A breaking story in “Slate” magazine blares the headline, “Thousands of Mormons Are Leaving the Church Over New Gay ‘Apostate’ Policy”
It’s author, J. Bryan Lowder, relays the good news about the unfolding mass exodus from the Mormon Cult (albeit with one potentially misleading declaration which we'll get to in a moment, as it constitutes the focus of this post).
Lowder writes that a Great Escape of sorts is brewing and will soon be bursting, as growing numbers of Mormons are becoming, well, non-Mormons:
“. . . [T[he Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints recently made a hard stop in its seeming progress toward LGBTQ tolerance by announcing that going forward, members in same-sex relationships would be considered ‘apostates’ and their children would be barred from religious life. This exclusion includes baptism, which in the Mormon faith is required for salvation—in other words, the Church, at least under its own theology, is forcibly keeping kids from God as punishment for their parents' love. To be accepted fully back into the faith, including being granted to opportunity to go on a mission, children must reach legal age and formally disavow their parents’ relationship.
“This decision . . . is certainly not dissonant with the core Mormon doctrine, which has never wavered in condemning ‘practicing homosexuals,’ even as actual discipline was only infrequently meted out. Now, the new hardline approach has forced a reckoning in the minds of believers—many of whom, apparently, can no longer keep the faith. . . .
“As David Badash reports over in The New Civil Rights Movement, thousands of souls are set to leave the Church on Saturday as part of a mass resignation in Salt Lake City. . . . In an interview with local outlet KIVI-TV, [Utah attorney Mark] Naugle said he has 1,400 resignations already in the works, and the Facebook event for Saturday has almost 1,000 confirmed attendees. In addition to submitting letters of resignation to the Church, participants are scheduled to march around Temple Square to protest the policy.
“Religious groups are, of course, well within their rights to make harsh exclusionary statements of this sort. But as understanding and support of same-sex couples and families continues to grow, those groups will not be immune to consequences—the membership records at LDS headquarters are about to bear clear evidence of that.”
(“Mormons Are Leaving the Church Over New Gay ‘Apostate’ Policy,” by J. Bryan Lowder, associate editor for “Slate” magazine's LGBTQ section, 11 November 2015,
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/1 /11/mormon_anti_gay_apostate_policy_forces_thousands_to_leave_the_lds_church.html)
The unfortunate element of the story is the claim that “leaving the LDS requires certain legal proceedings.” It's actually not as serious as some may think it sounds. .
While some paperwork and notary public service may be involved in processing zooming away from Zion, the so-called “legal” element of a bolt from the Cult is pretty straight forward and relatively simple--thanks to the courageous pushback of one determined individual who determined not to permit LDS, Inc. to bully, intimidate, disrespect, manhandle or otherwise mistreat him in dete4rmination to remove the Mormon brand from his life as soon as he possibly could.
That person is Norman Hancock. His example is an inspiring story of “can do and will do” –a story of hope and encouragement for those out there ready to jump the fence of the Mormon Cult corral and headed for open pasture, but but aren’t quite sure how to do it.
The great news is that Hancock is your friend. Thanks to his legal victory, you can stand down the Mormon Cult and resign on your own terms. It’s all because he demonstrated--in no uncertain fashion--that, armed with his own personal decision to sue the Mormon Cult for denying him his right to severe his ties, it is distinctly unlawful for the Mormon Cult to force a member to remain in its retrogressed ranks by means of refusing to recognize your individual right to voluntarily resign, so that they cann excommunicate you at their pleasure.
Wake up and smell the law library.
Hancock was a lifelong Mormon from Mesa, Arizona, who decided he had had enough and wanted out. His case ended up knocked the Mormon Cult back on its abusive butt.
Hancock served notice of his resignation from the Cult but it was rejected and he was then summarily excommunicated by a clueless Cult “court.” The endgame played out with Hancock hitting the Mormon Cult for multi-millions of dollars in damages--which got the Cult's attention real quick. The Cult ended up folding like a soft taco on a hot Arizona afternoon relenting and recognizing Hancock's inherent right to up and quit.
Here's a introductory synopsis of how things unfolded, then folded, titled "'Excommunication of Non-Members: Norman Hancock." The analysis is found on a blogsite specializing in matters of "church discipline with a focus on the mechanics and the practical impact, not the theology," thereby "purposed to serve the community of people who are subject to church discipline or recovering from it . . . from a member's . . . perspective."
"The case of Norman Hancock is an interesting one. It establishes firmly that churches cannot excommunicate members who leave during discipline, based on the Marian Guinn precedent. That once someone quits instantly their legal protections against libel and slander are restored. The state has no authority over the the disciplinary process within the church, but the person has no longer given their consent and this changes things.
"The case is standard. In 1985 the Mormon Church excommunicated Norman Hancock after he submitted a letter of resignation to the Church. Hancock filed an $18 million lawsuit against the Church, saying a person has a right to voluntarily resign from a church. The suit was settled out of court. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommuication'; the records would show that he resigned-- that is, he had asked his name be removed from the Church roll."
