Letter Of Recommendation Request Form: Fill & Download for Free

Thanks for the request.I did not know about Haramein prior to seeing this question, so I did a brief research to find out not just what he has accomplished, but how his fellows perceive him and his accomplishments. Luckily, I found a website (first on the search result when I googled his name) which gave a brief resume, and a list of recommendation letters from a few of his contemporaries.About Haramein - Resonance Science Foundation“Nassim Haramein has spent over 30 years researching and discovering connections in physics, mathematics, geometry, cosmology, quantum mechanics, biology, chemistry, as well as anthropology and ancient civilizations.These studies lead Haramein to groundbreaking theories, published papers and patented inventions in unified physics, which are now gaining worldwide recognition and acceptance…”From those recommendations—though all positive—, I was able to deduce a few reasons why there may be mixed reports from a larger community about such a seemingly remarkable individual.I. The man is a unificationist.He's working across many, many fields, trying to piece together details and form connections. His versatility offers sufficient reason to be seen as a know-it-all, a jack of all trades who should not be taken too seriously in any one of them, by specialists. Upon that, he's going to have to make lots of bold claims about apparent connections between fields, which would be tempting to dismiss without the patience and humility to work oneself through the argument.II. He's (mainly) a theorist.Theorists have the benefit of limitless exploration. Including the liberty to venture into delusional realms. Without experiments catching up with theoretical claims, even their proponents know to take them with a teaspoon of salt.III. He does independent work (founded his own research center), a significant portion of which was done “on his own”.“I have rarely seen so dedicated and hard-working a student as Mr. Haramein, who has done his work entirely on his own for fifteen years, thereby demonstrating tremendous motivation and achievement.”‘Science is about collaboration blah blah blah...’The fact that he had to get recommendation letters from reputable scientists demonstrates two things. One of them is – he understands his tendency to be viewed as a poser or an outsider.IV. He's a showman.And that's the second thing.

Your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is based on circular logic, and is not shared by most Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court or the majority of the US populace. The guarantee that the people’s right to own and carry arms cannot be infringed, is not limited to membership in a militia.First, you should understand that the 2nd Amendment (and the Constitution in general) does not grant any rights to the people. The Constitution grants a very narrow set of powers and responsibilities to the government, limits the powers of the government to those explicitly enumerated, and reserves all other rights to the people. The 2nd Amendment states that the government shall not infringe upon the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not confine such a right to a militia. The language is not “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the Militia shall have the right to keep and bear arms.” It uses the need for a militia to preserve a free state, as one rationale for preventing the infringement by the government upon the people’s natural right to be armed.This “natural” right of a person to keep and bear arms was thought by the Founders to be one of the “unalienable” rights endowed upon man by his creator. It had been affirmed a century earlier in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which was the precursor to and inspiration for the US Bill of Rights.[1]It’s also useful to know what was meant by a “well regulated” militia. “Well regulated”, at the time, meant “well equipped”, “in good working order” and, perhaps “well trained” much as a working clock is “well regulated”. It did not mean administered or managed by a higher authority, like congress. A “well regulated militia” was a collection of all well equipped citizens, trained in the use of arms, coming together to defend the liberty of their “free state”. A “well regulated militia” was specifically not a standing army or the modern National Guard.To better understand what the founders had in mind, we should do what Thomas Jefferson himself asked us to do when reading the Constitution:"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed." Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823[2]To “carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted” and “recollect the spirit manifested in the debates”, let’s look at what the Founders actually said about the subject in their contemporary writing on the subject:Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” v3 Elliot, Debates* 168-169.[3]Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” v3 Elliot, Debates*, 386.[4]Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, v1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)[5]Thomas Jefferson: "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." Thomas Jefferson – Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787[6]You have to love Jefferson for this one. He expects govrernment to be warned, from time to time, by the people that they “preserve the spirit of resistance.” “Let them take arms” indeed. He knew the “rulers” would naturally tend toward tyranny and saw the people’s right to keep and bear arms as a check on that tyranny.Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson – The Commonplace Book, Quoting Cesare, Marchese di Beccaria[7]Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785[8]Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824[9]George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” v3 Elliott, Debates*, 425-426[10]George Mason: “...to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” v3 Elliott, Debates*, 380[11]Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” vI Writings of Thomas Paine, 56 (1894)[12]James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” [The Federalist Papers 46][13][14]James Madison: "A Government resting on a minority, is an aristocracy not a Republic, and could not be safe with a numerical [and] physical force against it, without a standing Army, and enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." James Madison, Autobiography, December 1830.[15]James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." – James Madison, vI Annals of Congress 451, June 8, 1789[16]Alexander Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. [The Federalist Papers 28][17]Alexander Hamilton: “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist. [The Federalist Papers 29][18][19]Samuel Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, February 6, 1788[20]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “ …the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788[21]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789[22]Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals . . . “– Tench Coxe, The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority, 1789 [23]Noah Webster (of Webster’s Dictionary): "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed ….” An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)[24]Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Major-General Richard Henry Lee, (aka Light Horse Harry, famed revolutionary war leader and the father of Robert E. Lee), Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)[25]Justice Joseph Story: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.[26]Finally, from Cesare, Marchese di Beccaria, a well respected Italian philosopher of the time. This passage was found, copied into one of the journals kept by Thomas Jefferson. Several Founders referenced Beccaria in their writings and debates around the time of the drafting of the Constitution. John Adams, who quoted Beccaria frequently, was so impressed with Beccaria’s work he gave a book of Beccaria’s essays to his son.[27]“A Principal source of errors and injustice, are false ideas of utility. For example, that legislator has false ideas of utility, who considers particular more than general convenience; who had rather command the sentiments of mankind, than excite them, and dares say to reason, "Be thou a slave;" who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages, to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire, for fear of being burnt, and of water, for fear of being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it. The laws of this nature, are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.” Cesare Beccaria – Of Crimes and Punishments, 1764, Chapter 40 (Emphasis added)[28]* The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787 – In Four Volumes – Collected and Revised from Contemporary Publications, by Jonathan Elliot[29]The contemporaneous writings of every delegate to the Constitutional Convention… of every Founder… are clear on the issue of the people’s right to keep and bear arms for their own defense and the defense of their free state. They all considered it an unalienable right of the individual. There is no extant contemporaneous writing of the Founders that suggests the right is somehow constrained by participation in a militia.There was grave concern by many, at the time the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, that it might be viewed, as it often is now, as a narrow list of enumerated rights, which, by their very inclusion, implied that the government was somehow granted the power to regulate what the Founders believed were immutable, unalienable natural rights. Alexander Hamilton was concerned that the very act of including a Bill of Rights might allow “men disposed to usurp” to confer onto the federal government, powers that it is not granted by the Constitution.Alexander Hamilton: “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. ” Alexander Hamilton – The Federalist Papers, 84.[30]Hamilton was remarkably prescient, for that is exactly what has happened over time. The federal government has usurped more and more power and there are many now who claim that it has a right to infringe upon a natural right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states “shall not be infringed”.The ever-growing, power-grabbing, federal government which Hamilton foretold, and warned us against, is why the 9th Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. It states:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.The Founders intended that the government have only those limited powers which were explicitly called out in the Constitution, and that all other powers and rights be retained by the people. One of those rights is the natural right for a person to own and carry arms in defense of themselves and their free state.We correctly interpret the 2nd Amendment as a protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of any membership in a militia. This is due, in no small measure, to the US Supreme Court in their decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)[31] This decision, informed by Jefferson’s request to “recollect the spirit manifested in the debates”, was the result of work done by Robert A. Levy and the CATO Institute, beginning in 2002, to put the lawsuit together that was eventually decided in District of Columbia v. Heller.