xxxxxxxx

Cedar City, UT 84721

November 15, 2015

Bishop xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
Cedar City, UT 84721
President xxxxxx
xxxxxxx
Cedar City, UT 84720
Dear Bishop xxxxxx and President xxxxxx:
It is with significant regret and sadness that I request that you remove my
name from the records of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in
accordance with the provisions of Section 6.14 of the Church Handbook of
Instructions. (Page 71.)
My short explanation for this request is this: I can no longer, in good
conscience, remain a member of an organization that would bar the children of gay
and lesbian parents from receiving a name and a blessing, from baptism, from
ordination and priesthood advancement for boys, and from serving a mission
without renouncing the legal and valid marriages of the parents who loved and
raised them, and without removing themselves from their parents homes. My
longer explanation follows.
I have not been an active participant at Church for some time now, and as a
result neither of you knows me. My husband and I met at BYU and were married
in 1967 in the Idaho Falls temple. We raised our four children mostly in the Bay
Area of California, where we both served in many Church callings. I have taught
many classes and have been Relief Society President. We retired to Cedar City in
1998 and have lived in the Mountain View Ward since the end of 2007. Although
we have not attended Church, we have always welcomed Home and Visiting
Teachers, and I have refrained from discussing with them any of the concerns that I
have long had about matters such as womens issues, Church history, and the
treatment of LGBT members of the Church. Some of my concerns have been
1

acknowledged, though not adequately addressed, in the Church Essays that have
been published over the last couple of years.
In the year 2000, Proposition 22, a measure to ban same-sex marriage by
statute, appeared on the California ballot. It passed, but was later declared by the
California Supreme Court to violate the California Constitution. In 2008 the voters
of the State enacted a constitutional amendment, known as Proposition 8, which
overrode the State Supreme Courts invalidation of Proposition 22. The LDS
Church was deeply involved in the passage of both measures. Proposition 8 was
determined by a Federal District Court to be unconstitutional under the U.S.
Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court later declined to overturn rulings of the
lower courts.
During the campaign for Proposition 22, a young man who was the son of a
former member of our stake presidency reached out to our son for comfort and
understanding. This very brilliant and sensitive man, Stuart Matis, who was gay,
was in the throes of depression because of the Churchs treatment of gay people in
general and its involvement in Proposition 22 politics in particular.
Early one morning, when Apostle Jeffrey R. Holland was scheduled to meet
with the local missionaries later that morning, Stuart went to the building where
the meeting was to be held, pinned a Do Not Resuscitate note on his shirt, and
shot himself in the head. The missionaries who went over to prepare the building
for Elder Hollands visit found Stuarts body. There could not have been a clearer
message of despair over the Churchs treatment of gay people, and the hateful
rhetoric that dominated the political climate at Church meetings during that time. 1
My decision now to resign my membership in the faith that I was born into
and the heritage that I revere, that my ancestors pushed and pulled handcarts across
the Great Plains for, has not been an easy one, but it is a matter of conscience. I
was shocked on November 5 when I read the provisions of the new policy in the
Church Handbook of Instructions regarding those in legal same-sex marriages and
denying religious rites to their children. 2 I find such policies abhorrent.
1

Carol Lynn Pearson, I would really rather be dead, excerpted from No More Goodbyes: Circling the Wagons
Around our Gay Loved Ones, excerpted at http://www.mormonsformarriage.com/why-we-as-lds-memberssupport-marriage-equality/why-should-lds-members-care/i-would-really-rather-be-dead-stuart-matis/
2

The text of the new provisions is located here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDSHandbook-1-Document-2-Revised-11-3-15-28003-29

Early the next morning (Friday) I read that already, a childs baptism,
scheduled for Saturday, had been canceled because the childs parents had joint
physical custody and the child spent time with her father and his husband (her stepfather). At that moment I knew I could no longer stay in an organization led by
men who could so callously dash a childs hopes and expectations.
By Saturday night, after seeing more and more people pouring out their pain
over the new policy on social media, and after viewing the scripted interview of
Elder D. Todd Christofferson by Public Affairs manager Michael Otterson, 3 I
wrote on my Facebook timeline:
This policy has not only broken the fingernails I was using to
hold onto my membership in the church, it has ripped them out by the
roots, and with it a piece of my heart. I simply cannot remain in a
place dominated (I will not say "led") by men who can perpetrate this
kind of cruel spiritual abuse on children.
Within the next few days I learned that a clarification would be
forthcoming, so I waited to see if the clarification would undo the damage that the
policy change had done. Although the clarification, released this past Friday,
made the policy apply to fewer children, it has not undone the harm.
In my professional life as an attorney, I sometimes represent children as
Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict divorce cases. Among my cases have been two
involving the children of FLDS mothers and former-FLDS fathers who have been
expelled from the FLDS by the corrupt and abusive leaders of the FLDS, namely,
Warren Jeffs and his brother, Lyle.
I have seen the enormous damage that religious conflict has inflicted on
children, where the FLDS mothers deem the fathers to be apostates who are led
about by their master, Lucifer, and who are told Don't assist the devil in
destroying your children! 4 Warren Jeffs has told his followers that he has
dissolved the marriages that brought children into the world, making the marriages
no longer valid. Based on these instructions, FLDS mothers cannot allow their