(“Church Discipline: Mormon Church, Norman Hancock,”
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/02/mormon-alliance-home-page.html)
_________
A blow-by-blow, detailed account of Hancock's infuriating but ultimately successful case is described in a report authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson for the "The Mormon Alliance," titled, “”Getting Their Attention’: The Norman Hancock Case,” which follows below:
“INTRODUCTION
“Since 1989, members of the [Mormon] Church desiring to resign or withdraw have had the option of having their names removed from the rolls, upon request. Before 1989, even though departing members could request that their names be removed, the process still required the convening of a court and the judgment of ‘excommunication,’ even though the public announcement ‘merely should state that his name has been removed from the records of the Church at his request.’
“Thus, departing members were forced to endure the humiliating and adversarial process of excommunication which implied wrong-doing through the fact of excommunication and which, even while granting the request, communicated that one’s personal decision was not valid unless and until it was institutionally validated.
“The . . . ‘General Handbook of Instruction’s (March 1989, 8-4) create[d] an administrative procedure that d[id] not require the convening of a Church court nor label the departing member as a wrongdoer. The ‘adult member’ [was required to] send the bishop of his or her ward a written request that his or her name be removed from Church records. The bishop [was] then [required to] (1) satisfy himself that the member underst[ood] that such an action ‘cancels the effects of baptism, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member, and suspends temple sealings and blessings’ and (2) decide that the member ‘is not likely to be dissuaded.’ He complete[d] an ‘Administrative Action’ form and forward[ed] it with the member’s letter to the stake president. ‘The stake president [would] review the documents and, if he concur[red], have the bishop send the member a letter stating that the desired action w[ould] be taken if the member d[id] not make a written request ‘for recission’ within 30 days.
“At the end of the 30 days, the stake president w[ould] send the documents to the office of the First Presidency. The handbook ma[de] no provision for confirming that the action ha[d] been taken nor d[id] it say what the stake president should do if he d[id] not ]concur.’
“If more than one member of a family wishe[d] to withdraw, only one document [was] necessary; if a member over age eight but under legal age wishe[ed] to withdraw, his or her letter of request . . . . also [had to] be signed by ‘the parent, parents, or guardians.’
“The member’s request [was] overridden ‘if a bishop or stake president[was] considering bringing a member before a disciplinary council. . . . Name removal [was] not be used as a substitute or alternative for excommunication or disfellowshipment.’ . . .
“There [were] three points in the policy that c[ould] be used to harass members in the process of leaving if their ecclesiastical leaders [were] insensitive and/or punitive.
“First, because the bishop and/or stake president [could] not already be ‘considering’ disciplinary action, a member’s request c[ould] trigger a search for reasons for such action. . . .
“Second, because the Administrative Action form require[d] a ‘reason’ for disaffection, the bishop[was] given an administrative tool with which to probe for evidence, if he wishe[d] to use it. Most disaffiliating members do not realize that they can refuse to provide any information at all or to provide only a general statement such as, ‘I don’t want to be a member any longer.’
“Third, because no provision [was] made for confirming that the individual’s name has, in fact, been removed, the individual [was] left in the sometimes uncomfortable position of (1) assuming that the ecclesiastical leaders ha[d] taken the action according to policy. In fact, some leaders ha[d] refused to act on such requests for weeks and even months; or (2) going back to an ecclesiastical officer with whom the individual may [have] desire[d] no further contact to ask for confirmation. . . .
“A final point of potential harassment [was] that the bishop or branch president ‘in some circumstances . . . may [have] need[ed] to announce that a person’s name ha[d] been removed from the records of the Church.’ The policy d[id] not state what these circumstances would be. A cross reference to Section 10-9 (‘Disciplinary Councils’) also fail[ed] to illuminate. It state[d] only that ‘if the presiding authority concludes that an announcement is necessary’ in a case of voluntary withdrawal, ‘the announcement should merely state that the action was taken at the person’s request and should not use the word excommunication.’ Thus, even an unchallenged withdrawal may [have] still be[en] publicly punished by an announcement which w[ould have] certainly cause[d] speculation and invite[d] judgment.
“The possibility of ‘dignified withdrawal’ or ‘principled resignation’ (as various Mormons have called removing their names from the records), may be traced largely to the influence of one man, Norman Hancock of Mesa, Arizona, who brought an $18 million lawsuit against the Church in 1985 for refusing to let him withdraw voluntarily. The next edition of the ‘General Handbook of Instructions’ after the resolution of the Hancock precedent included provisions described above for voluntary withdrawal.
“NORMAN HANCOCK
“’When something is unjust, you feel that you have to do something'--Norman Hancoc
“In 1985 when these events occurred, the ‘General Handbook of Instructions’ for bishops and stake presidents did not allow resignation. If someone requested that his or her name be removed from Church records, the only means for accomplishing it was a court resulting in excommunication. The handbook instructed that a court should be held only if ‘patient efforts to dissuade him are unsuccessful.’The summons to this court ‘should not imply accusations of misconduct.’ The court should consider ‘all relevant correspondence and evidence of attempts to persuade him to remain in the Church. . . . If the members of the court are satisfied that all possible effort has been expended, the request should be granted.’ The letter informing the individual of the action ‘should not include the word excommunication’ nor should any public announcement. ‘It should merely state that his name has been removed from the record of the Church as his request.’ Still, on the membership record sent back to Church headquarters, ‘the word “excommunicated” appears] in red across the top."’
