So I get home from work today and had a flyer taped on my door. 4th ward summer celebration.
Back story I resigned (had my name removed) what ever term you desire to categorize it almost six years ago. I handed the letter personally to the bishop. Told him I had nothing to discuss about it and left. I had my confirmation back in two weeks.
Two weeks later I had a flyer on my door. I ignored it and threw it in the garbage. Three weeks later I had a book of mormon stories video on my porch with a letter saying how a nice member of the ward bought enough to give the one to every family in the ward.
I took that video up to the church since it was a Sunday handed it to the bishop and told him I did not want anything else church related left on my door or porch.
For the last five years I have had nothing church related. This year I have had 3 flyers 4 counting the one today.
I do know a new bishop was put in at the end of last year.
I look up his name and give him a call.
I ask if this is Mr.XXXXX (Bishop) I did not address him as bishop I only used his proper name. I introduce myself and I proceed to tell him I found the flyer on my door and it is not the first one this year. I then tell him I do not want any more church related items left on my door or on my porch.
Bishop: Just throw it away.
Me: Oh I will but I want you to know I don't want anything else so you can tell the people putting them on my door to not do it any more.
Bishop: These were only 8 year old little girls who don't know what type of person lives at that house. Let's have a three way call and call the police to have them come and arrest these poor little girls.
Me; Oh for christ sake you are being dramatic about this. I am just saying I do not want any more of the church paraphernalia left on my porch.
Bishop: They are only 8 year old girls.
Me: They had to have an adult with them. The adult should have been informed that I have made this request in the past.
Bishop: I can't control little girls from putting flyers on your door.
Me: You can control the adult with them by telling them to have the little girls walk right past my house.
Bishop; I am sorry you have been offended by a group of little girls.
Me: I am not offended by a group of little 8 year old girls. I am telling you once again I do not want church related flyers and items on my porch.
Bishop: This is for a neighborhood party not church related.
Me: No it says 4th ward summer celebration. WARD that is church. It even says if you have any questions contact the elders quorum leadership. That is you as bishop.
Bishop: No it is not me I am not the elders quorum president.
Me: As bishop of the ward you are in charge.
Bishop: Well sister flutterbypurple.
Me:(seeing red) Do not call me sister anything. I am in no way your sister in any way shape or form.
Bishop: Well this is no different then getting a flag in your yard on the occasions the youth put them out.
Me: I have not had a flag in my yard from the ward youth for over ten damn years.
Bishop: Well I am sorry you are not patriotic.
Me: Poor choice of comparisons. Has nothing to do with being patriotic.This about getting ward related items when I am not a member of the church and have no desire to be.
Bishop: Well I am sorry you have been offended by 8 year old girls.
Me: Is my name still on the ward directory and map.
Bishop: Oh hell no!
Me: Well then send that map out with the adult supervising those little 8 year old girls with an x on it so they do not put it on my porch.
Bishop: I am sorry that I will have to go into primary and explain to those little girls to stay away from your house because you do not have compassion or love for your neighbors and you are just a confrontational person.
Me: Oh my god the big bad lady in the corner house stay away from her she might kill your puppies and kittens in front of you if you step in her yard. You are an asshole mr bishop. Talk about me being confrontational. If you are trying to make me feel guilty about not wanting items from your church on my door it is not working.
Bishop: Well I just will have to tell those little girls we will have to handcuff them as they walk past your house so they can not put anything on your porch. (Swear to whomever he did say this)
Me: If you put handcuffs on 8 year old little girls I will be calling the cops for more than leaving me flyers.

Do Not Put Church Related Items On My Porch.

Bishop: If this happens again feel free to call me and be confrontational again and we can again have a nice conversation about how you do not like your neighbors.

