service and donations." That would be a Mormon deviation!

I wish I could resign again and again, every year, with that group that meets at Ensign Peak.

Socially, I felt it was polite to give notice I was resigning from my callings, and tell my class and music people. They needed time to find substitutes. I did NOT feel obligated to find my own substitute. I did NOT agree to teach others to play the organ, for free, so one of them could take my place. These were merely VOLUNTEER positions.

Keep in mind--it's all VOLUNTEER.

That means that there were NO exmormons until the mormon church came up with their standard resignation procedure.

That means that everyone who left the church before that time was still mormon after they quit attending, quit paying tithes, quit believing, quit saying they were mormon and declared that they would never return.

The constitution was in effect before, during and after the court case which forced the mormon church to admit that a letter would prove someone had left.

Not attending a church for decades and chasing with a finger or a garden hose any church representatives who show up is also proof that a person is choosing not to be a member. Saying they are not members is all it takes under the law. The law does not force a person to associate or participate in a church just because they haven't written a letter.

Membership is up to the individual, not a policeman and not an organization.

"I believe that many people who refuse to formally resign from the Church by claiming that this is somehow succumbing to Mormon authority are really just trying to avoid the negative consequences of such a formal act; perhaps still unsure that they want to let go." (HB)

When you formally resign, I will believe that the motivation for your argument is not just personal. Your posts smack of anger and resentment, which is understandable, but does not excuse irrationality. Based upon some history, and some formal action of commitment, you became a member of the Church, like it or not. (Me too!) The suggestion that you would chose to challenge that association by "chasing [representatives] with a finger or a garden hose" rather than simply communicating in writing your desire to resign, is extremely telling as to your psychological state. Get some professional help, and write the damn letter. (Unless, of course, the garden hose routine is part of your therapy.)

Cheryl can answer this, but it is my impression that Cheryl had resigned at the time of the hose incident, but that that the harassment didn’t cease despite the paperwork having been done and numerous other attempts to get the harassment to stop. In fact, I don’t think it really ended until the police got involved. If you tell someone to leave you alone and they keep bothering you, that is harassment.

The dreaded finger? Not my style. But it might help others who are comfortable with it.

Members, non-members, exmos, anyone has a right to tell mormons or anyone else to stop harassing them. If they continue to harass after that, they don't deserve kindness.

Only mind readers can comment and judge inner feelings. Are you getting paid for you ESP claims?

they can ex you if they want you out and you wont resign. they could ex you by waving their hand and saying the words but they use a formal procedure and document it

Our religion, if we have one, is a part of our social life. They're not our parent. They're not the police. They're not our boss at work.

Now that I'm away from religion, I'm constantly amazed at the control that churches often have over their members.

I never had to resign from the Catholic church. I simply walked away. Why? There was never a minute's worth of harassment. No one ever called or showed up on my doorstep, begging me to come back. The Catholic church does not track its members. My local parish has no idea that I exist. Nor would they, unless I chose to go put my name on its roll. And finally, the church would never dream of excommunicating me. I am off of the Catholic church's radar to the same extent that they are off of my radar.

Yes, simply saying "I quit" should be enough. But with the Mormon church, a formal, written resignation is a good idea, because this is a church that doesn't respect its membership.

If not for several lawsuits against the church, no one would be able to resign from the church. Attempting to do so years ago was a sure way to get excommunicated.

I once attended the annual congregational meeting of a local
Presbyterian Church. One of the things they did was pass out a
sheet of paper with annual stats on it (including a financial
breakdown of the congregation's finances). The meeting was open
to anyone who walked in.

One of the stats on the handout was the number of members
dropped from the congregation because of not attending for a
year. They figured if you hadn't attended for a whole year you
weren't interested in being a member of their congregation any
more. The total number of Presbyterians in the world is
calculated by adding up the total number of members of all the
congregations.

Imagine what the membership stats for TSCC would be if they no
longer counted anyone who hadn't attended for a year? When
membership numbers of the Mormons is compared with membership
numbers of other churches, just remember that it's a fake
comparison. The numbers don't mean the same thing.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the law force the LDS Church to allow members to resign because the church only excommunicated people? If you weren't excommunicated, the church still considered you a member to harass?

I thought the courts brought resignation to Mormons who wished to be taken off the rolls without having to be excommunicated?

Vaughn J Featherstone was the area president in Oz and I told him personally to Get Stuffed. That did it for me. Over Rover.

I need details on this story if you can provide them.

How can someone assume another is a member of any church?


Demonstrating membership in an organization means attending meetings, paying donations, declaring adherence, following regulations and not saying one is NOT a member.

