The LDS Church Expels Members Like Me

Mormonism has extremely low tolerance for dissent from doctrine. I experienced this first hand throughout my faith deconstruction process. Some argue that personal revelation creates space for diverse viewpoints, and that the antagonism I felt towards my beliefs stemmed from members not the institution itself. This narrative often comes from “nuanced” members, who ideologically agree with me on social issues, but wish to remain active in the Mormon faith. This perspective invokes complicated emotions. On one hand, variability of belief within Mormonism indicates growth and expansion within the religion. I laud efforts from within to dismantle harmful doctrine. On the other hand… at a systemic level the church remains an exclusionary organization with regulatory powers in place to enforce conformity. Ignoring the structural exclusion of the church because of personal experience with an open-minded bishop gaslights the people expelled from the faith, literally kicked out or denied “privileges” for noncompliance to doctrine.

I acknowledge the difference between personal faith and the systematic structures of religion. No two Mormons will believe teachings in identical manners and many Mormons’ personal beliefs diverge from doctrinal teachings. Harmful teachings deserve criticism and rebuke. Many within the faith also take issue with damaging doctrines. Doctrine which states, “mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children”, devaluing equity of labor in the home and relinquishing women’s choice in whether or not they want kids. Doctrine which mandates heterosexuality or a life of celibacy. Doctrine which demonizes healthy sexuality calling premarital sex a sin “akin to murder” (just call me Aileen Wuornos over here). Doctrine which blatantly and joyfully upholds patriarchy by systematically excluding women from high-ranking leadership positions. I do not espouse that leaving is the only “right” choice when deconstructing damaging religious dogma; however, denying the precarious position of members advocating for change devalues the risks they endure for a better future in their faith, and minimizes the harm of authoritarian control tactics employed by the LDS church.

The church keeps record of compliance to said doctrine primarily through "temple recommend" interviews. For any unaware, to access the highest levels of membership by entering the LDS temple, Mormons participate in interviews where their bishop (local Mormon clergy) asks a series of questions to deem them “worthy” of the temple. These interviews begin at age 12 and questions include everything from whether or not you masturbate to your underwear to whether you promote “any teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to the LDS church” . They also ask if you financially support the church through tithing (paying 10% of your total income to the church each month).These interviews not only determine the privileges members obtain, they allow Mormon leadership to monitor the members standing with the church through access to deeply personal information. Some Mormons argue temple-recommend-questions allow space for personal revelation, i.e. direct communication between God and individuals. To a degree this is true, if you answer “no” to a question about promoting teachings contrary to the LDS church, the bishop will not scour your social media for verification (usually). However, when it comes to tithe – paying 10% of your income to the LDS church – leeway diminishes, an especially egregious detail given recent reports of the institution’s hoard of $32 billion. 

Another mechanism of control, excommunication, negates the argument for personal revelation. I find it fascinating that excommunication* remains substantially unexamined, as it is one distinguishing facet of Mormonism from other Christian sects. The LDS church keeps physical records of all members, which provide details about the person (age, address, etc.) and their standing with the church (active or inactive). Mormon leadership holds the power to rescind membership nullifying any “covenants” of the targeted member, which they believe revokes spiritual blessings and protection. It also prevents the member from participating in any meaningful way with the faith. They cannot hold a calling, speak at the pulpit, take Mormon sacrament, or attend Mormon temples. The church frames excommunication as a means of “helping the member through the repentance process”. Repentance in Mormonism usually includes admitting wrongdoing to, and in some cases following a penitent repentance plan designed by, an LDS Bishop. A process focused more on compliance than forgiveness or love. *Notice how this authoritarian eviction is reframed as lovingly and mercifully saving “sinners”. 

A comprehensive list of when disciplinary councils are mandated and when they may be necessary according to the LDS church can be found via the linked article (Church membership council). Most of these so-called offenses against the Mormon church are self-explanatory, besides apostasy. So what is apostasy? Apostasy (defined by the Mormon church here) is disagreeing, challenging, or diverging from LDS teachings. A threadlike line exists between personal revelation/belief and apostasy. This line tends to be delineated by honesty, visibility, and follower counts. Mormon leaders excommunicated Kate Kelly for opposing the second class treatment of LDS women by advocating for priesthood power for all. A view many LDS women still hold as illustrated by the comment section in a recent post from the church’s official Instagram page. John Dehlin openly championed for same-sex marriage on his podcast leading to his excommunication. Just three years ago Natasha Helfer, a sex-therapist with an online presence, was excommunicated for teaching amongst other things that masturbation and same-sex attraction are not sins and pornography use is not an addiction. Their perspectives are not totally uncommon as members of the LDS church, so why are they considered apostates when others are not? Because all three held platforms that garnered eyes and ears on them. They held power to enact real change and all three were systematically pushed out of the faith. The church responded with a crystalline message, they do not want to change. 

Excommunication is also used to persecute queer members of the church. For decades, the LDS church used excommunication to systematically push out LGBTQ+ members. Up until 2019, same-sex marriage mandated a disciplinary council and excommunication, placing it higher than rape and incest in severity of sins according to church handbooks. Now same-sex marriages, relationships, and sexual activity may lead to disciplinary action and excommunication, depending on the views and discretion of local LDS leadership. One bishop might rescind your membership, and another might offer a calling. A reality of infinite frustration to LGBTQ+ members. Jill Searle was excommunicated on her porch without a disciplinary council for her same-sex relationship with her wife. Her daughter, Katie, remained active and married in the temple. Katie’s husband came out as gay when she was pregnant. They divorced, leading to her own departure from the church. Dusty Johns, who attended an LDS ward with his husband and children and hoped to serve in a calling was excommunicated by the church mere weeks before the policy change on excommunication in 2019. Elizabeth Grimshaw, who had been inactive for over a decade, was approached by a Mormon bishop in her driveway and told to leave her wife or be excommunicated. All she wished for was to be left alone. In 2022, after not attending church for four years Brennen’s old bishop sought him out for a disciplinary council after he posted about marrying the love of his life, Douglas, on Facebook. These are examples of targeted, methodical efforts to exclude queer people from the LDS church.

Temple recommends, disciplinary councils, and excommunication demonstrate the Mormon church’s intolerance of dissonant opinions, revelation, and practice. The LDS faith preaches free agency and personal revelation, as long as that revelation confirms their teachings. Stray too far and they may deny members full access to church privileges. In my own faith transition, I often prayed about my concerns with LDS doctrine and received the same spiritual confirmation that the teachings were wrong that I once received about the church's truth. When I expressed this personal revelation to adult members and church leaders, I was told to pray again. My personal revelation was wrong if it did not uphold the church's truth and it was the proof of the church's truth if it did. Where is the room for personal revelation when disagreement with the LDS church’s teachings may lead to the loss of a calling, temple access, or even membership? How can the LDS church claim personal revelation exists when that revelation must align with the teachings from the highest pulpit or you risk apostasy? Where is the tolerance for differentiation, diversity, or dissent? The Mormon church did not want a member like me. A member who challenged the status quo, bigotry, and antiquated policies/practices of the religion. A member who valued knowing all of what I claimed to believe, not only the easily digestible parts.The Mormon church is clear about what kinds of members it wants, ones that quietly conform and obey. Step outside of the LDS church's "straight and narrow" idea of goodness and you risk expulsion from your faith.