Mormonism and Church discipline/Scholars

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Criticism

• Critics claim that the Church excommunicates or disfellowships scholars who publish historical information that is embarrassing to Church leaders.
• It is often claimed, despite the fact that these discplinary actions are carried out by local leaders, that they are in reality instigated by general authorities.
• Critics claim that the Church is silencing honest people for telling the truth.
• The Church is claimed to take a "dim view" of intellectuals.

Source(s) of the criticism

• Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), Chapter 21. ( Index of claims )
• Simon Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2004) 207. ( Index of claims )

Church discipline

What Church disciplinary options are available?

Leaders of the Church have various options for discipline. Bishops or stake presidents impose Church discipline, and do so after discussing the matter with the member, hearing from other witnesses (if any), and after prayerful consideration.

From most to least severe, disciplinary options include:

1. Excommunication - the person is no longer a member of the Church. They can participate in no ordinances, cannot speak or pray at meetings, cannot hold Church callings, may not attend the temple, may not wear LDS temple garments, and may not pay tithing. Excommunicated members may continue to attend worship services if they are not disruptive or dangerous.
2. Disfellowshipment - the person remains a member of the Church, but is not speak or pray at meetings, cannot hold Church callings, and may not attend the temple.
3. Formal probation -  ^{[needs work]}
4. Informal probation -  ^{[needs work]}

The last two penalties may be imposed by a bishop privately upon a member. The first two penalties require a formal "Church disciplinary hearing," held by either the bishop and his two councilors, or by the stake presidency and stake high council.

The goal in every case of Church discipline is to have the member's altered status be temporary; the goal is to encourage them to reform and return to full activity and participation in the life of the Church.

Church discipline cannot impose any financial or legal penalties (see DC 134꞉10-12).

The remainder of this article will focus solely on disfellowshipment and excommunication.

Purpose of Church discipline

Church discipline has three purposes:

1. To save the soul of the transgressor
2. To protect the innocent (e.g., someone engaged in serious sin should not be able to portray themselves as members in good standing to other members, who might thereby become victims of further crimes)
3. To protect the good name of the Church.

Why might one be disciplined?

Why might a member of the Church be subject to Church discipline? Generally, discipline falls into two broad categories: 1) serious moral sins 2) apostasy

Group #1: Moral sins

Serious moral sins which could result in a Church disciplinary hearing include committing various felonies, such as: murder, rape, sexual abuse, theft, or fraud. Other acts considered to be serious sins by the Church include: adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, and submitting to, encouraging, or performing an abortion except in cases where competent medical authority has determined that the mother and/or fetus' life is in serious jeopardy by a continued pregnancy.

Other acts contrary to Church teachings that would not result in excommunication or disfellowshipment include failure to pay tithing, failure to attend meetings, failure to observe the Word of Wisdom, failure to attend the temple.

Group #2: apostasy

The Church understands apostasy to be the repeated public teaching of ideas contrary to the doctrines, principles, or ideals of the Church. Those who are "apostate" continue to teach or preach their ideas even after being cautioned by their Church leaders.

Apostasy is the act of trying to persuade or mislead others; it is not the fact that one disagrees with Church actions, policies, or leaders. As President George Q. Cannon explained:

We could conceive of a man honestly differing in opinion from the Authorities of the Church and yet not be an apostate; but we could not conceive of a man publishing these differences of opinion and seeking by arguments, sophistry and special pleading to enforce them upon the people to produce division and strife and to place the acts and counsels of the Authorities of the Church, if possible, in a wrong light, and not be an apostate, for such conduct was apostasy as we understood the term. We further said that while a man might honestly differ in opinion from the Authorities through a want of understanding, he had to be exceedingly careful how he acted in relation to such differences, or the adversary would take advantage of him, and he would soon become imbued with the spirit of apostasy and be found fighting against God and the authority which He had placed here to govern His Church.^[1]

The "September Six"

Six individuals disciplined by the Church in September 1993 have been dubbed "the September Six." Supporters of those disciplined and critics of the Church have dubbed them "the September Six." The six individuals were:

• Lavina Fielding Anderson (excommunicated)
• Avraham Gileadi (excommunicated, now back in full fellowship)
• Maxine Hanks (excommunicated)
• D. Michael Quinn (excommunicated)
• Paul Toscano (excommunicated)
• Lynne Kanavel Whitesides (disfellowshipped)

Avraham Gileadi has never spoken publicly about the reasons for his excommunication, was never asked to retract any publications or statements, and has returned to full fellowship. It is probably inaccurate to lump him in with the other individuals here discussed.