“Norman L. Hancock was born and raised a Mormon. His great-great-grandfather, Solomon Hancock, was one of the early converts to the Church and died at Winter Quarters. Norman had grown up in Safford, one of Arizona’s old Mormon towns. In 1983, he was 53 years old, a graduate of Brigham Young University, and had taught in the Mesa elementary schools for 20 years. He had also established a personal investment company some time earlier as a side venture, and it had become so vigorous and time-consuming that he decided to retire from teaching, which he did in August 1983, and devote full-time to the business.
“He and his wife, Muriel G. Hancock, were the parents of six children, then ages 18 to 31. The whole family was active in the Church and Norman had served in a variety of positions. In fact, Muriel had been the Relief Society president about 1988-91 (‘the best Relief Society president they ever had,’ he says fondly), while Norman was ward executive secretary. She was released when Norman was called as a counselor in the bishopric where he served from 1981 until 1983.
“One of the young couples in the ward was experiencing marital difficulties; the wife, Lisa Nichols (a pseudonym), was Young Women’s president and had sought Norman out for counseling as the marriage slowly unraveled. Even after he was released in early 1983, she still called him when she was deeply troubled. ‘Muriel knew all about it and was just glad that I could help,’ Norman recalled. ‘I knew it wasn’t a good idea to meet alone with Lisa, and I met her in a restaurant once. In retrospect, that wasn’t very good judgment on my part, but it also shows that I wasn’t sneaking around to secret meetings.’ Still, rumors circulated about them.
“On 1 November 1983, he was summoned before the Mesa North Stake high council . . . ‘for investigation of alleged conduct by you in violation of the law and order of the Church.’ This vague phrases meant, as he learned at the trial, that he had ‘improperly associated’ with Lisa Nichols. He readily admitted the association but denied any wrongdoing, nor did the high council present any evidence of misconduct. ‘I wasn’t defiant,’ he says. ‘I was cooperative. I answered all their questions for an hour-and-a-half and nobody had any evidence of any kind against me. If there’d been even a smidgen, they’d have excommunicated me on the spot. They had the reputation for being really ruthless. In fact, my bishop told me, “I know you’re innocent, Norm. This is the first time they’ve had a court and haven’t excommunicated somebody.”’
“Even without evidence, the high council court disfellowshipped him ‘for Un-Christianlike conduct.’ A letter signed by the stake presidency (Duane Beazer and counselors David L. Roberts and Ross N. Farnsworth) informed him of the decision and continued:
“’Disfellowship[ment] means that you are a member of the Church but many of the privileges of membership are denied you. You may continue your payment of tithing and other contributions.
“’However, you will not be entitled to speak or offer prayers, partake of the sacrament, sustain or vote against Church officers, participate in any way if in attendance at Priesthood Meetings, hold a temple recommend, hold any office in the Church, or attend any meeting of Church officers. You may, however, attend meetings in the consolidated meeting schedule and public conference sessions, providing your conduct is orderly, but you may not take part actively in such meetings. You are encouraged to continue to wear the temple garment.
“’You have the right to appeal this decision to the First Presidency within 30 days if you feel that the decision is not just and such appeal should be presented in writing to the presiding officer of the court that made the decision.
“’May we counsel you to avoid any improper association with Lisa Nichols such as that which caused this court to convene. Further association may lead to excommunication.
“’We sincerely encourage you to take the proper steps toward repentance; and if you continue toward complete repentance, you may at an appropriate time apply for return to full fellowship in the Church again and you will be most welcomed. When you are ready, you should apply to the bishop of the ward in which you then reside and he in turn will seek the approval of the high council court of this stake.
“’Remember, Church courts are courts of love and redemption, not retribution, and our only purpose is to help you put your life in order and to strengthen you in your quest for exaltation.’
“The same court also disfellowshipped Lisa after two hours of ‘grilling her, trying to get her to confess to something.’
“Norman was deeply hurt by being disfellowshipped. Muriel remembers that ‘he suffered so much he went to bed for a week.’ Still, he was determined to accept it and work through it. Even though it ‘made me feel bad that they wouldn’t take my word that nothing had happened, I could see that they thought the association itself was dangerous and might lead to something worse. I could see their point of view, even if they couldn’t see mine.’ He prized his temple marriage and family. He had a strong testimony of the principles of the gospel. He was proud of the strong religious commitment of his children. The loving respect he received from his children, and especially Muriel’s staunch support, made him resolve to accept the disfellowshipment and work toward reinstatement.
“Before the court, Muriel had ‘hoped the whole thing would sort of blow over,’ as she put it. She had seen Norman’s irritation and frustration as events moved toward the first court, ‘but I just hadn’t been involved.’ She was out of town, helping their daughter after the birth of a baby when the court was held. She returned at the end of the week and had to face the fact that it was not going to blow over. ‘Norman had told me there was no wrongdoing, and I believed him. If he’d done something wrong, he’d be the first to say so and change. He’s an honest man, a good man. So, of course I believed him. And I saw such anguish as a result of that court.’