Oh my hell. I am sure glad I had this conversation with this bishop because I never knew that I am such a bad person for not wanting cult paraphernalia on my door or my porch. If he thinks I won't call again he has another think coming.
I have boundaries and you are starting to cross them. I am going to tell him over and over again if I have to. I have no fear of these men. Yeah I could ignore the items but this really was so much fun. A couple of calls from me and he will get tired of hearing from me. Me on the other hand will never get tired of standing up to men who think they have some control over me but really don't.

Give him hell!!!

Keep on fighting the good fight.

If I were talking to him, I can guarantee that the phrase "listen, you smug little asshole..." would have been part of the conversation.

I would suggest if you ever have to talk to this jerk again, record the call (recording conversations is easy with a smartphone. I'm pretty sure you need an app that costs money to record a phone call).

Laws regarding recording phone calls vary by state. In Utah, only one person in a recorded conversation needs to know it is being recorded.

Assuming your recording meets legal muster, if he behaves the same as you reported in this conversation, I'd send an electronic copy of the conversation along with a letter of complaint to his stake president and to Kirton and McConkie, LDS Inc's law firm. I'm sure they will inform him that he will stop being a jerk, or he will be released/fired as bishop.

That ought to shut him up. This guy is a real piece of work.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 01:20AM by Brother Of Jerry.

Recording any future calls is a very good Idea and one I will do.

Charming bishop. He came across as so eloquent despite his sphincter constricting his neck.

Feel free to give that jerkass as much trouble as he gives you. Preferably with the law on your side.

I would call or email member records and tell them that you are still receiving materials from the local ward even though you have been resigned for many years. Tell them that you consider this to be harassment of a resigned member. See if they can help you.

A copy of your final out letter is proof from the church that you are no longer a member. Perhaps a restraining order against the church through the court would light a fire under that bishop's ass.

I would think a stern letter to the stake president, perhaps sent on an attorney's letterhead, would do the trick. I'd lay out the history briefly, summarize the conversation with the bishop, and threaten to get a restraining order and to contact the press.

I guess a transcript of a new conversation with the bishop would make the case stronger, but I doubt it is necessary.

Maybe so. Me, I would consider just going straight for the bishop with a restraining order.

Sure. But that would take several hundred dollars and significant time. If FBP has the resources, that's a good strategy.

There is no cost in a civil stalking injunction.
https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/forms/civilstalking/

The events described in the OP are not stalking. Stalking is about threats of violence, defamation, etc. That is evident in the phrase about causing "a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or to be afraid for the person's own safety or the safety of someone else." Visits by kids with no ill intent won't meet that standard. Moreover the bishop would need to have "caused" the little girls to make the visits: just knowing they were visiting isn't enough.

So the cause of action would have to be something else, something like disturbing the peace. And in either case, the initial injunction may be cost-free but if the target of the injunction (the church) responds with an attorney, the protected person would effectively need his or her own representation. Otherwise, the temporary injunction would not become a longer-term one and two months later the kids would be knocking on the door again.

FBP's leverage stems from the church's determination to avoid adverse publicity. A letter to the SP, copied to the COB and Kirton & McConkie, would probably have the desired effect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 03:29AM by Lot's Wife.

"The events described in the OP are not stalking."

I disagree.

https://www.utcourts.gov/resources/forms/civilstalking/

"The respondent engaged in or caused someone else to engage in any of the following acts:"

"appeared at petitioner's home or contacted petitioner's neighbors or entered property owned, leased, or occupied by the petitioner;"

"sent material to the petitioner by any means for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about the petitioner to a family member, household member, employer, co-worker, friend, or associate;"

"placed an object on or delivered an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the petitioner or to petitioner's place of employment with intent that the object be delivered to the petitioner;"

It doesn't have to be concern for safety. My resignation meant that I no longer consent to be treated as a member of the church. A case could be made for emotional distress by continuing to be treated as a member after having resigned.

There are many options available, I'm suggesting one possibility.

The other options are more promising.

First, under the law that you referenced, the bishop must have either done the "stalking" or "caused" it. Merely knowing that some kids are visiting a home is not enough. Can FBP prove that the bishop ordered the child visits? If not, the question devolves into whether an eight-year-old child is capable of forming the mens rea necessary to be a stalker herself.

