In the case of Norman Hancock of Mesa, AZ, he resigned from the Mormon Church but the resignation was not accepted and Hancock was excommunicated. The endgame of it all: Hancock subsequently sued the Mormon Church for millions of dollars and the Mormon Church relented, allowing him to resign.

--Below are some assessments of this landmark case:

"Excommunication of non-members: Norman Hancock

"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."

http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/02/mormon-alliance-home-page.html


--More on the Hancock case as far as legal precedent is concerned:

"Legal Precedent

"[The Hancock] case is important to establish the [Mormon] church's vulnerability to lawsuits when they refuse to honor resignations. . . .

"THE NORMAN HANCOCK LAWSUIT (Mesa AZ 1985)

"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 and the settlement was sealed. An account on line reports that Hancock filed the suit himself, without the aid of a lawyer, after studying the Guinn case [see the link below for an explanation of that particular case]. The same account says that [Mormon] Church lawyers started discussing with Hancock just how much money he wanted, but he told them he didn't want their money, that what he wanted was to have his name cleared. Church representatives agreed to change the records such that there would no longer be any record of an 'excommunication': the records would show that he resigned (that he asked for 'name removal').

"The Hancock case shows that the [Mormon] Church is willing to settle out of court when someone sues because the Church 'excommunicates' them after they've resigned their membership. There were some defamation issues in the Hancock case that do not apply to most other cases, however.

"The Guinn and Hancock cases were the end of the era when the [Mormon] Church told members that there was no way to stop being a member except by excommunication. The Church began having a process it calls 'name removal.' However, the Church still tells bishops and stake presidents that a member who is 'transgressing' should not be allowed to resign, that 'name removal should not be used as a substitute for Church discipline.' If you've paid attention to the Guinn case, you already know that the [Mormon] Church is wrong about that and they can be sued for 'excommunicating' someone who already resigned. At Church headquarters they know this very well and they will usually put a quick halt to 'discipline' proceedings if they find out that the former members knows what his or her rights are."

http://www.mormonnomore.com/legal-precedent


--An overview of how Hancock used American law to stand down the power-abusing Mormon Church:

"Individuals . . . have used their membership in the American legal community to challenge Latter-day Saint Church courts and procedures in other ways. In 1985, Norman Hancock sued the LDS Church after a Church court excommunicated him. Hancock claimed that the Church court proceedings defamed him, placing 'him in a false light in the public eye' and 'permanently injur[ing] his reputation, business, and standing in the community.' He reasoned that '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.' When he had approached Church leaders asking that his name be taken off Church records, the Church leaders initiated |Church court proceedings. Hancock claimed that he should have been free to disassociate himself from the church formally without the epithet of excommunication attached to his name. The case ultimately settled out of court. . . .

"Whether or not there is any connection in fact with Hancock's suit against the LDS Church filed in 1984, with Janice Paul's case against the Jehovah's Witnesses or Marian Guinn's case against the Church of Christ, or any other civil court case, LDS Church procedure regarding voluntary disassociation and ecclesiastical discipline changed in the 1989 General Handbook. The 1983 General Handbook makes no mention of what a bishop or high council should do if a member requests that his name be removed from the church's records, although in practice the request was treated as an act of apostasy. The 1989 General Handbook, on the other hand, specifically states that if a member makes a formal written request that his membership be revoked, the local leaders should comply with that request by filling out several forms and sending them to the Church offices rather than initiating a disciplinary council. The 1989 General Handbook does caution, however, that if ecclesiastical leaders are considering disciplinary action, the administrative name removal process should not be used as a substitute for a disciplinary council.

"The change to an administrative procedure reflects a core American value: individual freedom and the right of association. Although the consequences in terms of membership in the religious community are the same, the change from disciplinary action to administrative procedure shifts the emphasis away from the community's formal control of membership toward the individual's freedom to choose. However it came about, a value central to membership in the American legal community emerged *602 in the way the Latter-day Saint community and its courts adjudicate membership."

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/AugustineAdams.htm)
_____


--Summary of the Norman Hancock Case

First, as a personal preface to the following wrap-up, I wasn't "allowed" by the Mormon Cult to resign my membership (as some have suggested, supposedly due to my in-Cult family heritage). Rather, I resigned without seeking or being given Mormon Cult permission to do so. As far as I was concerned, it was a simple decision: Damn the demagogues; full speed ahead. To me, being "excommunicated" suggests that a believer is being kicked out of the Mormon Cult against their will. I was no longer a believer and wanted out on my own terms.

Besides, as has been demonstrated by the pivortal Hancock case, it is unlawful for the Mormon Cult to force a member to remain in the ranks (through refusing to recognize their individual right to voluntarily resign), in order for the Mormon Cult to excommunicate them.

Hancock was a lifelong Mormon who decided he finally wanted out. Thanks to Hancock's determination (and putting it bluntly), his case knocked the Mormon Cult back on its abusive butt.

Hancock served notice of his membership resignation but the resignation was rejected and Hancock was summarily excommunicated by a clueless Cult court. The endgame played out with Hancock subsequently suing the Mormon Cult for multi-millions of dollars in damages, which got the Cult's attention real quick. The Cult melted like Jell-O in the hot sun and relented, thereby recognizing Hancock's inherent right to resign.