“Ironically enough, it was President Beazer’s unwillingness to accept Hancock’s good faith that led to a crisis. Over the next few months, Hancock was first amused, then outraged, when he discovered that a neighbor was watching his house, checking on his comings and going, and asking other neighbors about his whereabouts. Several times, he heard a strange clicking sound on his telephone and even wondered if his line had been tapped. He finally confronted this neighbor and demanded to know why he was asking questions. The man mumbled something about a ‘special calling’ from the stake president but would say nothing more. Norman insisted, ‘If you’ve got questions to ask about me, you ask me—not the neighbors or my kids.’ The neighbor thereupon asked him a question about his activities. Norman promptly responded, ‘None of your business. Next question?’ He also warned the neighbor that any further prying into his activities might result in a libel suit.
“Norman’s irritation increased when he saw Lisa’s car parked outside the neighbor’s house one evening for two or three hours. He learned that the neighbor had been ‘grilling’ Lisa about her movements and intentions. ‘Lisa’s business really was none of his business,’ he pointed out. ‘She wasn’t his neighbor. He didn’t have any kind of ecclesiastical calling. He was just snooping around for the stake president.’
“Then in February 1984, President Beazer, called Norman in again and accused him again of ‘improper association.’ Triumphantly he announced, ‘You had Lisa to dinner on such and such a night when your wife was out of town.’
“Norman blinked in surprise, then explained, ‘No, Lisa stopped by—just dropped in to leave some papers. My nephew and his friend were there and we were eating supper. I gave her a salad. A neighbor stopped by while we were all four there. She left before my nephew and his friend. We were never alone."
“President Beazer’s face reddened. He turned, grabbed the phone, and called the ward member who had come by, demanding, ‘Were Norman’s nephew and another man there? They were? Why didn’t you tell me that? This is very important information.’ He hung up and turned around, obviously piqued at having acted on incomplete information.
“When Norman added, ‘And you owe me an apology, doggone it,’ President Beazer exploded vindictively, ‘I’m going to excommunicate you anyway!’
“Norman left the meeting fuming. ‘Here you are. They have all the power. They can ruin your name and your reputation. The truth is on your side. You’re right and he’s wrong, but it doesn’t matter because he’s got the power. The facts don’t matter. Nobody’s going to make the Church back down.’ Given the fact that he had already been punished despite his claim of innocence and the absence of any proof to the contrary, Norman had no confidence that a second court would prove fairer than the first. The interview with Beazer was the last straw. He and Muriel talked over their options.
“Norman had been serving in the bishopric in early 1983 when a local man, Clyde Harmon, requested excommunication over doctrinal reasons. Harmon was attending his own ward when the letter announcing his excommunication ‘for apostasy at his own request’ was read. He had stood up, unashamed, during the announcement. Although Norman did not then know Clyde, they had a mutual friend, Don Crandall, with whom he had a number of conversations. He was regretful when Don also requested excommunication in late 1983. The high councilors asked him his reasons, assuming that he also had doctrinal differences with the Church, but he simply answered, ‘That’s my business.’ Norman was assigned to read the letter in priesthood meeting announcing Don’s excommunication and did so very reluctantly.
“Even though he disagreed with both men and felt that their excommunications were not necessary, he admired their courage and their dignity. ‘I looked them up—wanted to know what to do in a case like this. It made a difference to know that there were people who had survived it. They said, “It’ll change your life, Norman.” I said, “It’s already changed my life. Being falsely accused and being punished for something I didn’t do changed my life."’
“He decided to resign, but it was an agonizing decision. John, their youngest son, was just preparing for his mission to Taiwan. Muriel decided to resign as well. Although the question of the injustice done to her husband was important, an even more important reason was her strong love for her family. ‘The only way to preserve and enrich our marriage was to be together all the way,’ she explained. ‘I knew if I stayed in the Church and he got out, it would put a rift between us. We’d raised our children together in the Church, that’s where they were, and that’s where we wanted them to be, but I couldn’t let him do this alone. I know there are ladies who have gone on without their husbands and that the husbands have come back. That’s fine for them. John, our missionary son, told me, “Mother, the Church has to come before family.” I said, “No, I’ve always been taught that the family comes first.” I strongly felt that the only way to preserve the family was to stick it out with Norm. Our son even went to our bishop and asked which comes first, and the bishop said the family. John came back and apologized. Lots of people told me that I’d lose my family. I just didn’t feel that way. My feeling was that my family was strong enough that I would never lose it as long as we stuck together.’
“Muriel’s decision, as it turned out, shocked the family and the ward much more than Norman’s. ‘All of our kids called, one after the other, all day long,’ he remembered. ‘They’d talk to me and say everything they could think of. And then they’d talk to Muriel. They did everything under the sun they could think of. She never budged. She never got angry. She never wavered.’
“Together Norman and Muriel wrote a short and dignified letter on 28 February 1984 asking to have their names removed from Church records:
“’Dear President Beazer,
“’We request our names be removed from the rolls of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Our reasons are of a personal nature and will remain that way. We hold no bitterness or rancor against any person and wish to remain friends with everyone. This decision to leave is one that was carefully thought out.