Second, the standard is not what would cause any particular individual "emotional distress," it is what would have that effect on a "reasonable person"--a term of art that eliminates subjective considerations like being an ex-Mormon. The question is therefore whether occasional pamphlets, religiously neutral like supermarket flyers, would offend an average person with average sensitivities.

Third, there is case law about what counts as "emotional distress" with regard to stalking allegations in Utah. Stalking is usually charged when someone beats her spouse and then keeps approaching, or causing to be approached, that victim with the intent of inflicting serious anxiety. That sets a high standard, one that the appellate courts expanded upon in Ellison v. Stam, which held that “emotional distress results from conduct that is outrageous and intolerable in that it offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality.” There is little chance that occasional pamphlets left by kids constitutes "outrageous and intolerable" behavior violative of "the generally accepted standards of decency and morality."

FBP can could get a restraining order more easily based on other statutes. If it wanted to, the church could contest those efforts and very possibly prevail through the use of its financial resources and legal representation. But the publicity of such an effort would be highly problematic, so simply threatening legal action should cause the still small voice to do its thing.

"First, under the law that you referenced, the bishop must have either done the "stalking" or "caused" it. Merely knowing that some kids are visiting a home is not enough."

Nonsense. Those children didn't do it on their own, they were doing it for the church, of which the bishop is the immediate congregational pastor.

"Can FBP prove that the bishop ordered the child visits?"

Don't need to. He is responsible for the church activities of his congregation. His conversation with her when she informed him she wants no contact with the church reflects an attitude of negligence and indifference.

"Second, the standard is not what would cause any particular individual "emotional distress," it is what would have that effect on a "reasonable person"--a term of art that eliminates subjective considerations like being an ex-Mormon. The question is therefore whether occasional pamphlets, religiously neutral like supermarket flyers, would offend an average person with average sensitivities."

Disagree here. Religious entities are not protected when they impose their will on those unwilling to submit to it. The final out letter is evidence that the individual has withdrawn consent to be treated as a member. There was in fact a pre-existing relationship between flutterbypurple and the congregation, both as having formerly been member and as having told the previous bishop she wanted no contact after she resigned.

"Second, the standard is not what would cause any particular individual "emotional distress," it is what would have that effect on a "reasonable person"--a term of art that eliminates subjective considerations like being an ex-Mormon. The question is therefore whether occasional pamphlets, religiously neutral like supermarket flyers, would offend an average person with average sensitivities."

A reasonable person doesn't continue to come on someone's property and leave religious videos and flyers for church activities which that individual no longer belongs to and has clearly stated already that she wants no contact with said church.

As for the emotional distress, maybe it is time for someone to get it in an injunction that continued harassment of a former member by the ward is causing nightmares of throat slashing and memories of the cult chant pay lay ale.

You are attempting to conflate the requirements of emotional distress in a law suit seeking monetary damages with the simple matter of a civil injunction for a reasonable person to be left the hell alone. Your advice to threaten a lawsuit is not what I would do. I would begin as I have stated, with a civil injunction against the bishop for being the pastor in charge of the continued contact by the church on my property.

I'm surprised by your adamancy. The statute lays out the elements of a crime or of a civil cause of action. You provided that with the link but you clearly don't know how to interpret law.

The scienter required is not negligence, which is what you are in effect asserting; it is not even knowledge. It is intent. The bishop must either "engage" in the stalking himself or intentionally "cause" others to do it. Your declaring the stated scienter "nonsense" doesn't change the statute that you appropriately cited.

The same is true of the "reasonable person" standard. It is a legal term of art with a set definition. You obviously don't know what it means nor how to apply it. And the case law defines what "emotional distress" is. Neither you nor I get to redefine that term in light of our own preferences.

As for your claim that I am "attempting to conflate the requirements of emotional distress in a law suit seeking monetary damages with the simple matter of a civil injunction," that doesn't even make sense. Go back to the official Utah judiciary page that you cited and read the title. What does it say?