The remaining five disciplinees have tended to claim that they were disciplined because of their writing and speaking on such matters as Church history, feminism, and abuses of power within the Church.^[2] Church leaders and officials rarely make the reasons or evidences presented at disciplinary councils public. We must remember, then, that former members are generally free to claim whatever they like about their excommunication, without much fear of contradiction from the Church.

It is useful, however, to compare what these five individuals have said and done publicly, and what others have revealed about them, as we try to assess whether their excommunication was "just" about Church history or related matters.

Lavina Fielding Anderson

Lavina Anderson is the only former member who continues to attend LDS worship services.

D. Michael Quinn

Fellow member of the "September Six" Lavina Fielding Anderson wrote of Quinn:

Michael resigned from Signature's board of editors in 1985 and simultaneously announced that he and Jan would be divorcing. I was deeply grieved. I wondered if Jan had found his absorption with Mormon history intolerable....He simply explained that it was a long-standing area of disagreement but one which they had handled so privately between themselves that the divorce had, in fact, caught the children completely off guard....

[After resigning from BYU] Michael called and wrote occasionally during his self-imposed exile in New Orleans and sent me some of the pieces he was writing. I particularly remember a vivid description of a Mardi Gras parade and a highly symbolic short story of two missionaries in Louisiana who were sexually attracted to each other and caught in a web of desire and violence, stalked by a religious psychopath....

When Michael moved back to Utah, there was a new peace about him. He came to dinner and talked with deep serenity about the work he had done in therapy to come to terms with the contradictions and silences in his family's past, in his personal past, and in the sense of acceptance he felt about his personal, ecclesiastical, and sexual paradoxes. He also said that he was through running and hiding.^[3]

It is difficult to avoid the impression that Anderson is here describing Quinn's eventual decision to follow his homosexual inclinations, especially when Anderson later observes that in New Orleans, "He was also trying to come to terms with his gay identity, including intensive work with a therapist. They were years spent in hiding, trying to heal from an emotional battering."^[4]

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."^[5] "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions.

Despite the fact that his marriage had ended, and that he had embraced homosexuality, Quinn refused to attend his disciplinary council, telling his stake president that it was "a process which was designed to punish me for being the messenger of unwanted historical evidence and to intimidate me from further work in Mormon history."^[6]

Despite Quinn's claims that this was all about his history, his stake president wrote back on 11 May 1993, saying "There are other matters that I need to talk with you about that are not related to your historical writings. These are very sensitive and highly confidential and this is why I have not mentioned them before in writing."^[7] On May 28, his stake president reportedly visited in person and "demanded that Michael explain the 'moral allegations' [he] had heard about him." Anderson is critical of the stake president for later alluding to Quinn's homosexual behavior even more directly. Writes Anderson:

A week after his earlier letter, Hanks wrote another on 18 May alluding again to the "very sensitive and highly confidential" matters that were not related to Michael's historical writings. He scheduled an appointment two days later and "plead[ed] with you to come and let us resolve this." He added a ham-handed post-script: "Refusal to meet with me as a Priesthood leader is a very serious matter under these circumstances and could lead to further action, out of love and concern for your welfare." The allusion to Michael's sexual orientation, which Michael had not yet made public, was unmistakable.^[8]

Anderson is apparently under the mistaken impression that if one's sins are not public knowledge, Church leaders have no right or obligation to take action if such behavior comes to their attention. Quinn had left BYU by his own choice in 1988, and by Anderson's wholly sympathetic account was already well committed to his homosexual identity and behavior by September 1993. Yet, his stake president is portrayed as pestering Quinn relentlessly about something which Anderson thinks is none of his business. Still, Church members promise that they will not engage in such behavior—if they choose to, they ought to either resign, or they will be excommunicated. Quinn seems willing to do neither.