“’We would like this done as soon as possible and with the least amount of involvement as possible. We request that any announcement made emphasize that we initiated the withdrawal of our names from the Church.’
“President Beazer called a court for 4 March 1984, giving the Hancocks only 24 hours’ notice. Norman and Muriel both attended and both were questioned separately. After Muriel was questioned for an hour, she was disheartened to hear President Beazer say,
‘We won’t take your name off the roll. You need another month to make this decision.’ They called Norman in and announced, ‘We think your wife should stay in another month.’
“Norman looked at Muriel, ‘Is this what you want?’
"’No,’ she answered frustrated. ‘I want to get out with you.’
“She remembered that Norman slammed his fist on the table and said, ‘You let her out now.’
“That ended the discussion.
“The experience for Norman was equally frustrating and even more grueling. It began on a light moment when he joked, ‘Well, I have some good news and bad news. The good news is that you’re losing me. The bad news is that you’re losing the best member you’ve ever had—my wife.’ Norman’s and Muriel’s bishop attended as a character witness for Norman and said, ‘Norman’s the best counselor I’ve ever had. Everybody loves him.’
"’Yeah,’ quipped Norman. ‘That’s why I’m here.’
“From there, it got dirty. During the court, President Beazer accused Norman of immoral conduct and continued with detailed and sordid denunciations that basically boiled down to rumors, gossip, and innuendo. The neighbor appeared as a ‘witness’―’but he didn’t have anything to “witness” to because nothing had happened,’ recalled Norman. ‘I asked him what he was doing this for. He sort of looked at President Beazer and didn’t answer.’ Several members of the high council, shocked that the neighbor had been watching Norman, ‘jumped on him.’ When Norman asked him directly if he was a ‘spy’ for the stake president, he didn’t answer.
“Norman insisted on two points:
“First, he had done nothing wrong, and the accusations against him were false.
“Second, as he put it to a reporter, ‘I pleaded for an hour-and-a-half that I hadn’t done anything wrong, that all I wanted was: I wanted out.’
“Norman was excommunicated ‘for violation of the law and order of the Church, for not following the conditions of the previous court, and at your request.’ Muriel’s name was ‘removed from the records of the Church as you requested.’ A letter to that effect was delivered to the house by two high councilors. The rest of the letter read:
“’This [excommunication] means that you are no longer a member of the Church and all privileges of membership are denied, including the wearing of the temple garments and the payment of tithing and other contributions. You may, however, if you so desire, make such payments through a member of your immediate family who is in full standing in the Church, provided that all receipts are written in the name of the family member.
“’You will not be entitled to speak or offer public prayers, partake of the sacrament, sustain or vote against Church officers, hold a temple recommend, hold any office in the Church, or attend any meeting of Church officers. You may, however, attend meetings in the consolidated meeting schedule and public conference sessions providing your conduct is orderly, but you may not take part actively in such meetings.
“’You have the right to appeal this decision to the First Presidency within 30 days, if you feel that the decision is not just, and such appeal should be presented in writing to the presiding officer of the court that made the decision.
“’We sincerely encourage you to take the proper steps towards repentance; and if you continue towards complete repentance, you may at an appropriate time apply for readmission into the Church again and you will be most welcomed.
“’May we counsel you to completely disassociate yourself from association with Lisa Nichols.
“’When you are ready, you should apply to the bishop of the ward in which you then reside and he will seek the approval of the high council court of this stake. Approval of the First Presidency of the Church will also be required at that time.
“’Remember, Church courts are courts of love and redemption, not retribution, and our only purpose is to help you to put your life in order and to strengthen you in your quest for exaltation.’
“It was signed by the full stake presidency: Duane Beazer, David L. Roberts, and Ross N. Farnsworth.
“Norman was very angry at the unfairness of the action. In addition to the rank injustice of being judged guilty when he was innocent and in the absence of any proof, he felt keenly the ‘contempt’ of not being allowed to withdraw from the Church in a dignified manner. ‘I hadn’t been back to church since I was disfellowshipped. I wasn’t over there arguing with anybody or causing a fuss or trying to make things hard for them. And I didn’t want to go through their doggone procedure. I want out. If a dog is walking away, my dog doesn’t attack him. But in this situation, they jump on you when you’re leaving. It’s what bullies do on the playground.’
“It was hard for Norman to believe that the Church his family had belonged to for five generations could act so unjustly, and the disillusionment was deep. He had not been naive about the Church. ‘I knew the leaders were human. I didn’t let that bother me. I knew that people made mistakes. I knew I wasn’t perfect. And I wasn’t some hot-headed kid. I’d been in the Church my whole life. I just didn’t let things bother me. ‘Go along and get along.’ That was my motto.’
“It was because of his profound religious convictions that he felt the injustice could not be allowed to stand. Norman had personally known of people who had nervous breakdowns after being excommunicated and even a couple of cases in which the excommunicated individual, unable to bear the shame of the excommunication coupled with the original guilt of his wrongdoing, had committed suicide.
