Resignation

[Jamie123]

Please note that you can only have your name removed IF you are not in the middle of serious sin...If there have been serious sins, the bishops are supposed to hold a disciplinary council rather than just remove your name from the records.

There's a lot of disagreement about this. Some say this rule violates a person's freedom of religion, while others argue that "freedom of religion" applies only to government agencies. Nevertheless, I do remember reading of one case (I don't think it can be the same case Just_A_Guy mentioned, as this one was settled out of court) where an ex-member forced the Church to delete the records of his excommunication by threatening to sue.

On the other hand if you believed the Church was false why would you care if they held a phoney court of excommunication after you'd resigned? It's not like it was a court of law that could hand out criminal convictions.

[Roseslipper]

email me lost

[Carl62]

When you send the letter to the bishop, he may ask about your relationship with the Lord and if any serious sins have occurred. If there have been serious sins, the bishops are supposed to hold a disciplinary council rather than just remove your name from the records.

If one is quitting the church and doesn't acknowledge it as true anymore, then why would one be required to answer any personal or intimate questions from somebody who they now look on as having about as much authority over them as a janitor in a department store? To that person who is being asked the questions from a bishop who they no longer acknowledge would be like having a Jehovah's Witness interviewing you about intimate details of your life. You would tell them where to shove it.

[MarginOfError]

This brings up a question I've always had about having one's named "removed."

If the name is removed, then how are notes kept on the resigning member's paperwork? (I assume by "paperwork" you mean an entry in the computer. Is that right?)

I know there are routine records kept on each member. So, when you have your name "removed, what happens to these records? Is your name really removed?

I've heard different things about this, including that the Church can never really remove your name because of the recordkeeping. Perhaps an entry is made in these records that the person has resigned, rather than his/her name being actually "removed"? If not, what does "removed" mean to the Church?

Elph

I'm sure that these days the record is kept electronically, but who knows, maybe it's still paper. In either case, the records are removed from the local unit and stored in a secure file/location that is only accessed when given proper approvals. These records are kept by Church Headquarters.

So, that's the best answer I have, is that these files are stored separately under what I imagine are very strict security protocols. What the legal requirements or implications are, I don't know. I just know they are made inaccessible to anyone that does not obtain permission through proper procedure (including authorization by the individual, I believe).

[MarginOfError]

There's a lot of disagreement about this. Some say this rule violates a person's freedom of religion, while others argue that "freedom of religion" applies only to government agencies. Nevertheless, I do remember reading of one case (I don't think it can be the same case Just_A_Guy mentioned, as this one was settled out of court) where an ex-member forced the Church to delete the records of his excommunication by threatening to sue.

On the other hand if you believed the Church was false why would you care if they held a phoney court of excommunication after you'd resigned? It's not like it was a court of law that could hand out criminal convictions.

Seeing as the current procedure has been clarified here, I see no value to picking apart any details here.

[MarginOfError]

If one is quitting the church and doesn't acknowledge it as true anymore, then why would one be required to answer any personal or intimate questions from somebody who they now look on as having about as much authority over them as a janitor in a department store? To that person who is being asked the questions from a bishop who they no longer acknowledge would be like having a Jehovah's Witness interviewing you about intimate details of your life. You would tell them where to shove it.

Again, seeing as the current procedure has been clarified, there is no point in pursuing this line of questioning.

If I remember correctly, what Ram said was at one point the correct procedure for name removal. But the procedure has been amended to reflect current legal and social precedents. Let's not take off on an exchange of ideas based on a superceded policy.

[MarginOfError]

I've read some posts in the thread that I think are confusing, and think a clarification needs to be made.

If a person wants to resign from the Church, all s/he has to do is write a letter to the bishop stating such. The letter should state the day the resignation goes into effect. It can be the date of the letter, which means it is effective immediately, or it can be at a later date. It cannot be before the date of the letter.

Additionally, the bishop may call to talk to that person, and if the person wants to talk to him, that's fine. But s/he is under absolutely no obligation to do so. In fact, it's my understanding the person can specify "No further contact" in the letter, and the bishop/other official church representatives will honor that. But even if they don't, the person does not have to talk to anyone from the Church if s/he doesn't want to.

Lost actually asked how to have his name removed, and it's my understanding that is a different process from resigning from the Church. I'm not sure if that is accurate or not. However, it was my impression Lost was actually asking how to resign.

I'm not saying Lost should resign. Based on what I know, I think it would be extremely premature of him to do so.

But we have the freedom of religion in America, and that means the person decides, not the bishop, who s/he will or will not talk to about the resignation. It also means the person decides, not the Church, when his/her resignation is effective.

Elphaba

I love you Elphie, but let's clarify the clarification. I know of no such thing as "resignation" in the Church today. The only two ways to have a person removed from the records of the Church are excommunication and name removal. For the purposes of this thread, I've been assigning 'resignation' the same value as 'name removal,' simply because I don't care enough to argue terminology on the subject.

Whether or not resignation and name removal were different in the past, I don't know.

[Jamie123]

Seeing as the current procedure has been clarified here, I see no value to picking apart any details here.

Thanks MoE - I actually did read your post before putting in my two-penneth, and I wasn't meaning to contradict anything you said. The limited amount I know about this subject comes from letters I've read on ex-Mormon sites some years ago. I'm sure you know better than me about the internal workings of the Church.

However, the point I was trying to make is that the applicability of "freedom of religion" is open to some interpretation. By holding an internal "court" and "excommunicating" a person who has already announced his "resignation" (whether this concept is internally recognised or not) the Church is in no way preventing him from worshipping anywhere else he wishes, so it's debatable whether his constitutional "rights" have been violated.

[john doe]

Since this horse is now officially beaten to death, this is closed. Lost, if you want to resign, you now know what to do.