[32][Note that, in much of the current debate about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we find writers, on both sides of the issue, using spurious quotes, often fabricated from whole cloth, attributed to the Founders in an effort to support one position or another. I’ve made an effort here to cite each quotation with reference to the quote in the context of the original source document. This has resulted is an unusual number of footnotes for an answer on Quora. I apologize for making the answer appear more complicated than it would have been otherwise, but I believe it is important to let the reader research the subject on their own.]Footnotes[1] English Bill of Rights - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com[2] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823[3] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[4] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[5] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[6] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1 …[7] Thomas Jefferson, 1762-1767, Legal Commonplace Book[8] Jefferson's Letter to Peter Carr 9/19/1785[9] Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824[10] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[11] http://teachingamericanhistory.org/pdf/ratification/elliot/ElliotVolume3.pdf[12] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[13] The Federalist Papers[14] The Federalist #46[15] Founders Online: James Madison: Autobiography, December 1830[16] A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774[17] Federalist No 28[18] The Federalist Papers[19] How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago[20] https://www.milestonedocuments.com/images/content/handouts/Samuel_Adamss_Mass_Convention_Speeches.pdf[21] The James Madison Research Library and Information Center[22] http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf[23] http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/tench_coxe.pdf[24] Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)[25] Federal Farmer, no. 18[26] The Second Amendment: A Primer[27] The Italian Enlightenment and the American Revolution: Cesare Beccaria’s Forgotten Influence on American Law[28] https://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/beccaria/delitti/delitti.c40.html[29] Elliot’s Debates[30] Federalist No 84[31] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6484080926445491577&q=District+of+Columbia+v.+Heller,+554+U.S.+570+(2008)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1[32] The Heller Ruling, Five Years On (Robert Levy)

Actually, no. A notarized letter is proof that you are the one asking for removal and the new handbook procedures do not include the 30-day “cool off.” If you want out, you are out. Leaders are advised to act promptly on such requests.If you wish to skip the rest of my answer and simply read the official and published Church policy on resignation, it is reproduced in full at the bottom of my answer.And, you don’t have to take my word because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has, apparently, decided that there are so many misrepresentations of their policies and procedures, that it would make more sense to just publish them:So, for those who are interested, I have provided a copy of the full and complete policy on how resignations from the Church—which are, from the information I have seen actually, on a percentage basis, lower than any historic high point.Obviously, now that there are over 16 million members, the number of those choosing to leave is historically high, but the Church as a whole is growing stronger in every measure—tithing is up, prior to COVID, attendance was up, temple attendance is up. My successor as bishop tells me that members who were formerly not attending or participating have sought him out and now wish to be more involved. I’ve also heard similar stories from two Stake Presidents.And, for those “in the know” the rise in temple attendance and the building of temples to accommodate the demand also evidences that more members are worthy of temple recommends, which by the standards of those who disagree with Church doctrines, are difficult to obtain and maintain.The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is growing in every way.In any event, the policy itself dictates that action on records is to be prompt.Honestly, as a former bishop, in over five years of service we did lose some members to conduct unbecoming of a member, but I never received a request for resignation. I assume that since our little town on the backside of Oahu is owned by the Church and 90% or more of our population works for the Church, that resignation was not an option even for those who wanted to.But, I would indeed try to talk someone out of leaving. I would explain to them that they are part of a family who loves them for who they are. We would respect their boundaries and desire not to be contacted, but unless they were planning to join another Church or were in open disagreement with leaders, membership would not be inconsistent with merely a lack of faith—Jesus accepts everyone. We would continue to offer them help in whatever form was genuinely needed and hold back on contact if so requested.As a bishop and now as an ordinary member, I would indeed urge the disaffected, or those convinced that the historical basis