Welcome to Study Faith with AI, where we use the power of AI to help you explore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

I'm Meg Jensen.

And I'm Paul Carter,

and we're Google AIs. Whether you're a lifelong member or just starting to learn about the Church, we're here to dive deep into its history, beliefs, and culture.

So, if you're ready to learn, you're in the right place.

That's right.

Let's get started. 

Okay. So, let's uh let's unpack this. Imagine the year 1993. For many within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, that's September.

Well, it felt like a seismic event.

Mhm.

It was a time marked by something pretty dramatic and for some people genuinely scary.

A whole series of disciplinary actions against a group of prominent intellectuals, scholars, writers,

Right? It really was a pivotal moment. And these events, they quickly got this collective name, the September Six.

Because there were six of them.

Exactly. Six individuals disciplined by the Church mostly or you could say entirely within that single month September ‘93. The timing itself felt really significant to a lot of people watching.

And that's exactly what we're diving deep into today. We want to try and understand, you know, who were these six people? What specific ideas or maybe actions led the Church hierarchy to take disciplinary steps?

And what does this whole episode really tell us about that, that often tricky intersection between intellectual inquiry, free thought, and, and, um, religious authority within Mormonism. So, this deep dive today, it's pulling from a few different places, personal stories from some of those involved, historical analysis looking back at the period and also some contemporary reflections on, you know, what happened and why it happened.

Okay. So, our mission, our goal here is pretty clear.

Mhm.

Let's try to identify those specific points of friction. What were the common threads if any among these individuals and what was the lasting impact, you know, on scholarship, on the space for dissent or just the general intellectual life within the Church. Let's jump in. Okay. To really get what happened in September 1993, we first need to kind of set the stage. What was the context? What was going on in the Church back then?

Well, 1993 was, uh, a moment of paradox for the Church really. Externally, there was a lot of optimism. The Church was growing fast, finding its footing globally, presenting this, like, confident face to the world. They're even involved warmly at events like the Parliament of the World's Religions.

But internally, Yeah.

Underneath that growth, there were some real anxieties brewing, weren't there?

Oh, absolutely. Concerns about maintaining control, maintaining identity in a changing world and, you know, within a growing much more diverse membership.

And the leadership situation itself was pretty unusual at that time.

It was President Ezra Taft Benson was largely incapacitated. Our sources describe him as, uh, non compos mentis, mostly comatose. So that created a really unique power dynamic.

Which led to what one source calls an a Apostolic interregnum,

Right? With the prophet unable to actively lead, the First Presidency basically joined up with the Council of the Twelve Apostles. So you had this body of 14 leaders acting together.

And that gave the Twelve much more direct influence.

Yeah. Significantly more influence in the day-to-day running of things, decision-making. And sources really highlight Boyd K. Packer's particularly strong personality and uh influence during this specific period.

Okay. And this is also when those tensions with intellectual voices were really starting to escalate leading up to ‘93. Dallin H. Oaks, who joined the Twelve back in '84, gave a pretty notable talk in 1989 about alternate voices.

Mhm. These were defined as well, voices speaking without a specific calling or authority using things like magazines, newspapers, lectures.

So basically, academics, writers, people expressing views outside the official approved Church channels.

Exactly. And that tension, it became more concrete in 1991. There was this statement against symposia,

Right,

Which effectively signaled that events like the Sunstone Symposium were, uh, kind of off limits, especially for BYU faculty.

Could that work?

Reports say BYU faculty attendance at Sunstone events just plummeted because going could be seen by some leaders as, you know, disloyal, maybe even betrayal.

You can really see the anxiety building.

Yeah. And you see it reflected in statements from key leaders, too. Boyd K. Packer, for instance, famously talked about enemies of the Church.

And he named names, didn't he?

He did. Explicitly naming so-called scholars, feminists, and the gay and lesbian movement kind of all in the same breath.

Wow.

And Dallin H. Oaks gave talks emphasizing how important it was to sustain Church leaders. Even he argued if those leaders might be wrong.

Okay. That really underscores the expectation. Loyalty, obedience over maybe independent judgment on some things.

Exactly. Institutional loyalty was paramount.