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/handbook-changes-same-sex-marriages-elder-christofferson

See Warren Jeffs sermon, Leave Apostates Alone Severely published in the Salt Lake Tribune, July 27, 2006,
online at: http://archive.sltrib.com/printfriendly.php?id=4101190&itype=NGPSID

children to bond with their apostate fathers out of fear that the children will also
become apostates and therefore worthy of the mothers shunning. I fear that the
LDS Church is now sending a comparable message to the former spouses and
children of gay and lesbian parents.
The new policy literally defines gay and lesbian parents as apostates, even
those who have done nothing to renounce their faith (the normal definition of
apostasy), and who may be supportive of their childrens continued participation
in the LDS Church. It further requires the children to disavow their parents
marriages and by extension their parents themselves, as they are required to cease
living in the homes of their parents if they want to be baptized, ordained or serve a
mission, effectively demanding shunning of their own parents. This kind of forced
renunciation of parents is unconscionable.
Most of the children affected by this policy came into this world because
their gay or lesbian parents were strongly pressured by priesthood leaders and/or
Mormon society in general to enter into mixed-orientation marriages that they were
never suited for. Such marriages have a high failure rate. 5 And now, when these
marriages fail, the children of these tenuously-formed marriages are the casualties,
the collateral damage, in a battle they did not create and over which they have no
control.
The new policies are going to prove to be disastrous for children caught in
the midst of their parents breakup. Under the new language of explanation sent
out by the Church on Friday, November 13, the restrictions on religious rites will
apply only to those children whose primary residence is with a couple living in a
same-gender marriage or similar relationship. 6
This clarification fails to address children in which custody is shared
equally between the parents, and already I am aware of rites being denied to
children in joint custody arrangements. Moreover, the underlying language
remains in the Handbook remains unchanged, in direct contradiction of the
instruction in the letter. It states that:

If a gay Mormon man marries a woman, divorce is likely, study finds, in Salt Lake Tribune, first published
January 12, 2015, updated July 7, 2015, online at http://www.sltrib.com/news/lds/2050536-155/if-a-gay-mormonmarries-a
6

First Presidency letter, dated November 13, 2015, online at http://media.ldscdn.org/pdf/news-and-publicaffairs/handbook-changes/nov-13-2015-letter.pdf

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender

relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not
receive a name and a blessing. (Emphasis added.)
Nothing in that explicit Handbook language exempts any child of a married
or cohabiting gay or lesbian parent from the policy. The Handbook continues:
A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender
relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be
baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary
service only as follows:
A mission president or a stake president may request approval
from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain,
or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived
or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by
personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:
1. The child accepts and is committed to live the
teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically
disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation
and marriage.
2. The child is of legal age and does not live with a
parent who has lived or currently lives in a samegender cohabitation relationship or marriage.
(Emphasis added.) 7
The policy makes no distinction between a custodial, non-custodial or
joint-custodial parent. Its plain language bars children from religious rites if
they have a parent (singular) who is in a same-sex marriage. Note that it
differs from the rules regarding children of polygamy in that no requirement
for First Presidency approval, or mandatory removal of adult children from a
polygamous household, is imposed unless the parents polygamy is
contrary to the law, while legal same-sex marriage is the very trigger for
the denial of rites to children of gay parents. 8
7

See text of policy at http://www.scribd.com/doc/288685756/Changes-to-LDS-Handbook-1-Document-2-Revised11-3-15-28003-29

8

See Church Handbook of Instructions, 2010 version, Section 16.3.9 for instructions regarding children of
polygamous marriages.

It is unclear at this time how many children will be marginalized by

this ill-conceived and oppressive policy, but even one child is one too many.
The policy virtually assures that custody battles will be bitter and damaging
to children, as straight, LDS parents desperately fight for custody against
apostate gay and lesbian parents, lest the harshness of this policy be
applied to their children. This will lead to acrimonious custody battles in
which innocent children will be the casualties.
The children directly harmed by the Handbook provisions are not the
only children who will be damaged by this new policy. The message of these
provisions also sends a clear and unmistakable message to children growing
up who are themselves gay or lesbian. The message is that they must
suppress their innate homosexuality and stay in the closet, because there
really is no place in the church, or maybe even in their families, for them.
This is the kind of message leads to despair and places these children at risk
for higher rates of depression, substance abuse and suicide. 9
I stand thoroughly, completely and unalterably opposed to these new
policies in their entirety. To pit parents against one another, and children
against their parents, in this manner is shameful and reprehensible. To quote
a Facebook friend, If the wheat really is being separated from the tares, I'm
going to take my chances in the pile with the discarded children. 10
Accordingly, I can no longer remain a member of the Church.
Very truly yours,

Nadine R. Hansen
Member No. xxxxxx
Cell Phone: xxxxxx

See discussion of family rejection at the website of the Family Acceptance Project,
http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/sites/sites7.sfsu.edu.familyproject/files/FAP_Family%20Acceptance_JCAPN.pdf
10

Dave Hatch, https://www.facebook.com/dave.hatch.79/posts/10206754119444053?pnref=story