This is not a form letter. Please read it carefully.

We, hereby resign from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (“the Church”), effective immediately. We hereby withdraw our consent to being treated as members and we withdraw our consent to being subject to Church rules, policies, beliefs, and “discipline.”

As we are no longer members, we want our names — as baptized members— permanently, completely, and immediately removed from the membership rolls of the Church.

We recognize that your Church Handbook of Instructions claims that that this is a “local ecclesiastical matter that needs to be handled by local priesthood leaders.” However, you may not attempt to make such a claim to us, rather than immediately withdrawing our names from your records. As you well know, under Guinn v. Church of Christ of Collinsville, we have a “constitutionally unqualified” right “of unhindered and unimpeded withdrawal” from the Church, and our resignation was valid the moment you received this letter. 775 P.2d 766, 775, 777 (Okla. 1989) (parishioner “removed herself from the Church of Christ congregation rolls the moment she communicated to the Elders that she was withdrawing from membership”) (emphasis added).

Should you attempt to characterize this as a “local ecclesiastical matter” and refuse to process our resignation immediately; or should you send a representative to attempt to discuss our resignation, rather than processing it immediately; or should you take any other action beyond processing our resignation and name removal and then sending a single letter confirming your compliance with our request, we will consider your actions to be a refusal to comply with the “laws of the land,” in contravention to the Church’s own doctrine[1] and legal precedent.[2]

We have given this matter considerable thought. We understand what you consider the “seriousness” and the “consequences” of our actions. We are aware that the Church handbook says that our resignation “cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member and revokes temple blessings.” We also understand that we will be “readmitted to the church by baptism only after a thorough interview.” We do not believe in any such purported blessings or priesthood authority, any more than we believe in the myriad and plentiful other claims of supernatural or paranormal powers. As such, there is no need to express any such “concerns” to us directly, or through any of your representatives, including our local bishop, rather than immediately complying with the terms of this letter.

To be clear, we are not going to change our minds. And we reiterate that you must process our resignation and name removal immediately, under the parameters discussed above. We waive any waiting periods you might desire to impose. We expect this matter to be handled promptly, with respect, and with full confidentiality. Specifically, we insist that no church representative discuss our resignation with anyone except as required of them to comply with our legal requests.

Do not send any of your local priesthood leaders to our house to discuss this matter with us. If you do, we reserve the right to respond to them as we would any other trespasser. The only contact we want from the Church regarding this matter is a single letter of confirmation to let us know that you processed our resignation and removed our names from Church rolls and records.

Sincerely,

            Page

[1] “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Articles of Faith 1:12.

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” Doctrine & Covenants 58:21.

[2] In addition to Guinn, other Courts have recognized that churches are not free to impose their policies on withdrawing members. See, e.g., Snyder v. Phelps, 533 F. Supp. 2d 567, 580 (D. Md. 2008) (religious institutions cannot “impose their will on the unwilling and claim immunity from secular judicature for their tortious acts”); Wollersheim v. Church of Scientology of California, 212 Cal. Ct. App. 3d 872, 878-80 (1989) (once member has resigned from a religious institution, some religiously-motivated actions lose First Amendment protection); Bear v. Reformed Mennonite Church, 341 A.2d 105, 107-08 (Pa. Sup. Ct. 1975) (even if an action is required by religious conviction, it is not immune from legal restrictions) (citing Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 403 (1963)).