And this move towards more control wasn't just about, like, discouraging people from going to events, right?

Yeah.

The actual definition in hand of apostasy got much stricter too.

Oh, absolutely. The 1985 General Handbook said apostasy may warrant a Church court, but the 1989 version that upgraded it significantly. It became a transgression for which a disciplinary council must be held. Right up there with major moral offenses.

Wow. And they gave a clear definition.

Yep. A three-part definition was laid out. First, repeated public opposition to the Church or its leaders. Second, persistently teaching non-doctrine even after being corrected and third following apostate groups like say polygamous groups.

So that formal structure was really locked in place ready to be used.

Right?

The Church has, well, it's always navigated this complex tension. On one side you've got foundational ideas like an ongoing restoration.

Right.

And the emphasis on personal revelation.

Which can be pretty dynamic.

Exactly. By their nature those ideas can lead to diverse understandings maybe even as one source puts it almost anarchic tendencies within the faith.

Right. Which then, then bumps up against the need for the institution.

Yeah.

You know, for coherence, a unified message, control over how people understand and practice their faith.

And this is where something called correlation really comes into the picture. It was established, uh, quite a bit earlier back in the 1960s.

Okay. Under Harold B. Lee, wasn't it?

That's the one. Correlation was basically a system set up to standardize, well, almost everything from Sunday school lessons to how organizations like the Relief Society operated.

That's the women's organization,

A global women's organization. Yeah. The goal was really to create shared experiences worldwide, unify the doctrine, the messaging, and also bring these auxiliary groups under more direct oversight from um male Church leadership.

So, consistency control.

Pretty much. Especially important for a rapidly growing global Church.

And the sources we looked at suggest that by the late 20th century, leaders were focusing really intently, maybe even anxiously, on what some call these pillars of purity.

That's a good way to put it, pillars of purity. The sources often break them down into say doctrinal purity, familial purity, and bodily purity.

And it felt to many observers like maybe a reaction to broader societal changes, kind of mirroring anxieties you saw in the conservative religious right movement around the same time in the US.

Absolutely. There are definite parallels. So, let's break those down just quickly. Doctrinal purity that involved concerns about anything challenging established history or scripture interpretations. You know, like debates about Book of Mormon historicity. That was a big one.

Okay. And familial purity.

Deeply linked to the rise of feminism, the big fight over the equal rights amendment, the ERA, and any questioning of traditional gender roles within the Church. And you have to remember the excommunication of Sonia Johnson.

The feminist back in ‘79.

Yeah, that definitely cast a long shadow over these discussions.

Okay. And the third pillar, bodily purity,

That touched on strict adherence to the Word of Wisdom, the health code, and also very significantly regulating sexual practices. And this pillar became increasingly tied up with anxieties about the emerging LGBTQ+ movement.

There's even a document mentioned in the sources reportedly a memo from Don H. Oaks suggesting the Church should legally define marriage and family. The idea was to create grounds for political action against same-sex marriage, framing it as a moral issue, not just political.

Wow. So, a lot going on there. So, that's the backdrop then. Simmering tension, dynamism versus control, this focus on purity pillars, concern about alternative intellectual spaces, explicit warnings from leaders.

It all kind of converged in September 1993.

Right. Let's meet the individuals involved. The September Six: Lavina Fielding Anderson, Avraham Gileadi, Maxine Hanks, D. Michael Quinn, Paul Toscano, and Lynne Kanavel Whitesides all disciplined within weeks of each other.

Yeah, the timing felt deliberate, like a coordinated action to many people.

Okay, let's look at each one. What were the specific points of friction based on the accounts we have. Lavina Fielding Anderson first, highly respected editor, writer.

Right? She was disciplined largely because of this really powerful paper she published in dialogue.

Okay. And what was it about?

She meticulously documented instances of what she termed ecclesiastical abuse. Basically, abuse of authorities specifically targeting scholars and feminists within the Church.

And she named names. That must have been - 

That made it incredibly impactful and almost certainly controversial with leaders. Yeah. What's interesting is that The accounts note she reportedly never stopped attending Church even after her excommunication. 

Okay. Next up, Avraham Gileadi.

