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

Michael Quinn has claimed that he has been persecuted and excommunicated for being a "heretic."Template:Quinn.1 "Heresy" has little role in LDS discourse—heresy is about belief, while apostasy is about actions. Following his excommunication, Quinn "came out" as a practicing homosexual.^[3] 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."^[4]

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

Conclusion

 ^{[needs work]}