“One of them was a cousin who had been excommunicated for ‘moral problems.’ Neither the bishop nor the stake president showed any interest in counseling him or helping him toward reinstatement. He became so depressed and suicidal that Norman and another cousin stayed with him night and day for two or three days until they were able to get him admitted to a private mental hospital. He ran away, and his alarmed family admitted him to the state hospital. He managed to escape from this institution long enough to get a gun and shoot himself.
“Another local man whom Norman knew said that he was glad he had been excommunicated because he could make a "fresh start." Despite these positive words, however, he killed himself in a moment of despondency.
“Norman felt relieved that he had resigned from his teaching position. An attorney he talked to agreed with his assessment that, in a strongly Mormon community like Mesa, being excommunicated had definite social and professional consequences. ‘Until you’re there, you don’t understand the total loss of dignity from being humiliated in public like that,’ he said. ‘You’d have to have support or you’d never make it through. And it makes you mad. You’re loyal to the organization. You think of all the time, all the money, all of the times you put yourself out to do your duty, and it’s like none of it counts. You feel so betrayed, so cheated.’
"’The more I thought about it, the more I knew what they’d done was wrong,’ he said. ‘I knew how it was affecting me, and I was innocent. What if I’d been guilty of what they said I’d done? It was easy for me to see how someone could get depressed enough to want out of this world. Muriel was standing by me to the hilt, but how would I have felt if she’d left me or been part of the people who thought I had it coming? As it was, I knew I was innocent, so it made me mad and that’s probably what saved me.’
“The sting did not go away; and about six months later, a friend called, telling him to switch on the ‘Phil Donahue Show.’ A guest on the show was Marian Guinn, a divorced mother of four, a nurse, and a member of the Collinsville Church of Christ. She had been having an affair with Pat Sharp, the former mayor in the tiny town of 3,500. When the three presiding elders confronted her, she admitted the affair with the understanding that her confession was to remain confidential. However, they insisted that she confess before the congregation. She refused. They gave her an ultimatum. If she ‘did not confess publicly in two weeks they would issue a formal statement to the congregation denouncing her “fornication” and calling on members to “withdraw fellowship” from her.’ Guinn testified: ‘I did everything but get down on my knees, pleading with them not to bring this before the congregation. . . . I’m not saying I wasn’t guilty. I was. But it was none of their business.’ She resigned from the church but the elders refused to accept it, announcing that ‘she would remain a member until they expelled her.’ They read the announcement, denouncing her for ‘fornication.’
“She filed a $1.3 million lawsuit against the church and the three elders for invasion of privacy and for emotional distress. Her attorney’s argument was, 'He was a single man. She was a single lady. And this is America.’ The attorney for the elders took the position: ‘That is the belief of every denomination that I know of, that you just can’t go around doing these things.’ The jury agreed with Guinn and awarded her $390,000 in damages; they specified additional damages, but both attorneys agreed on a maximum of $390,000.
“Norman listened attentively, frustrated that the show dealt so sketchily with the legal standing of Mrs. Guinn’s situation. There was enough, though, to make some pieces come together for him. Accompanied by Clyde Harmon, Norman flew to Tulsa, Oklahoma, got a transcript of the court proceedings, and met with Guinn’s attorney, Thomas Frasier. When Frasier read the letter from the stake presidency, he looked up from the paper and said simply, ‘They defamed you. Nail ‘em. I’ll help you any way I can.’ He also added, ‘I’d never do another one of these cases again. You can’t believe the hate mail.’
“Norman went back to Mesa and consulted a lawyer, but acted as his own attorney. On 13 December he filed suit against the Church and President Beazer on the basis that he had requested that his name be removed and that instead he had been subjected to an ‘illegal’ Church court in a defamatory action that damaged his reputation for honesty, integrity, and morality, that President Beazer had slandered him in the court by making ‘false, malicious, and slanderous’ accusations of ‘illicit, improper, and immoral conduct,’ had violated his privacy, had placed him ‘in a false light in the public eye,’ and had permanently injured his ‘reputation, business and standing in the community’ by making a public announcement to the ward officers that circulated swiftly throughout the community. Norman further argued that the action was ‘extreme and outrageous and done intentionally and recklessly’ and, hence, had caused him ‘emotional distress.’ These acts had, he claimed, exposed him ‘to public contempt, hatred, and ridicule" and had ‘blackened and injured" his reputation.’
“He asked for $6 million in actual damages and $12 million in punitive damages. He selected this sum of $18 million because 18 men (his bishopric, stake presidency, and 12 high councilors) had been involved in the defamation.
“Ironically, the case was assigned to Superior Court Judge David Roberts, Beazer’s first counselor. Roberts disqualified himself from hearing the case xon 11 January 1985.
“In speaking to the press, Hancock--a mild-mannered, thoughtful man--consistently explained that he felt no bitterness toward either the Church or Beazer, but that what had happened was wrong. ‘I do not want to destroy the Church, but I believe I had some rights that were violated. . . . I just wanted out of the Church and wanted to be left alone. . . . They didn’t let me out of the Church when I asked to get out without labeling me. That’s a difficult cross to bear.’ He affirmed his innocence, repeating that he ‘did not violate any Church laws.’ His purpose was to force the Church ‘to reevaluate [its] court procedures. It will be a better Church . . . when they let God be the judge of a man’s conduct.’ He pointed out: ‘The term “excommunicated” itself is damaging to my reputation among both Mormons and non-Mormons, . . . because it presumes someone is bad or has done something wrong. I just wanted out of the Church and wanted to be left alone.’