It says "Civil Stalking Injunction."

"The scienter required is not negligence, which is what you are in effect asserting; it is not even knowledge. It is intent."

(2) A person is guilty of stalking who intentionally OR KNOWINGLY engages in
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S106.5.html?v=C76-5-S106.5_2018050820180508


"The bishop must either "engage" in the stalking himself or intentionally "cause" others to do it."

4) In any prosecution under this section, it is not a defense that the actor:
(a) was not given actual notice that the course of conduct was unwanted; or
(b) did not intend to cause the victim fear or other emotional distress.
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S106.5.html?v=C76-5-S106.5_2018050820180508



"The same is true of the "reasonable person" standard. It is a legal term of art with a set definition. You obviously don't know what it means nor how to apply it. And the case law defines what "emotional distress" is. Neither you nor I get to redefine that term in light of our own preferences."

There are ample sources to make a case for emotional distress in the situation of an individual who experienced a faith crisis, resigned from their church and were still being stalked and harassed by that church.

Recovery from Harmful Religion
http://marlenewinell.net/recovery-harmful-religion


Psychological Changes During Faith Exit: A Three-Year Prospective Study
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323718364_Psychological_Changes_During_Faith_Exit_A_Three-Year_Prospective_Study

Leaving the Church Behind: Applying a Deconversion Perspective to Evangelical Exit Narratives
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13537903.2014.903664

Deconversion in the Emergent Church
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742250500484568

Religious Trauma Syndrome
https://www.babcp.com/review/RTS-Trauma-from-Leaving-Religion.aspx

The Civil Stalking Injunction is appropriate. An individual resigns from a church and tells the church to leave her alone. The church ignores that, the negligence of its pastor to ensure that his flock does not bother the individual places the blame on him. The actions of the church can and do inflict emotional distress on individuals who are attempting to heal from the emotional trauma of a faith crisis.

Mike, I'm not sure why you keep doubling down on this


--------------
> (2) A person is guilty of stalking who
> intentionally OR KNOWINGLY engages in
> https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S1
> 06.5.html?v=C76-5-S106.5_2018050820180508

Okay. The bishop must either intentionally or knowingly engage in stalking. But in the instant case it is not the bishop doing the stalking; it is the children. The bishop is therefore off the hook.


-------------
> 4) In any prosecution under this section, it is
> not a defense that the actor:
> (a) was not given actual notice that the course of
> conduct was unwanted; or
> (b) did not intend to cause the victim fear or
> other emotional distress.
> https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5/76-5-S1
> 06.5.html?v=C76-5-S106.5_2018050820180508

Same response. If the bishop did not stalk, and did not order others to stalk, his state of mind is irrelevant. He did not stalk.


-----------------
> There are ample sources to make a case for
> emotional distress in the situation of an
> individual who experienced a faith crisis,
> resigned from their church and were still being
> stalked and harassed by that church.

The articles to which you refer here are solid, and their conclusions reasonable. But they are contrary to the statute and the case law in Utah. The latter matters in court; the articles, no matter how persuasive, do not.


----------
> The Civil Stalking Injunction is appropriate. An
> individual resigns from a church and tells the
> church to leave her alone. The church ignores
> that, the negligence of its pastor to ensure that
> his flock does not bother the individual places
> the blame on him. The actions of the church can
> and do inflict emotional distress on individuals
> who are attempting to heal from the emotional
> trauma of a faith crisis.

You see? Above you showed that according to the statute, the bishop needed either intention or knowledge to be held accountable. But here you slip to a lower standard--"negligence"--which your own source says is insufficient. That is why the bishop is not legally liable.

Further, you repeat that the church's conduct causes "emotional distress," a point on which I agree. But your feelings and mine are not relevant. What matters is the case law, and that law establishes a much more rigorous definition. No judge is going to ignore the instructions of the appellate authorities no matter what you, I, and our non-legal sources, state.

