LDS members: why the "lawyers and notaries"?

[Scott C.]

Earlier, you seemed to imply that it might not be that simple:

Let me try to explain with examples. I've never been through this on either side of the coin, but here's what I think would happen.

I've known my Bishop 20 years. We are good friends. He's heard me share my positive feelings about the church in talks and lessons and personal conversations many times. He knows that my life revolves around the gospel. He knows I raised my kids in the faith. He knows it means everything to me. He lives a couple of miles from me. Our kids are friends with his and we all hang out together. Last week, we went to the football game together.

Now suppose he gets a letter unexpectedly from me one day and it says. "Dear Bishop, I no longer wish to be a member of the church. Please remove my records immediately. Regards, Scott". Do you think he's going to say to himself: "Gee I'll take care of that right away and I had better not call Scott because he might get mad and become one of those guys who claims you need an attorney to leave the church?"

Of course not, he's going to drop everything, come to my house, give me a warm embrace and ask me with the love of a friend, what happened and why. How it goes down from there, depends on how I react. The bottom line is that if I make it clear that I'm serious and he's not going to change my mind, then he's going to have my records removed.

So yes, the bishop MAY talk to the person, depending on the relationship and circumstances. He MAY try to persuade. But there is no way on earth that he's going to put up an obstacle once the person makes clear their intentions. The idea of needing a lawyer is absurd.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think Naugle likes to be the center of attention.

Even though he says he's worried about the attention he might get?

Have you faced any backlash?

Not at all. I haven’t gotten any hate mail. I’m kind of surprised I haven’t gotten any type of response like that. I am a little worried about my business. I try to keep my immigration firm separate from my work here.

My business partner—she’s my fiancée—has been extremely supportive throughout this whole thing. She says that if it really affects us here in Utah, then we’ll have to go somewhere else. That’s what it will take to do the right thing.

https://upvoted.com/2015/11/17/atto...mons-leave-the-lds-church-all-free-of-charge/

 

[Katzpur]

Even though he says he's worried about the attention he might get?

Yeah, he's really worried. Kind of like Donald Trump is worried about getting attention.

 

[Prestor John]

Collection, retention, and use of personal information by non-governmental organizations (other than health care institutions - they have their own special rules) is governed by the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act. Here's an overview:

https://www.priv.gc.ca/information/pub/guide_org_e.pdf.

Would you mind pointing out where it says that no written request is needed?

Well, hopefully the church representative wouldn't lie about that (right, Mormon members?).

I'm actually more worried about the supposedly offended party lying to try and make a case against a Bishop or the Church.

If they want to make the claim that they requested that their records be removed, it needs to be in writing. Otherwise, they will have no case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you mind pointing out where it says that no written request is needed?

Page 16 of the first guide I linked to outlines the few allowable uses of personal information without consent. The guide (and the law) do not limit the methods by which consent can be withdrawn.

Basically, consent can be withdrawn by any reasonable means.

I'm actually more worried about the supposedly offended party lying to try and make a case against a Bishop or the Church.

If they want to make the claim that they requested that their records be removed, it needs to be in writing. Otherwise, they will have no case.

As I said earlier, not having a paper trail would make it difficult to substantiate that a privacy breach occurred.

... though now that I think about it, since organizations can only use personal information for the purpose for which it was originally collected (see page 19 of the same guide), it could very well be that using personal information that was collected for membership management-type purposes to "remarket" the church to the former member would be a breach even without the former member explicitly revoking consent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they want to make the claim that they requested that their records be removed, it needs to be in writing. Otherwise, they will have no case.

Just to correct this point a bit more (and again, this may be a Canada-only thing): with very few exceptions, the purpose for the collection of personal information has to be given when it's collected, and can only be retained while necessary for that purpose. Once the purpose is fulfilled, the information can no longer be retained.

 

[Scott C.]

Even though he says he's worried about the attention he might get?


https://upvoted.com/2015/11/17/atto...mons-leave-the-lds-church-all-free-of-charge/

Anything to make a buck.

I agree that leaving the church would be emotionally taxing. But it depends on how connected you ever were in the first place. It has far more to do with relationships with close family and friends than it has to do with the formality of retracting your name. Yes, my Mormon friends and family would be concerned about me if I withdrew. My membership would be cancelled at my request and Church leaders would ask members to not contact me and try to re-convert me. But that's not going to stop my family and friends, who are not doing anything by assignment or in the "name of the church.". The dynamics of these conversations are all over the map, depending on personalities, relationships, and attitudes. It also depends if the ex-member now hates the church or simply stopped believing, but has fond memories and is maintaining friendships.