“One indication of the assumptions made about an excommunicated Mormon appeared in a letter to the editor of the ‘Latter-day Sentinel’ by a Tucson man: ‘Who brought on the acts that caused his excommunication? Surely no one except himself. Did he think of the stress he was causing when he did what he did? . . . Didn’t he handle things that brought this whole thing on? I have my opinion of a man of this caliber.’
“This man was probably not alone in assuming that Church discipline occurs solely a result of the member’s misdeeds and that there is no possibility that leaders may have may a mistake. Norman also endured the subtle implications from members who had been inactive for years that they were ‘somehow better than I was’ because they were still members.
“Heartwarmingly, another reader came to his defense:
“’I don’t know all the circumstances which have brought this to come about, but I do know that this man needs our compassion and understanding and not our judgment and ridicule.
“’I had the privilege of working a short time for Mr. Hancock when he was a teacher at Longfellow Elementary. He was a great example for me and gave me the confidence and desire I needed to continue working towards my teaching degree. Later I was richly blessed to work under his direction in the Young Women program.
“’I have a great deal of love and respect for him among with a desire to see him come back into the Church one day.’
“About 50 people called the Hancock home, all but two or three expressing support. From Salt Lake City, Church spokesman Don LeFevre managed to suggest that Norman was creating a tempest in a teapot: ‘It’s all a formality,’ he told a reporter. ‘The individual doesn’t even have to be there [at the trial] if he doesn’t want to. . . . It sounds like the man made a request, the request was granted, and he got the result he sought.’ He did not respond to the other issues Norman raised about his reputation or about Beazer’s insistence that Norman could not be allowed to leave but had to be expelled.
“On 2 January 1985, Kent E. Turley, the local attorney hired by the Church and president of the Phoenix Arizona Stake, filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that Hancock’s suit was ‘vague’ and because ‘civil courts lack jurisdiction in religious disputes.’ He argued: ’The issues of illegal Church court and purported excommunication are clearly a matter of ecclesiastical dispute, which is not a proper subject matter for the civil courts. . . . [The U.S. Supreme Court] ruled in 1976 that it would be a constitutional violation to permit civil courts to probe deeply enough into the allocation of power within a hierarchical church so as to decide . . . religious law governing church policy.’ A 1952 ruling by the California Supreme Court held that a church member makes ‘an implied contract that in return for the benefits of membership, he will submit to its control and be governed by its laws and customs.’ Such interference ‘would constitute a violation of the free exercise of religion clause,’ as guaranteed in both the U.S. and the Arizona constitutions.
“In sum, Turley was not responding to the charges of invasion of privacy, slander, and deliberate infliction of emotional distress but, rather, focusing on the jurisdictional question of whether the civil court had ‘authority to inquire whether the Church court was held illegally or whether the excommunication was valid.’
“Norman took strong exception to these arguments, since the very cases that Turley cited included provision for the courts to intervene when civil or property rights were invaded and also that continuing membership was a mutual agreement between the member and the Church, not a one-sided decision by the Church. There were plenty of cases in which the civil courts had intervened in religious matters when these guidelines had been breached. He prepared to file an amended complaint that expanded the civil rights that he felt had been violated: privacy, slander and libel, intentional infliction of mental distress, assault, and false imprisonment. No church could claim immunity from legal liability for committing such acts just because it is a church. He further charged that the Church had violated its own procedures in excommunicating him.
“About the end of January 1985, Kenyon Udall of Thatcher, Arizona--then Regional Representative--called Norman. Their fathers had served together on a high council and he offered his services as a family friend, saying, ‘I want to help straighten this out.’ Norman initially received this offer coolly since he assumed that Udall was acting as go-between for Turley and Oscar McConkie, the Church’s attorney in Salt Lake City. Norman was willing to discuss the case with him, however, and, when Udall asked to come to the house, willingly made an appointment. Norm was then preparing to file his response, responding to Turley’s motion and providing more details about the seriousness of the invasion of his privacy. As a sign of good faith, he showed this document to Udall and told him his plans to file the amendment the next day.
“Udall asked him to ‘hold off a couple of weeks’ and assured him that he’d seek out a way to resolve the difficulty. When he began negotiating a smaller settlement amount, it was the last straw.
"’I don’t want your dang money!’ Norman burst out. ‘I want to get your attention.’
“The light went on for Udall. “I’ll see what I can do,’ he promised. He later told a reporter, ‘I was afraid at first that he was out to hurt the Church, but he didn’t want that. . . . He’s excited about [John’s mission]—just as I was when my son was getting ready to serve. I don’t think he has any hard feelings about the Church.’