A typically astute observation.

This is why Mormons aren't normal. A normal person would say something like "I am very sorry. We must have made a mistake and I will do my best to make sure it does not happen again. Please feel free to contact me again if you have further issues. Again, I apologize for the mistake."

I am confused why this ward party can't be a member only invitation.

Why is there a need to plaster the neighborhood (house by house) in this day and age where the members are largely on their on their phones.

I understand that the church no longer wants announcements from the pulpit. Can't they make a sign and place it outside the chapel or stick it in a ward bulletin?

I am guessing this ward is in the middle of Moronland. Haven't the members (and dim lit leaders) figured out that their gentile neighbors don't give a dam about joining a cult?

There was a time that Mormons just wanted others to respect their right to worship and be left alone. I think there's some great advice about writing letters about the harassment you suffered.You definitely have a right not to be solicited at your house after you quit being a member.

BTW~ That bishop is a mega-asshole. What a bozo to continue the fight with you. All he had to do was to apologize, make a note and then meet with his leaders to instruct them to stay clear of you. They need to respect your privacy.

They plaster my neighborhood with "block party" invites several times a year.

They do not mention ward, church or anything remotely connecting them to the church.

I assume it's church related, can't prove it.

That whole conversation is just unbelievable!!! What and absolute TWIT!!!! (I am of course being VERY polite, I can think of a few VERY good Aussie swear words to use instead!!).

Good for you mate, for standing up to him. I think a stern word from a lawyer is an excellent idea if you can afford it at all. That would send him running a bit I think.

Wow. This bishop engages in guilt tripping, blame shifting and avoidance in his conversation. These are behaviours used by narcissists. If it were me personally I would find a way of dealing with this without ever speaking to him or another morgbot again. Like, by using the law somehow, police or lawyer, to stop them leaving stuff at your house and anything else they might do. Do it through a third party and don’t speak to them. There’s a possibility he gets off on phone calls like these; so don’t engage and don’t feed his ego.
The Morg absolutely hate legal threats and negative media attention. If you possibly can go that way, go that route and don’t speak to them directly again. Treat them as ridiculous and wrong and at the same time show no emotion over it. All of this will absolutely drive them up the wall, so it won’t be you who gets wound up next time. Don’t talk to them even if they try to contact you. In fact, if he/they gets wound up, they might try to contact you, and then you’ve got something to add to any harassment charges a lawyer might use for the future.

“Bishop: If this happens again feel free to call me and be confrontational again and we can again have a nice conversation about how you do not like your neighbors.”

You’re living in a sitcom.

Mormonism is like Junior High. This guy is the student body president, not the principal. If you want to understand their thinking process, observe 9th graders.

He's the head of the organization and it's his fault they are putting trash on your porch.

I'd take some porn or coffee coupons and leave them on his porch weekly until this ends.

I love Cheryl's answer! IMO, technically, it's trespassing. Maybe put a "No Soliciting" sign on the front door, but kids aren't going to understand that. That moron bishop needs to understand there are laws against trespassing. He seems skilled at gas lighting.

This guy is obviously on a power trip and is definitely enjoying that he has bothered you. As others have pointed out he's using every tactic in the book to get under your skin, guilt trips, blaming you for their actions, over dramatising a simple request. He loves that he can do this, it's obvious from the conversation.

In the future, I would record every conversation with this guy and send it to the Stake Pres. Telling him that if it continues, you will consider it harassment and pursue media and legal options to get it to stop.

I will admit, I do like Cheryl's idea, though that could cost money... But it would be fun to leave something very conspicuous on his front door positioned for the neighborhood to see, with a note inside say, "Just trying to be a good neighbor, thought you might like this!"

There is no reason for him to behave this way except that he enjoys the power trip. I'd hate to be in his ward. If this is how he treats people, I can't imagine how he runs things.

Just so I understand, these 8 year old girls leave Mormon related items at every single house in your neighborhood?