Anderson tells us later that "Although [Quinn] is open to a relationship with a partner, this has not happened."^[9] So, Quinn is not kept from an on-going homosexual liaison because he agrees with the Church's stance that such actions are wrong. Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.^[10] Quinn also wrote a book claiming that "the Mormon church once accepted and condoned same-sex relationships and that these relationships were practiced by church leaders."^[11]

So, we have here a case in which an individual has criticized current Church leaders for supposedly altering a previously tolerant stance toward homosexuality. Even his advocates indicate that he embraced and accepted his own homosexuality, and clearly sees nothing wrong with doing so. All of this is more than sufficient grounds for excommunication. History need not enter the matter at all.

Quinn has also repeatedly attacked the Church and its leaders publicly. For example:

• he called BYU an "Auschwitz of the mind," and compared the Board of Trustees of BYU (which include the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve apostles) to Communist leaders under Stalin.^[12]
• he compared his Stake President's desire to meet with him and possibly impose Church discipline to Saul's decision to stone the first Christian martyr, St. Stephen.^[13]
• Anderson praises Quinn's "ability to find peace despite those who have wronged him in sometimes mean-spirited and bullying ways."^[14] She mentions Elder Boyd K. Packer particularly. This glowing claim ignores, however, Quinn's frequent misreprestation and distortion of sources related to Elder Packer in his subsequent works.^[15]

In short, Quinn's problems may have stemmed partly from his historical work—but, his own behavior, acts, and words were more than sufficient to merit excommunication by any measure. He also refused to attend his own disciplinary council, and can thus claim that it was all because of his history work—though even favorable accounts, like those by Anderson, make it clear that far more was going on than he likes to admit: yet, he argues at length that homosexuality is not a sin and that the Church and its leaders are wrong to act as if it is, he repeatedly attacks leaders of the Church with ridiculous exaggeration, and he misrepresents the statements of some apostles to make another member of the Twelve (Elder Packer) look bad.

The striking thing is not that Quinn was excommunicated, but that it took as long as it did. His stake president's efforts are recorded with jaundiced eye by Anderson, who calls President Hank's efforts "sounding plaintive and unjustly accused," "mildly phrased but...threatening," accompanied by "a ham-handed postscript," . Quinn's letters, by contrast, are "temperate...even sympathetic," showing "a tone of genuine weariness,"

show a leader trying over months to speak privately with a wayward member who refuses to believe the problem can be with him, and who sees only a conspiracy to suppress historical truth.

Unfortunately for this view, the historical record tells a different story—even when filtered through the lens of another member of the "September Six."

Next section

 ^{[needs work]}

Endnotes

1. [note]  George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1974), 493.
2. [note]  See, for example, Paul Toscano, "An Interview with Myself," Sunstone no. (Issue #130) (December 1993), 19. off-site
3. [note]  Lavina Fielding Anderson, "DNA Mormon: D. Michael Quinn," in Mormon Mavericks: Essays on Dissenters, edited by John Sillito and Susan Staker (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 2002), 329-364.
4. [note]  Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
5. [note]  D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998), xiii ( Index of claims )
6. [note]  D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 7 February 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
7. [note]  Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 11 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
8. [note]  Paul A. Hanks to D. Michael Quinn, 18 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
9. [note]  Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
10. [note]  Klaus J. Hansen, "Quinnspeak (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 132–140. off-site, page 132-133.
11. [note]  Publishers Weekly 243/45 (4 November 1996): 47; cited in George L. Mitton and Rhett S. James, "A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint History (Review of Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 10/1 (1998): 141–263. off-site
12. [note]  "'BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That's like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind.' When an administrator asked Michael whether he had been quoted accurately, Michael not only confirmed it but added, 'Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the university's Board of Trustees and administrators. By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era).'" - "Ex-BYU Professor Claims Beliefs Led to Dismissal," Salt Lake Tribune (30 July 1988): B-1; and Quinn, "On Being a Mormon Historian," 94; cited by Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
13. [note]  D. Michael Quinn, Letter to Paul A. Hanks, 19 May 1993; cited in Anderson, "DNA Mormon."
14. [note]  For examples see Duane Boyce, "A Betrayal of Trust (Review of: The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, by D. Michael Quinn)," FARMS Review of Books 9/2 (1997): 147–163. off-site A more detailed examination of Quinn's treatment of Elder Packer's remarks can be found here.

Conclusion

 ^{[needs work]}