For the blow-by-blow details of Hancock's infuriating but ultimately successful case as described in a report authored by Lavina Fielding Anderson for the "The Mormon Alliance," see: http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/volume3/part1/v3p1c05.htm


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. He 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)


John W. Fitzgerald (or Dr. Fitzgerald, as I knew him) was my principal at Morningside Elementary in Salt Lake, where I attended 3rd and 4th grade. I remember him being a strong, thoughtful man who played the violin beautifully and who, sadly enough, announced to all of us students assembled in the school cafeteria on November 22, 1963, that President John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.

At any rate, I personally phoned Hancock (who was 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. What Hancock did in behalf of individuals seeking to sever their membership with the Mormon Cult was an absolutely 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 theological overreach.

Yo, Salt Lake: Beware the Storm of Norm!

:)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 10:13PM by steve benson.

Thanks for the summary of the Hancock Case. I googled it to read some more and found this very interesting.

http://www.aliveonline.com/ldspapers/AugustineAdams.htm

This bit from the above link was like a light bulb going off in my head.

"Although the consequences in terms of membership in the religious community are the same, the change from disciplinary action to administrative procedure shifts the emphasis away from the community's formal control of membership toward the individual's freedom to choose. However it came about, a value central to membership in the American legal community emerged *602 in the way the Latter-day Saint community and its courts adjudicate membership."

It begged this question for me.

If LDS Inc.'s "doctrinal purity" includes all that is possible in the scope of "Free Agency" then why did it take legal action for God's true church to move "away from the community's formal control of membership toward the individual's freedom to choose."????

Hmmm. I guess God's prophets didn't see Brother Hancock coming. God should have got them a revelation for "Free Agency" to play out in His One True Church.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 10:06PM by steve benson.

Thanks Steve Benson!
:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/03/2014 08:39PM by jackedmormon.

That's a pioneer.

if stake presidents and bishops would read he new testament, study the life of the Savior, try to be like him, stop running the church as if it were a business, so much pain and suffering would stop, church members could heal their lives and we would all be the better for the effort. they seem to forget that in the early days of the church excommunication was for those who refused to repent, not part of the repentance process. I for one will take my chances with the Savior, who knows my heart, and not with men who are only trying to climb the ladder of success. I would not confess that I had spit on the sidewalk to a bishop or stake president. they care to much about the "law" and not enough about the human conditions that they have created.

amen + a Jillion Bizillion

zimmy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> they seem to
> forget that in the early days of the church
> excommunication was for those who refused to
> repent, not part of the repentance process.

Got any links? I would love to read how you found this out.

I have wondered recently (well, since I started reading exmormon.org) what I could do about this same issue: that I asked to have my name removed in 1979 and I was excommunicated instead.

So, Steve: your best guess. If I were to contact the Church and tell them that I wanted my excommunication expunged, would they just simply and straight-forwardly have to do that?

When I asked to have my name removed in 1979, I agreed to let the Bishop of the ward, in which I resided, come by. He needed a reason, evidently, to excommunicate me so I told him I did not believe in the Mormon god. That, of course, was a good reason for him. I chose not to attend the Court of Love put together on my behalf.

One could argue that the excommunication means nothing since the cult means nothing. . . .



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2014 08:32PM by DeAnn.

"To me, being "excommunicated" suggests that a believer is being kicked out of the Mormon Cult against their will."

While I agree with this statement, I think the implications of excommunication go beyond that. To me, being "excommunicated" suggests that a believer is being kicked out of the Mormon Cult for some grievous sin like adultery, serious criminal offense, or murder. It suggests that the individual is the epitome of wickedness and deserved to be cast from the presence of the righteous. It also suggests that their word cannot be trusted and that they are full of lies.

While members will likely dismiss the words of any former member as being unreliable and full of deception, it is much easier, I think, for them to hold that view if the church formally excommunicated the person, than if the person merely walked away of their own free will.

In the end it is about who holds the power. Do you as a believer have the power and right to freely disassociate yourself from an organization, or does the organization have the control over who they count as followers and who they count as apostates.

whom I had the pleasure to meet in 1991.

His encouragement and advice led me to officially resign after decades of languishing as a mere jack mormon.

Thanks for the deja vu Steve.

From Cricket's website where I have my resignation letter posted we are told:

"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---for voluntary withdrawal.....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."
(Case Reports of the Mormon Alliance, June 1998, p. 37 Lavina Fielding Anderson and Janice Allred.)

Unless humbly corrected.

I will put forward that 30 years later a Mormon apostle, Quentin Cook, openly discusses the possibility of resignation of Mormon membership in General Conference.

This was a first. I expect there are Mormons that did not know that resignation of membership is an option.

Is there a posted number anywhere of total recommend holders? Church-wide?

Yeah, I hear you. I became fully inactive in 1971, but had to put up with the jerks contacting me every month so they could report 100% contacted. My wife always laughed handing me the phone and would say that the caller wants to talk to "Brother *****"!

The only way out then was excommunication which would have created a lot of family problems which I didn't want to take on at that time. Once it was made official that resignation was an option, I formally resigned within the month.

Another proof that Mormonism is nothing but a damn CULT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2015 08:10PM by Templar.

Wish I had known about this back in 1991. I resigned in March. Church held court of love and I was X'ed in June. In the end I guess it doesn't matter as I am out but it still kinda pisses me off. And to think I could have gotten some green from the cult. Lastima!

That's how its peek-a-boo-I-won't-show-you "gospel" works.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/12/2018 02:29AM by steve benson.