Or is your house on a list they follow?

In the center of the Moridor Utah County They usually do place one on every door within the ward boundaries.
When I told the previous bishop to lay off and not give me any fliers or other items He complied. I had a feeling when a new bishop took over I would have to tell him too.
It must not be that hard to do since it had been done once already.
Bishop roulette is a thing and I will be going to the SP if it does not stop.

I'd go to the SP right away and if that didn't work, then to the COB. Have someone else slap him down.

It's not up to you to train a bishop in how to do his job. Save yourself the time and aggravation.

The local Methodist Church sends everyone in my neighborhood invitations to a block party every year. So does the Catholic Church. I just ignore them. My guess is that everyone in your neighborhood (member and non-member) is getting these invitations. Just ignore them. It is no big deal.

If it was really only a block party invite, that might be easy to ignore. As the OP stated though, it was obviously a church party masquerading as a block party.

It also seems though that they are having things repeatedly dropped off that are blatant church materials, such as the "Mormon Stories" video that was dropped off for "every family in the ward".

The bishop is also obviously enjoying annoying the OP. Calling her "sister", knowing that she's not a member and that calling her such would be annoying. Not to mention the condescending, over dramatic tone. He wants to bother her and want her to know he's enjoying it. A true leader, ecclesiastical or otherwise, would have apologized and offered to make things right.

The OP isn't in the ward and has made it clear that they don't want church materials, I think it's a simple request to be left alone.

It all depends on the bishop. This guy sounds like a total ass and I'm sure he treats his ward members in the same fashion.

I left a note in the bishop's mailbox (he lives next door) on the ward newsletter that an adult and my neighbor boy (who mows my lawn and I'm friends with) left on my door that said, "I don't want any more ministering, no newsletters, nothing from the lds church." My neighbor told me he'd do his best to make sure it didn't happen again. He actually didn't know I had resigned. I know he didn't as the bishop I resigned under is a friend and he said he wasn't going to tell anyone.

I have had a few notes inviting me to "neighborhood parties"--just last week I believe. I do just throw them out. They have decreased SIGNIFICANTLY since I sent that note to the bishop.

The next time my neighbors invite me to a ward party, I'm going to make a point of telling them to please not invite me any longer instead of avoiding the subject. They don't know I've resigned.

Anyway--this guy was WAY OUT OF LINE. I'd definitely do something about it. I don't know what I'd do. Who is the guy who helps people resign--a lawyer? Maybe he could help. I would have hung up on that bishop long before you did after I told him to f off.

For those who have mentioned something about how do they determine where they leave these notes. If you live in Utah, they hit every door in the neighborhood. Even the 8 year olds are very aware of who doesn't go to church. It isn't that difficult. Believe me, the 8 year olds in this ward know I don't go to church. Didn't we all know that when we were young?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 12:03PM by cl2.

cl2 I knew who did and did not attend church when I was 8. I lived right on the ward boundaries and the people across the street the whole length of my street were in another ward. I even knew which ones on that side of the whole street that did not go to church.

wasn't. These kids know and the leaders DEFINITELY know, and there are leaders with these kids.

being a member in his ward???? His personality shone through.

As for Your Uncle, do you really think that to mormons, they think any exmormon is a good person? Really? I don't give a damn what the mormons think of me. If I did care what they thought of me, I'd go back so I could please them, but they'd still find something to not like about me. I flaunt my life now and I'm sure I am talked about and I get a kick out of it.

Just the mere fact that we are EXMORMONS makes us a subject of gossip. I'm sure that many of us are talked about at bishopric meetings.

Oh goody, 24th of July fireworks going off. My dogs are upset.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/2019 11:10PM by cl2.

Too bad you don't have a recording of the conversation. It would have been nice to post it on youtube, who knows, maybe it could go viral or get picked up by local news? I'm sure the stake pres would just love that.

I dislike Mormons and Mormon culture as much as the next person, but you are being a drama queen about this. You are also making ex-Mormons look petty.

