Resignation is not something the cult made up! It is not a hoop they make us jump through. It is something afforded to us by the courts. The real courts.

If the cult had their way, we would only be excommunicated!

I understand it has become WAY more difficult to resign these days. I would love to know more about your experience.

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

This is what I'm referring to. Some people on the board are saying that the cult made up resignation, when they didn't.

I personally haven't been able to resign because of family obligations.

Guinn and Hancock. Thanks
"Someone always marches brave"

That's not true. Actually, it has become way easier. All a person has to do is submit the resignation by letter or E-mail. It is official upon receipt of the posted or e-mailed message, no matter what Mormons say. Challenge it in court if you must, but it is a waste of money.

The Mormon Bishop blocked my resignation as he did not want to upset my mother.

So resignation, though technically easier, is often not as easy as it should be.

You're not understanding a very fundamental part of the resignation process: Your bishop is not--I repeat, NOT--involved in the resignation process except during a 30-day cooling off period; you can waive the 30-day period if you write your resignation letter properly. But he cannot "block" your resignation. I suppose that, if you didn't resign using the proper method of directly contacting the church, but tried to resign THROUGH your bishop, he could just not do it. You'd have to be a complete idiot to do that. Don't be a complete idiot.

Are you serious? How has it become WAY more difficult? If anything, it has become simpler recently. Since the recent spate of resignations, the COB seems to be just pushing them through, without sending the bishop to contact the resigner first.

It was already pretty simple. Send a resignation to the correct address (snail mail or email), and wait 60 days for them to process the resignation. You will probably have the final letter before then, but if not, call the records office and ask what the problem is.

That's basically it. A call or visit from the bishop is an irellevant side show.

When Tristan says "We" in the subject line, he is talking the general "we", as in all members of all churches.

You can use email or the tried and true letter to COB. Turn around rates are much shorter and more are abiding by the "do not contact" clause.

I don't know when or how you tried to resign but it took me

two weeks via email resignation and I'm done.

I don't understand anyone having a problem? Could you perhaps

elaborate?

A contractor in Mesa wanted to resign and the morg said no, he'd have to be exxed. He suffered monetary and social losses as a result and brought suit against the church for damages. He won and the LDS Church was forced to come up with an acceptable resignation procedure. The result is that they must accept and acknowledge resignations and not ex anyone because they want to leave the flock.

This procedure is an action against the morg which had illegally claimed no one could leave without suffering through a court of love and the resulting gossip and defamation of character.

It doesn't mean that someone is still a Mormon if they choose a different way to resign. They could still make a firm verbal statement, or simply throw a tantrum in the bishop's office never go back. Mormons being somewhat dense about such things might still claim them as members in spite of obvious evidence to the contrary.

That's not "The Morg." That's a local, uninformed, and ignorant leadership at the level of stake president. There's no help for people who shut themselves off from the outside, even if it's from their own leaders. But the LDS church is full of this behaviour.

There has been no easier time to resign.

They might differ in that the locals don't know they must follow the law and they let resignations sit unanswered for months on end. The member records dept. does worry about this problem because they know lawsuits can result, so they intercede for those members who report problems with resigning.

It took me 5 months to get out, but it would be a lot easier now.

I very much appreciated being able to say, "You can't fire me. I quit!"

I'm confused. It's like this post was made in 1980. Just read some of the currently visible "I'm out" threads, Tristan. Resigning consists of the following:

1) Compose an email with your name, date and place of birth, and a single sentence that you have resigned your membership.

You're out right after you hit send. These days, as fast as the postal service can deliver it, you'll get the letter from the COB acknowledging your resignation.

I was reacting to some people here recently saying that resignation means that the cult has authority over us, or that they made up the fact we can resign.

The church is a specific type of corporation under US law. Being counted as a member of that corporation does have legal implications. It is not just a make believe club.

Are you saying they must pay tithes under the law? Give talks? Accept home teachers?

I don't think so.

I have no idea what you're writing about.

The only one I can think of is that the church can ex members who don't follow the rules. That isn't usually a problem if someone already wants to leave.

Are there other "implications" which cover church members or the organization's power over participants?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 05:50PM by Cheryl.

Excommunication, disfellowshiping, revocation of the priesthood, nulling sealings, etc. And, sure, they're all fictions, but so long as one is a legal member of the club, that is open to them. What the lawsuit did was wake the clowns up that their club is voluntary and any adult who wants to leave may do so at any time and their internal public shamings are not available to them.

Does that matter to most of us here? Not that I've noticed. Most here, like I, seem to have left to make a statement.