“Norman gave him a copy of the amended complaint, and Udall sent it on to McConkie. Five members of the Quorum of the Twelve and Robert D. Hales--now an apostle but then president of the North American Southwest Area-- approved a compromise: in exchange for dropping the suit, Norman’s cause for leaving the Church would be listed as his own request and his name would be ‘removed’; he would not be ‘excommunicated.’ Just a few days later, Udall called jubilantly to say, ‘We’ve got it worked out with McConkie.’
“Norman asked his son John to accompany him to the meeting with Turley in Phoenix. Turley showed him a newly written letter from Duane Bearer and the other members of the stake presidency announcing: ‘The decision of the court is that your name be removed from the records of the Church as you requested.’ The rest of the letter was essentially identical to the first and it was dated 4 March 1984, the date of the original court. In an almost-humorous piece of stage business, Norman signed a letter dropping the suit, then each man picked up his respective letter, simultaneously extended it to the other with one hand and took hold of the extended letter with the other, then simultaneously released the first document. The court ordered the case dismissed on 21 February.
“Turley did not speak to reporters from the Phoenix and Mesa papers, but his aide announced that ‘the Church is very pleased with the way it turned out.’ However, he told a reporter for the Mormon ‘Latter-day Sentinel’ that the case did not constitutive a precedent: ‘No changes have been made to the guidelines in the Church handbook and whether proceedings will change is pure speculation.’
“Norman saw it differently—and, as matter turned out, more accurately. Feeling very relieved and vindicated by the outcome, Norman told the local newspapers that the outcome was ‘better than I expected. This is worth more than money to me.’ He praised the Church for its fairness and stressed, ‘Hopefully anybody who wants to get out of the Church will use this as a precedent without going through the excommunication process.’
“He put his feelings into a short personal essay [titled] ‘The First Sign of Tyranny is Blind Obedience’:
“’Personal freedom is not a gift but a right. Any action that jeopardizes that right should stir the innermost indignation within a man’s soul.
“My dispute with the Mormon Church was not action against something but a defense to protect these rights.
“’ . . . The American court system and the free press have once again defended the weak against the strong in a clear-cut case of violation of personal freedom.
“’May this demonstrate clearly for time to come that justice is worth fighting for regardless of the sacrifice. We must stand for this justice even if we must stand alone.’
“As another individual aside, one of the former Mormons who wrote in support of Hancock's right to resign his membership was John W. Fitzgerald, who was thrown out of the Mormon Cult in 1972 for his opposition to its ban on African-American males receiving the priesthood.”
[Personal Note: Dr. Fitzgerald--as he was known to me and my young classmates--was the principal of Morningside Elementary School in Salt Lake City, which I attended 3rd and 4th grade. I remember him as a kind, gentle and strong man who played the violin beautifully and who consoled crying students and teachers alike in the school cafeteria where we had gathered to be told the news that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated that day, November 22, 1963].
“[Continuing his thoughts on the Hancock case, Dr. Fitzgerald] wrote:
"’The guarantee voiced in the Constitution of freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, also contains with it the concept of freedom from religion; that no individual or religious organization can coerce or force anyone to join or stay in any religious group against his or her will. . . .
"’Norman L. Hancock’s suit against the LDS Church for possible defamation of character . . . was settled out-of-court when the Church agreed to drop him from membership without the taint of excommunication, which is very real in Mormon communities.
"’[It is time for the Church to take] a long look at their policy on excommunication and their practice of ignoring requests of individuals to have their names removed from the rolls of their Church.
"’The LDS Church is a pseudo-democracy. It never claimed to be a democracy like the one we believe in, where secrets ballots are taken, and it is nobody’s business how one votes."
“(John W. Fitzgerald, ‘Freedom from Religion,’ in ‘Salt Lake Tribune,’ 6 March 1985, p. A-17)”
(“’Getting Their Attention’: The Norman Hancock Case,” Chapter 5, by Lavina Fielding Anderson,
http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm)
_____
My Personal Exchange with Norman Hancock
Having heard about Norman Hancock’s heroic fight and his moral and legal victory, I phoned him (he was still living in Mesa, AZ at the time) to congratulate him for his courage and tenacity in standing down the Mormon Cult. He graciously and matter-of-factly accepted the compliment.
*********
CONCLUSION: Let There Be No Confusion—YOU Are the One Possessing the Recognized Legal Authority to Call the Shots on Name Removal from the Mormon Cult
What the Hancock case did in behalf of individuals seeking to sever their membership ties with the Mormon Cult was an amazing personal story, an historically ground-breaking event in the annals of LDS-inflicted bullying; and a stirringly significant reminder of what can be done to fight and win against tyrannical theocrstic abuse.
So, folks, don’t worry too much about those legal hoops that some say you need to jump through in order to free yourself from the Mormon Cult. In reality, you can park the Cult at the curb at will and, in the process, inform its petty, wind-up puppets of the self-determined time when you are getting out and moving on. You can also order them to step aside ‘cuz you’re comin’ through.
The glorious thing about it all is that there’s not a damn thing the Mormon Cult can do to stop you. In fact, under the terms of established case law, it is the party that has to obey you. Talk about a sweet turnaround.
For that, we can all thank Norman Hancock.
Carry on and good luck.
Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 11/12/2015 02:40PM by steve benson.