Free Speech and Excommunication: The Dichotomy of Two Mormon Values

If you really think about it, it’s highly ironic that the LDS church, whose membership overwhelmingly embraces democratic ideals such as the freedom of speech, excommunicates members for expressing dissenting views or writing on controversial issues concerning church history or doctrine. The irony couldn't be more profound at church-owned BYU, where students are introduced to the scientific process and are taught to weigh evidence, consider alternative viewpoints, think clearly, communicate effectively, and argue persuasively. These students will no doubt use these critical thinking skills throughout their lives to examine and make sense of the world around them, but paradoxically, very few will ever subject their religion to the same scrutiny. Sadly, seeking truth about the church and seeking the “church’s truth” have proven to be two different things – two entirely different disciplines.  

Instead of welcoming debate and embracing honest dialogue concerning its rich and deeply flawed history, the modern LDS Church has been conspicuously quiet about anything controversial. For many devout but conflicted members, the silence is deafening. There is no official forum for such discussion – no publication where the church openly confronts, confirms, or refutes information that challenges the historical and doctrinal underpinnings of its faith. The church provides its members with no tangible defenses against the steady flow of evidence against its claims. Instead, it endeavors to comfort questioning members with all-to-familiar platitudes, such as “answers to any question can be found in the scriptures,” or “these things are ultimately a matter of faith, and require fasting and prayer to work through.” It is not uncommon to hear assurances from priesthood leadership that “anti-Mormon” publications should be avoided as they have no merit and will only deflate and discourage. Besides, they are the products of bitter, disaffected ex-Mormons with “axes to grind.”  

True, we have ancillary organizations like the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies at BYU that confront controversial academic issues. They do not speak for the church, however. After wading through volumes of apologetic rhetoric from university scholars, questioning members are still left to wonder what the brethren have to say about the issue at hand. They must be content with scholarly conjecture and hypothesis when what they need is an official, definitive, and even inspired position from the church, itself. Even so, FARMS offers the investigating mind years worth of reading material, but even a cursory examination of its publications will reveal a “defense of the faith” that is often transparently polemical in nature. Many of its book reviews are replete with character assassination and diversion while failing to adequately confront core arguments posited by the authors they review. Daniel C. Peterson, a highly respected representative of FARMS, has admitted to and defended the use of polemics, exclaiming that he and his fellow scholars in the faith are engaged in a "war for souls."  

While the Church may not defend itself through words, it does try to protect itself through action. The most lethal tool the church has is excommunication, and although it is a procedure intended to be administered discreetly and locally, it has at times had all the stealth of a sonic boom. This was certainly the case as news leaked out about the many carefully coordinated, high profile excommunications of Mormon scholars in the early nineties. This very public show of rigidity and intolerance left the press with no shortage of provocative material to write about. Their suspicions were only fueled further by the church’s move to restrict access to highly sensitive documents in the archives and to require certain patrons to sign agreements that gave the church the right to censor any materials leaving the property. Certainly, this was not only repugnant to a 1^st Amendment-loving press, but also disconcerting for many members that, for the first time, began to wonder if the church actually had something to hide. If, as Boyd K. Packer has pointed out, the Lord’s hand has been felt at every turn in the church’s history, why would the Church not continue the open-door policy and let the past speak for itself? What could its members possibly find down there that could be so damning?  

Apparently, that’s a question the church would rather not explore. Refusing to confront and address content, it remains fixated on conduct. Excommunication for apostasy is the only real self-defense mechanism that the church seems to employ. It matters not if what dissidents are writing or saying rings true. They are dissenters and that is enough! It is quite paradoxical that a membership whose social and civic values have been shaped largely by democratic institutions and processes would tolerate such authoritarian tactics. In any other setting, typical Mormons would emphatically denounce this kind of abuse of power. They would likely be familiar, for instance, with a legal system that allows its citizens to defend themselves with facts and evidence – a system where, in some cases, a law, itself, can be challenged and deemed unconstitutional. In effect, they would know that if they were ever charged with a crime and the situation required it, they would have the right to argue that their being “out of line" is not what's relevant, but rather that the line should not be drawn where it is.  

In a church court, however, the lines are drawn in concrete. The doctrines and narratives handed down to us from a string of inspired prophets and apostles are beyond reproach. There is no middle ground – no room for those that challenge the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the veracity of the First Vision accounts, for example, but believe that much good can come from following the tenets found in Mormon scripture. If they dare to talk or write about their rebellious ideology, ecclesiastical scrutiny is sure to follow. They will no doubt be called into interviews and be enjoined from further digging, speaking, or writing. The fact that they might have a legitimate argument with mountains of evidence is irrelevant. The church simply won’t budge on their behalf. The decision is theirs – move in concert or move on.  

To be fair, the LDS Church is a private organization and should have control over its own rules for membership. The church has the right to remove whom it will. Likewise, if members disapprove of anything at all, they should be free to leave, as they are. The problem is that many of its dissenting historians, scholars, and lay members don’t want to leave. They love the church, both for what it is and what it could be, and are fully integrated into its cultural and social structure. They still adhere to many of its values and beliefs, and wish to be active in its many worthwhile programs. But these members are forced to make a tough choice: Report the truth as they discover it and risk being cut off, or endure the disquieting effects of self-censorship in order to preserve fellowship.  

While the Church clearly allows individuals in question to make their choice, it has not granted itself this same freedom – the freedom to critically examine or redefine itself, even as waves of historical and scientific discovery beat at its door. Sadly, the church has backed itself into a corner and allowed little room for accommodation: 175 years of prophets and apostles have drawn their lines in the concrete! The Book of Mormon is the word of God, or it isn't. The First Vision happened the way Joseph Smith said it did, or it didn't happen at all. The Church is either the work of God, or an abject fraud. Simply put, the church has presented itself as a giant monolithic pillar of truth to be either wholly accepted or entirely rejected. As a result, it is not prepared to deal with members who view its history as an ever-evolving, intricate web of stories, conflicts, and deeply flawed characters that is both an inspiring piece of art and a mangled mess at the same time.  

In short, the LDS Church is accustomed to speaking for God. Members are constantly reminded that it is not their church - it’s the Lord’s church. He stands at the head of it - he leads it, personally - and he is an “unchangeable” being. This leaves little room for well-intentioned, astute members that recognize the true, "changing" nature of Mormonism. They may point out as many historical and doctrinal revisions, embellishments, contradictions, and sociopolitical compromises they want, but if they are not careful, they may soon be doing so without their temple recommends, or worse. Even so, they are free to speak... and free to be excommunicated. Either way the choice is theirs.