The Mormon church has no way to enforce disciplinary consequences on anyone who does not recognize their godly power. They can't force anyone to attend and refuse sacrament or to submit to bishop interviews, or be there and refrain from participation. Taking away priesthood levels or callings would be laughable to a non attender with no connections in the ward. Anyone who wants to resign doesn't want callings or priesthood or to take sacrament.

I'd say the one and only real implication to being a member of the Mormon church would be that they could kick you out and remove your name from their ward list if they object to having you on their roles. That would be a legal implication. Everything else is simply an in house triviality as far as the law is concerned.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/29/2015 06:56PM by Cheryl.

Tristan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was reacting to some people here recently saying
> that resignation means that the cult has authority
> over us, or that they made up the fact we can
> resign.


Who said that?

It was very easy for me. I just emailed my resignation to church headquarters and it was all final within a couple of weeks without having to see anyone.

When was that case in Mesa and what would it mean for other religions? In Islam, you cannot resign, only apostatize (and according to the Qur'an, you can get killed for it). So all other things being equal, any muslim could declare himself non muslim after this ruling? Would love to see how that played out. American laws interfering with a religion.

That means no one must submit to it. Muslims and Mormons cannot force anyone to adhere to their religious expectations. Some might think freedom of religion grants churches the right to rule over members according to scripture. Not true. It's members who have a right to follow the precepts or leave a religion if they so choose. churches and church leaders only have the power that they are granted by followers. If no one adheres to the church teachings or dictates, it loses its power.

The most fundamental rights of every American are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If I no longer wish to associate with any religion I have every right to tell them to remove me from their organization and to leave me alone without any repercussions from them.

This in no way violates seperation of church and state.

I think that one should keep in mind the limits of the LDS case as pointed out on this very board some time ago by ex-Mormon Odell Campbell.

1) The ruling applys only inside the U.S.

2) Legally, it only really applys to the western district where the case was heard. Probably because it was easier (and cheaper) to do, the LDS church decided to expand the court-mandated process both outside of the district where the case was heard and outside of the U.S.

With regard to Islam, the ruling would apply to that religious group only inside the district where the Norman Hancock case was held. That said, given the current circumstances and controversies surrounding that religion and its link to destructive activities performed by some of its members, I believe that if a case against that religion's not allowing members to resign from it were brought before any court inside the U.S., the ruling against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be used as a precedence.

Outside of the U.S., it would be a different story and whether or not and how you could get out of Islam would depend upon the laws of the country in which you lived. This morning, the BBC carried on its service to U.S. public radio stations a story of how people who are ex-Muslims and who are using the "ex-Muslim Because" hashtag on their Twitter accounts are getting a lot of pushback from the Muslim community in the UK about this. And, of course, if you are an ex-Muslim living in most Middle Eastern countries, you'd better not say anything about it if you want to still remain alive.

Actually, if we are talking technicalities, the Norm Hancock case never went to trial. They settled out of court. Furthermore, he didn't even have an attorney. He represented himself.

So technically, no court ruled in favor of Hancock. Practically, LDS Inc saw the handwriting on the wall and knew they would lose if it did go to court.

Also, his case was not about the right to resign. That was the Guinn case. I believe his case was about the right to resign even after the church in question has already started excommunication proceedings.

Courts would back up that basic principle, but it stands without going to court.

It's ridiculous to say that someone cannot quit a church unless they live in a certain area of the USA or have taken their cause to court.

The reason this case in Arizona and the one in Texas came to a head was because the Mormon church in Mesa and the Holy Roller one in Texas tried to sidestep the constitutional rights of former members. The Arizona church officials knew they'd lose and paid to avoid the bad publicity. The Texas church lost big time and learned that they could not publicly bring a former member to task from the pulpit in an attempt to ruin their reputation.

Date: November 29, 2015 01:14PM
Re: Can you tell us more about your experience?

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

---

Thanks, Tristan (and all). Very concise and helpful. I'm on the cusp, (ignoring the church rather than resigning at present, for the sake of my spouse).

The key point is TSSC has no power here. It can't force anyone to stay. It can't define the requirements for resigning. It can't delay or deny or create hoops that have to be jumped through. It has no rights, no authority, no power. If a member resigns, that's it.

Your notification that you have resigned is your resignation. Period.

The "Mormon Bishop" has no power to block this. You have resigned.

There is no "cooling off period". You have resigned.

TSSC has no more power to delay or deny than a stamp club. Any time you decide not to be a member any more, you resign.