I have two sons who don't go to church now. I love them as any other child. I'm proud of them. They know how I feel about the gospel. I don't need to cram it down them. Now if they ever wanted to completely withdraw membership, I would definitely discourage it and give all of my reasons. But in the end, it's their choice and it would not negatively affect our relationship. Would some families handle it differently? Would some disown their children? Some, but not most. That behavior would be entirely contrary to how my church encourages us to handle such a situation.

And by the way, there are far more people joining than leaving my church. The church becomes stronger every day, as measured by regular church attendance and general faithfulness of the members. The church continues to build chapels and temples by leaps and bounds all over the world. They do not invest in these buildings unless the numbers warrant it, again as measured by attendance and overall faithfulness.

 

[Katzpur]

Anything to make a buck.

I agree that leaving the church would be emotionally taxing. But it depends on how connected you ever were in the first place. It has far more to do with relationships with close family and friends than it has to do with the formality of retracting your name. Yes, my Mormon friends and family would be concerned about me if I withdrew. My membership would be cancelled at my request and Church leaders would ask members to not contact me and try to re-convert me. But that's not going to stop my family and friends, who are not doing anything by assignment or in the "name of the church.". The dynamics of these conversations are all over the map, depending on personalities, relationships, and attitudes. It also depends if the ex-member now hates the church or simply stopped believing, but has fond memories and is maintaining friendships.

I have two sons who don't go to church now. I love them as any other child. I'm proud of them. They know how I feel about the gospel. I don't need to cram it down them. Now if they ever wanted to completely withdraw membership, I would definitely discourage it and give all of my reasons. But in the end, it's their choice and it would not negatively affect our relationship. Would some families handle it differently? Would some disown their children? Some, but not most. That behavior would be entirely contrary to how my church encourages us to handle such a situation.

And by the way, there are far more people joining than leaving my church. The church becomes stronger every day, as measured by regular church attendance and general faithfulness of the members. The church continues to build chapels and temples by leaps and bounds all over the world. They do not invest in these buildings unless the numbers warrant it, again as measured by attendance and overall faithfulness.

Excellent reply and 100% accurate and objective. I don't know why the facts of the matter have to continue to be debated.

 

[Prestor John]

Page 16 of the first guide I linked to outlines the few allowable uses of personal information without consent. The guide (and the law) do not limit the methods by which consent can be withdrawn.

Basically, consent can be withdrawn by any reasonable means.

I am not seeing that anywhere. I do not see any mention of consent being withdrawn or of any methods of withdrawal.

What I did find on page 16 was that an organization may use personal information if it is publicly available.

... though now that I think about it, since organizations can only use personal information for the purpose for which it was originally collected (see page 19 of the same guide), it could very well be that using personal information that was collected for membership management-type purposes to "remarket" the church to the former member would be a breach even without the former member explicitly revoking consent.

A member's information is not recorded simply for "management-type" purposes.

A person's name is added into the records of the Church of Jesus Christ for purposes of attaining salvation and eternal life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anything to make a buck.

He's offering the service for free and has expressed concern that it will negatively affect his main practice. How do you think this is "to make a buck"?

 

[Prestor John]

He's offering the service for free and has expressed concern that it will negatively affect his main practice. How do you think this is "to make a buck"?

There is no "service" to provide. He is completely unnecessary.

It is about his image.

 

[Scott C.]

He's offering the service for free and has expressed concern that it will negatively affect his main practice. How do you think this is "to make a buck"?

My mistake. I can only guess his motives. His services are entirely unnecessary. I was thinking about this as I just went for a walk and asked myself why would someone hire an attorney for this? I came up with a couple of ideas.

1. A church member may be so totally ticked off at the church that they want to sort of "give it the finger" on the way out. They may see an attorney as an "in your face LDS church!" approach.
2. The person wants no personal contact whatsoever, in writing or verbally, with his/her bishop and sees this as a convenient way around it.
3. The church member is ignorant of the process, hears about the attorney, and goes that way.

All I can say is I've been a church member for a lot of years and I think I know how things go down. Like I said though, I've never specifically been on either side of this coin. When I read this attorney's article, it makes no sense to me, other than my comments above. The idea that an attorney is needed is actually absurd to me. That's my honest to goodness response, based on personal observations of policies and practices.