Once someone hasn't attended a meeting for decades, hasn't paid a cent of tithes, doesn't adhere to the rules of an organization and consistently says they don't belong,they are not members in any sense of the word. No court or reasonable person would say such a person is a member of the church in question.

If the church or organization still counts them as members, they are mistaken or lying.

How can someone assume another is a member of any church?

COMMENT: An assumption is created when that person's name appears on a membership record or list of members--even if mistaken. When this occurs, it is reasonable to assume that the person in question is a member of that organization, regardless of that person's mindset.
_______________________________________

Demonstrating membership in an organization means attending meetings, paying donations, declaring adherence, following regulations and not saying one is NOT a member.

COMMENT: This is a slippery slope that demonstrates precisely why you are wrong. At what point does "membership" kick in? What degree of attendance, amount of donations, declarations, following regulations, etc., or any combination of the same, tips the balance and "membership" is established. This is precisely why the formalities of membership and resignation are important.
________________________________________

Once someone hasn't attended a meeting for decades, hasn't paid a cent of tithes, doesn't adhere to the rules of an organization and consistently says they don't belong,they are not members in any sense of the word. No court or reasonable person would say such a person is a member of the church in question.

COMMENT: Same problem applies. Suppose, on your hypothetical, the person causally states to a friend, or perhaps only thinks to herself, "You know what, I really am a member, I need to hedge my bets, just in case it turns out to be true." Now, is that person a member or not? How, on earth can anything definitive be established by your definition of membership. It is absurd.
_____________________________________________

If the church or organization still counts them as members, they are mistaken or lying.

COMMENT: No. They still count them as a member because they have not formalized their resignation. Such an organization may have policies that define membership by active participation, and may thus remove someone's membership in such a case, but there is nothing irrational, disingenuous, or immoral about having an organizational requirement that someone who has previously made a commitment and joined the organization through some formal process, resign by some non-intrusive formal process.

What is far more interesting about this post is your personal psychology making this an issue. It's just a letter. And if that is what the organization wants to remove you from membership what is the big deal. Again, you (or your parents) signed up. You not only applied for membership, you interviewed for it, put on a white dress or jumpsuit, and allowed someone to dunk you in water to demonstrate your commitment. A letter of resignation is hardly an intrusive burden to undue this commitment.

Now, it is fair to ask what my psychology is on this issue. It is this. I am sick and tired of people who make excuse after excuse to remain formally affiliated with a Church they deem to be false and immoral, in many cases in order to ease their personal burden with family and friends. You seem to enjoy the confrontations that result by constantly sitting on the membership fence. This posts bleeds with irrational defenses and excuses for that posture. If the Church is false--which it is--then "woman up" and get the hell out. And stop making a reasonable resignation process just another offensive doctrine.

It doesn't matter what church people think because they're no longer an issue.

Cheryl did “woman up” and resign. It did not stop the harassment.

Other churches do not do this. I think that your history as a Mormon has blinded you to just how aberrant it is for an organization to harass those that leave. In normal society, it just isn’t done.

The whole resignation process had to be imposed by an outside court to allow Mormons to free themselves, because the Mormons refused to accept that anyone could resign and be free. That isn’t normal.

You are misrepresenting Cheryl’s experiences of leaving Mormonism and you are trying to legitimize and normalize a resignation process that only exists because Mormonism is so aberrant that the process had to be imposed on them from a court, something the courts didn’t have to do for Catholics, Episcopalians, etc.

When you tell most people that you you are no longer interested, they say okay and leave you alone. That is the normal standard of behavior.

Cheryl did “woman up” and resign. It did not stop the harassment.

COMMENT: When did she say that? Her definition of "resign" is established by this post, which implies that she has not formally resigned, but "resigned" only by her actions and conduct. If she has formally resigned, let's hear it from her.
________________________________________

Other churches do not do this. I think that your history as a Mormon has blinded you to just how aberrant it is for an organization to harass those that leave. In normal society, it just isn’t done.

COMMENT: My history as a Mormon has not blinded me to anything, including moral outrage when it is appropriate. Obviously some organizations, churches or secular, take membership more seriously than others, that is not the point. Moreover, harassment should not be tolerated, and I have never said otherwise. However, I left the Church years ago, and have not ever been harassed. I do not know of any person who formally resigned who has been harassed, other than by disappointed family members. (A missionary randomly showing up at your door is not harassment based upon a prior membership.) I suspect Cheryl's "harassment" is tied to her continued formal membership, her insistence that she should not have to resign, and her penchant for confrontation.
___________________________________________

The whole resignation process had to be imposed by an outside court to allow Mormons to free themselves, because the Mormons refused to accept that anyone could resign and be free. That isn’t normal.