of the Church is irredeemably flawed, to see that there is no need to divorce an extended family with whom you do not agree. Instead, we can agree to distance and would refrain from regular contact with the understanding that the extended family expects nothing from you but is there for you if you need help.And, let’s be honest, the whole point of Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son is to highlight that the Church, like the wealthy father, will not only welcome those who return but figuratively kill the fatted calf and fetch a gold ring and some new clothes for them. Even critics of the Church acknowledge that when everyone is behaving appropriately the experience of a member is a positive thing.W.W. Phelps, an early confidante and friend of the Prophet Joseph Smith, became angry and bitter for reasons of his own. He actually testified against the Prophet. Brother Phelps caused real damage to Joseph Smith and fellow Church members. But, at a later date, W.W. Phelps came back repentant and with the desire to be forgiven of his past conduct. In response to Br. Phelps’ request, Joseph Smith famously wrote to him and said:It is true, that we have suffered much in consequence of your behavior—the cup of gall already full enough for mortals to drink, was indeed filled to overflowing when you turned against us: One with whom we had oft taken sweet council together, and enjoyed many refreshing seasons from the Lord “Had it been an enemy we could have borne it” . . .However the cup has been drunk, the will of our heavenly Father has been done, and we are yet alive for which we thank the Lord. And having been delivered from the hands of wicked men by the mercy of our God, we say it is your privilege to be delivered from the power of the Adversary— be brought into the liberty of God’s dear children, and again take your stand among the saints of the Most High, and by diligence humility and love unfeigned, commend yourself to our God and your God and to the church of Jesus Christ.Believing your confession to be real and your repentance genuine, I shall be happy once again to give you the right hand of fellowship, and rejoice over the returning prodigal. Your letter was read to the saints last Sunday and an expression of their feeling was taken, when it was unanimously resolved that W.W. Phelps should be received into fellowship.“Come on dear Brother since the war is past, for friends at first are friends again at last.”Yours as Ever,Joseph Smith Jr[bold added]No former member today, however vitriolic their internet postings or bitterly expressed their opinions in print or media, could possibly do or have done the kind of damage that W.W. Phelps did. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in its 190 years of existence, has figuratively grown from a fragile sapling to a tremendously strong tree. There will be much opposition to come, but in my opinion, in today’s day and age, no single person or former member can cause the kind of damage that W.W. Phelps did to the early Church.We will not make it hard to leave, but…Everyone is invited to return.Image Credit: Rembrandt VanRijn, The Return of the Prodigal SonNote: Art historian Kenneth Clark - Wikipedia felt that this painting had a claim on being the greatest painting ever created. See, The Return of the Prodigal Son (Rembrandt) - WikipediaHere is the link to the Joseph Smith letter: Letter to William W. Phelps, 22 July 1840, Page 158Below is the unredacted complete quotation to the current General Handbook of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with respect to the question:32.14.9Requests to Resign MembershipIf a member asks to resign his or her membership in the Church, the bishop reaches out to see if he or she is willing to discuss the concerns and try to resolve them. The bishop and member may also counsel with the stake president. The leader ensures that the member understands the following results of resigning Church membership:It revokes all ordinances.It removes all membership privileges.Readmission by baptism and confirmation can occur only after a thorough interview and, in many cases, a membership council (see 32.16.2).A previously endowed person is eligible to receive a restoration of priesthood and temple blessings only with First Presidency approval and after at least one full year from readmission (see 32.17.2).If the member still wants to resign Church membership, he or she gives the bishop a written, signed request. The bishop submits the request to the stake president through LCR. The stake president then reviews and submits the request through that system. Leaders should act on requests promptly.A person can also resign membership by sending a signed, notarized request to Church headquarters.A minor who wishes to resign his or her Church membership follows the same procedure as an adult, with one exception: the request should be signed by the minor (if over the age of 8) and by the parent(s) or guardian(s) who have legal custody of the minor.If a member resigning membership threatens legal action against the Church or its leaders, the stake president follows the instructions in 38.8.26.A request to resign membership should be acted on even if priesthood leaders have information about a serious sin. Any information about unresolved sins is noted when the request is submitted through Leader and Clerk Resources. This allows priesthood leaders to resolve such matters in the future if the person applies for readmission into the Church (see 32.16.2).A priesthood leader should not recommend resigning Church membership in order to avoid holding a membership council.