It's sort of like showing up to party, announcing that you want to leave early, and your friends say "Hey, come on stay a while, you'll have fun." But for some reason this person got the impression that something sinister is going on, hence he wants to leave. He gets nervous when his friends ask him to stay, after all there's something sinister. After a few minutes he screams "I'm calling the cops! You're kidnapping me!" The friends look at each other like "dude, chill, you can go home". After all they thought they were friends with a common interest who enjoyed each other - no imminent danger here. This guy leaves and tells his friends that "Yep, they're sinister, and they won't let you out. My suggestion for anyone who wants out is to call for a police escort." Eye roll from the party goers.

 

[Katzpur]

He's offering the service for free and has expressed concern that it will negatively affect his main practice. How do you think this is "to make a buck"?

There is no "service" to provide. He is completely unnecessary.

It is about his image.

My mistake. I can only guess his motives. His services are entirely unnecessary. Was thinking about this as I just went for a walk and asked myself why would someone hire an attorney for this? I came up with a couple of ideas.

1. A church member may be so totally ticked off at the church that they want to sort of "give it the finger" on the way out. They may see an attorney as an "in your face LDS church!" approach.
2. The person wants no personal contact whatsoever, in writing or verbally, with his/her bishop and sees this as a convenient way around it.
3. The church member is ignorant of the process, hears about the attorney, and goes that way.

All I can say is I've been a church member for a lot of years and I think I know how things go down. Like I said though, I've never specifically been on either side of this coin. When I read this attorney's article, it makes no sense to me, other than my comments above. The idea that an attorney is needed is actually absurd to me. That's my honest to goodness response, based on personal observations of policies and practices.

It's sort of like showing up to party, announcing that you want to leave early, and your friends say "Hey, come on stay a while, you'll have fun." But for some reason this person got the impression that something sinister is going on, hence he wants to leave. He gets nervous when his friends ask him to stay, after all there's something sinister. After a few minutes he screams "I'm calling the cops! You're kidnapping me!" The friends look at each other like "dude, chill, you can go home". After all they are aware of no imminent danger to anyone. This guy tells his friends that "yep, they are sinister, and they won't let you out. My suggestion for anyone who wants out is to call for a police escort." Eye roll from the party goers.

Penguin, why do you doubt what Scott and I are telling you? We are being 100% honest. You seem convinced that we're not.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

There is no "service" to provide. He is completely unnecessary.

Have you ever tried leaving the Church? What reason do ex-Mormons have to lie about how difficult the process is; or how much more difficult the Church can make it?

It is about his image.

Naugle has already said he expects this service he's providing will negatively impact his business so it's quite clearly not about that.

 

[Katzpur]

Have you ever tried leaving the Church?

No, I've never tried leaving the Church, but since you have, maybe you could enlighten us.

What reason do ex-Mormons have to lie about how difficult the process is; or how much more difficult the Church can make it?

Maybe it could have something to do with the three reasons Scott gave, all of which made perfect sense and would probably apply in 95% of the cases.

Naugle has already said he expects this service he's providing will negatively impact his business so it's quite clearly not about that.

And of course he is being honest about that. He's just such a noble human being that putting his business at risk is a small price to pay for such a great service. Yeah, well there's no such thing as bad advertising.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

No, I've never tried leaving the Church, but since you have, maybe you could enlighten us.

That was more aimed at Prestor since he seems so certain that helping one legally free themselves of a corporate entity is not a 'process'. I haven't legally left the Church yet (e.g. had myself removed from the Records etc). It's one of those things I keep meaning to do but I keep getting distracted by more immediate problems, y'know what I mean?

Maybe it could have something to do with the three reasons Scott gave, all of which made perfect sense and would probably apply in 95% of the cases.

Do they? Scott admitted himself he hasn't had first hand experience in trying to leave the Church so his isn't exactly an informed opinion. At worst he is engaging in the same kind of sneering derision ex-Mormons sometimes face from the Church's staunchest defenders. The sort of attitude that sees just about every criticism or observation they make lazily labelled 'anti-Mormon' and dismissed out of hand. Indeed, his reasons are derived from a condescending attitude towards those wanting to leave, that they must be emotionally unstable, angry, bitter people who couldn't possibly be thinking straight because, if they were, why on earth would they want to leave the complete & true Church?