COMMENT: O.K. I agree with the Court. There needs to be a process of voluntary resignation. However, no Court has demanded that the Church "automatically" remove someone for lack of participation, or a verbal demand. Notice that the Court did NOT say that "membership" in an organization is something casual, insignificant, or informal. Quite the opposite, the Court's ruling showed that membership in an organization involved individual rights that encompassed the right to resign. Thus, the ruling supports formality in a resignation process!

__________________________________________

You are misrepresenting Cheryl’s experiences of leaving Mormonism and you are trying to legitimize and normalize a resignation process that only exists because Mormonism is so aberrant that the process had to be imposed on them from a court, something the courts didn’t have to do for Catholics, Episcopalians, etc.

COMMENT: I take it you also have not resigned? What are *you* afraid of? You cannot delegitimize an organization by denying the reasonableness of a resignation process that requires only a letter of such intent. That is absurd. Again, the fact that the Courts imposed a voluntary process of resignation demonstrates that "membership" is legitimized by such a process. If membership was not important, and legally meaningful, there would be no need to impose a resignation process.
______________________________________

When you tell most people that you you are no longer interested, they say okay and leave you alone. That is the normal standard of behavior.

COMMENT: The normal standard of behavior for a person who discovers that the organization he or she belongs to, and voluntarily joined, is false and immoral is to resign from that organization. That is the reason the Court's imposed a process to effectuate such resignation. Someone who has a very easy way to remove themselves from such an association, but continues to be a "member" because of some pseudo argument based upon a refusal to submit to authority is kidding themselves about their motives.

Look, there are exMormons on this Board who have lost everything because of their moral courage to formally resign from Mormonism and accept the consequences. So, I am not impressed by someone who makes ridiculous arguments, like those in this post, most likely to avoid the adverse consequences that might result if they act in accordance with their conscience. Apparently, for some "harassment" is a lesser personal "evil" than confronting friends and family members with the fact of resignation. Moreover, they get to claim "harassment" every time a Mormon shows up at their door, with the added bonus of being mean-spirited and confrontational.

Perhaps you should read what people post. Cheryl states clearly in one of her posts above in response to you that she resigned long before the garden hose incident.

I happen to have never been Mormon (the clue is in my name) and that’s why I find this whole process so Bizzarre and so aberrant and so absolutely unnecessary in normal society. It’s a symptom of everything that’s wrong with Mormonism that people have to formally resign in order not to be harassed. And as per Cheryl’s experience, formal resignation does not always stop harassement

I received a phone call from a local mormon woman. She said I was assigned to bring and "hot dish" to a stake event.

When I complained on this board, apologists like the one above told me that sometimes lists are not updated very quickly and I should have expected continued contact after resigning.

Sheesh!

I and especially my husband were annoyed that mormons continued to contact me as if I were still part of their organization. Some don't care about that. We did, and it damaged the marriage and our home life and privacy.

Claiming I lack ethics and claiming I'm still a member is simply insulting and uncalled for. Saying I should sacrifice my marriage and privacy to satisfy outsiders is unreasonable and I refuse to do it.

Telling a Mormon official that you are no longer a Mormon makes it so------for you. It doesn't for them.

Saying that other churches don't do this has nothing to do with the Mormon church. The Mormon church does do this.

Saying regular people would not even consider you a member if you don't go or care has nothing to do with this. The Mormons do still consider you a member and do care in a busybody way.

The Mormons do have their own structure, their own methods, and their own maddening way of being. If your name is on their list then from their point of view you are subject to that. Just because it is rude, and intrusive does not make it so.

You may not be a member of the Mormon church in your heart and in your mind, but, Mormons aren't particularly interested in that. Especially since they are out to resurrect everyone's testimony who is still on their list.

I wasn't a Mormon in my heart and mind the second I learned it was a lie. The Mormons still considered me one though. That is how it works. Just because they shouldn't doesn't matter.

Cheryl " they can ask us to attend a meeting with the bishop"

Hmmmm…… let me think …. I'm quitting because I don't want to go to any church meetings . . . . and you want me to come to a meeting with you. What seems wrong with that? The church is such a joke!

If it were me,I'd just stop attending altogether. If they wanted to see me I'd say "no thanks". If they asked why, I'd say "my reasons are personal" Keep them guessing....

I'm a proponent of a formal letter to remove my name or membership from any organization, or possibly employment.
I also prefer a formal letter recognizing my action.

For me, personally, getting that letter confirming I was no longer a member was very important. It was a physical notification that my word in a letter, was taken seriously. It removed my name so they had no reason to contact me for any reason. It was a final act that put teeth in my choice. It was a physical manifestation that I cut the ties, both physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually.
One of the best things I did for myself. It forced them to recognize my choice, in writing. It was great!
I took my power back and owned it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/10/2018 09:41PM by SusieQ#1.