Throw the damn flyer in the garbage can and get on with your life.

Sheesh.

That's unfair. There is nothing wrong with asking the church to stop pestering someone.

There is something to be said for knowing how to pick your battles in life.

The OP comes across as petty and overly-dramatic to me.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

The Bishop obviously picked up on this fact and played the OP like a violin.

Furthermore, he's probably telling everybody at church about the encounter now in order to make Ex-Mormons look bad as well.

Sounds like you might be the bishop.

The lady has a legit beef.

Relax. It isn't your problem, so back off.

You drama queens need to learn how to pick your battles so you don't play into the stereotype of the angry, mentally unstable, Ex-Mormon.

I have no problem putting uppity Mormons in their place, I have done so many many times with great effectiveness, but there is no need to swat at a fly with a sledgehammer.

By default we're considered angry and unstable. If we're female, we're considered shrill and stupid.

The sledge hammer was that bishop's nasty response to a very simple and reasonable request.

> You drama queens need to learn how to pick your
> battles so you don't play into the stereotype of
> the angry, mentally unstable, Ex-Mormon.

But she DID pick her battle. Whether it plays into your stereotype is irrelevant. Why, for that matter, would you think your opinion matters?



------------------
> I have no problem putting uppity Mormons in their
> place, I have done so many many times with great
> effectiveness, but there is no need to swat at a
> fly with a sledgehammer.

Congratulations on your courage and your judgment. Now can you explain again why anyone should care?


--------------
The bottom line is that every person gets to make her own decisions. FBP has done that. Many of us respect her feelings even if we don't fully share them. But she owes none of us any more deference than you would evidently afford to people who disagree with you.

I can text "stop" to not get unwanted text messages. I can unsubscribe to stop getting unwanted emails. I can block phone numbers to stop getting unwanted calls. I have every right to let the local leader of the mormon church that I am not interested in getting invitations and fliers left on my doorstep.
You have every right to your opinion and I have every right to mine.

Exactly right. If they were knocking on my door I might see the point, but they aren’t.

Are you sure that there really were “ little 8 year old girls “ who left it? It sounds like the Bishop is making it up, especially the way he bought up the police. Sounds like he was just using that in his defense ,in case you did call the police.
He’s probably going to tell the police that too, to make you look bad.
Even if it were “ little girls”, someone had to drive them there and give it to them to put on your porch.

Since no one was at home at the time I can't say they were or not. My guess is it was a ploy to try and make me feel bad, guilty or both. It did not work.

The point is that they did it at the behest of the bishop. He's in charge and can urge members to harass exmos or can stop members from trespassing and littering.

People in their homes have a 100% right to say who may enter their property.

Signs are not necessary. Telling the bishop is what is required to stop harassment.

The police chief helped us. He phoned and wrote a letter to the bishop, the SP, and the MP. He told them to keep mormons off our property. He also sent a black and white squad car to the bishop's house with an officer to explain the contents of the letter. Mormons stayed away from my house for years after that.

He’s the worse excuse for a Bishop that I’ve ever heard about.

Bishop is obviously an ass. But why do people drop advertising on the porch? Isn't it more or less acceptable to use letterboxes for that sort of thing?

The only things that can dropped off on our porch (note this is not in the US) are addressed parcels. Everything else is put in the box.

Yeah, that makes sense in a country where everyone stands upside down.

Emoji with rolling eyes.

Only official post office employees may put mail into official mailboxes and the mail must have appropriate postage.

Those who use mailboxes without using postage are violating federal law.

Any church organization which continues to put material on a porch after being told to stop is also breaking the law. Once the local leader has been notified to stop, that leader can be sued or prosecuted if they refuse to obey the directives of the resident. This is according to my lawyer and the local police chief who was in charge when I was being harassed by mormons.

That Bishop or POS was a real sick misogynist. Something he learned as a 12yrs old Mormon boy. All he did was play games with you, demean you, diss you all of the above.