And of course he is being honest about that. He's just such a noble human being that putting his business at risk is a small price to pay for such a great service. Yeah, well there's no such thing as bad advertising.

Get sarcastic, it helps. Just because he's helping people become ex-Mormons more easily doesn't mean he has nefarious intentions.

 

[Katzpur]

I haven't legally left the Church yet (e.g. had myself removed from the Records etc). It's one of those things I keep meaning to do but I keep getting distracted by more immediate problems, y'know what I mean?

Well, why don't you try it and get back to us with the results.

Do they? Scott admitted himself he hasn't had first hand experience in trying to leave the Church so his isn't exactly an informed opinion.

And yours is?

At worst he is engaging in the same kind of sneering derision ex-Mormons sometimes face from the Church's staunchest defenders. The sort of attitude that sees just about every criticism or observation they make lazily labelled 'anti-Mormon' and dismissed out of hand. Indeed, his reasons are derived from a condescending attitude towards those wanting to leave, that they must be emotionally unstable, angry, bitter people who couldn't possibly be thinking straight because, if they were, why on earth would they want to leave the complete & true Church?

In all honesty, Scott's post did not come across that way to me. And trust me, there are Mormons I know who would respond exactly as you're suggesting happens. That's not Scott.

Get sarcastic, it helps. Just because he's helping people become ex-Mormons more easily doesn't mean he has nefarious intentions.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. I see absolutely nothing noble in his gesture. That's just me.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well, why don't you try it and get back to us with the results.

That's a good idea, actually. We could do with a thread that breaks down what happens when someone tries to legally remove themselves from the LDS Church's records.

And yours is?

Nope. But the experiences of people who have gone through this process are. Experiences Scott is dismissing out of hand because they portray the Church in a way he isn't comfy with.

In all honesty, Scott's post did not come across that way to me. And trust me, there are Mormons I know who would respond exactly as you're suggesting happens. That's not Scott.

A matter of differing perceptions then. We can agree to disagree.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this one. I see absolutely nothing noble in his gesture. That's just me.

What do you see as wrong about it? Surely if people want to leave the Church then they should be able to. The fact that some ex-Mormons have had to jump through hoops - to the extent of needing an attorney as an intermediary - to get the Church to remove them from the records is itself an indicator of how bad things are.

 

[Katzpur]

That's a good idea, actually. We could do with a thread that breaks down what happens when someone tries to legally remove themselves from the LDS Church's records.

Okay, but where are your going to start -- by writing a letter to your bishop or contacting a lawyer?

Nope. But the experiences of people who have gone through this process are. Experiences Scott is dismissing out of hand because they portray the Church in a way he isn't comfy with.

Well then I guess that makes me equally as guilty. I have also known people who have gone through "the process," including a couple in my ward. They didn't experience any of what you seem to believe is typical.

What do you see as wrong about it? Surely if people want to leave the Church then they should be able to. The fact that some ex-Mormons have had to jump through hoops - to the extent of needing an attorney as an intermediary - to get the Church to remove them from the records is itself an indicator of how bad things are.

I genuinely believe that he is looking for a little attention and trying to paint an unnecessarily ugly picture of a process that is generally pretty simple and painless. He obviously has some issues with the Church and it is a "legitimate" way for him to express his grievances. Yes, I absolutely agree that people who want to leave the Church should be able to, and it shouldn't be an excruciating process either. If an attorney is needed, by all means, I would encourage someone to use one. I just don't think it ends up being necessary in the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of cases.

 

[Scott C.]

Do they? Scott admitted himself he hasn't had first hand experience in trying to leave the Church so his isn't exactly an informed opinion. At worst he is engaging in the same kind of sneering derision ex-Mormons sometimes face from the Church's staunchest defenders. The sort of attitude that sees just about every criticism or observation they make lazily labelled 'anti-Mormon' and dismissed out of hand. Indeed, his reasons are derived from a condescending attitude towards those wanting to leave, that they must be emotionally unstable, angry, bitter people who couldn't possibly be thinking straight because, if they were, why on earth would they want to leave the complete & true Church.

I'm not condescending to people who leave the church. I understand the intellectual issues or other things that influence people to disbelieve. People don't need an attorney to leave the church. There are people who leave angry. There's no doubt about that. They are the ones who are more likely to exaggerate the difficulty of the process. That's not condescending. It's reality.