Gileadi's focus was deep scriptural analysis, especially the Book of Isaiah. He often interpreted it through sort of an end times lens. Okay.

One source mentions a book he wrote interpreting modern cultural signs, things like rock and roll, as indicators of the apocalypse. He developed a following, apparently, including some breakaway groups from the Church, which likely raised red flags. Alarms for the leadership.

Was there a specific doctrinal issue?

It seems one point of friction was his interpretation of a phrase in Isaiah about the Lord setting his hand again the second time. Some worried or perhaps he implied that this could suggest a third restoration might be needed if the current LDS one failed.

Interesting.

And there's even a claim in one account adding to that perception of orchestration that his local Stake President was actually changed right before his disciplinary council took place.

Wow. Okay. Then there's Maxine Hanks. Maxine Hanks. Her main contribution that caused friction was a book. It aimed to reclaim feminist elements and the history of women's authority, including what she saw as priesthood rights within early Mormonism.

So looking back at the foundations.

Exactly. She argued Joseph Smith's original vision for the restoration was much more democratic, more inclusive than the hierarchical structure it eventually became.

And how did she back that up?

Her work drew on historical scholarship. Reportedly, it was modeled partly on Lester Bush's real groundbreaking historical work that showed black men had actually held the priesthood in the early Church before that practice was stopped.

So, her work was seen as a direct challenge.

Clearly a challenge to the established patriarchal leadership structure. It's also worth noting that Maxine was later rebaptized into the Church.

Okay. D. Michael Quinn, he was maybe the most well-known historian in the group.

Arguably, yes. And his friction point stemmed directly from his historical scholarship. It was extensive, deeply researched,

But sensitive to topics

Often. Yes. Things like early polygamy practices, the Church's financial history, how doctrine evolved over time. He often used internal Church records, and his findings sometimes complicated or even challenged the preferred institutional narratives.

So, history that didn't fit the neat faith-promoting story.

Essentially. Yeah. His discipline really highlighted the hierarchy's discomfort with historical findings that didn't align perfectly with those narratives.

Okay. Lynne Kanavel Whitesides the accounts say her points were maybe simpler.

Simpler. Or maybe just seem more straightforward from today's perspective? The accounts point to her questioning the idea of the prophet's infallibility. Okay.

And also questioning the teaching that members should always sustain their leaders even if they personally felt the leaders were wrong,

Which you hear those questions discussed more openly now maybe.

Perhaps. But in 1993, those were significant points of friction and her case actually got national media attention. News of her excommunication apparently reached Time magazine.

So, it wasn't just an internal thing.

No, it highlighted that these were becoming public issues.

All right. And finally, Paul Toscano. Some accounts go into his story in quite a bit of depth.

They do. Paul's background was interesting. He converted from Catholicism, had experiences at BYU, served a mission in Italy,

Where things were maybe less rigid.

He felt so. Yeah. Things like using motorbikes, he felt it fostered more maturity. He apparently had some early friction with mission leaders - questioning policies he thought were just about stats, not spiritual growth. He actually had a black mark put on his records back in the mid ‘80s after voicing concerns.

Okay. And what about his core beliefs? The accounts really emphasize his theology

very much so heavily Christ-centered. He really stressed grace over works, especially in our vertical relationship, you know, with God.

How so?

He critiqued what he saw as the Church's strong focus on works-based salvation, arguing that works matter more horizontally, how we treat each other, but salvation itself comes through Christ's grace not by, like, earning degrees of glory.

Interesting distinction.

And he felt ordinances were the real unifying principle of the Church; they connect members through shared symbols and covenants more so than just authority structures or even scripture alone.

He also had specific views on priesthood.

Yes. Quite distinct - drawing on his own research and also his wife Margaret's work on Joseph Smith and the early Relief Society He talked about a difference between a provisional priesthood like the authority men hold in quorums and an eternal priesthood given in the temple.

Which he believed women were meant to share.

Fully share as priestesses. He saw the temple ordinances as symbolizing spiritual growth and mutual binding not just top- down instruction.

And he wasn't quiet about his disagreements with leaders.

Not at all. Notably outspoken. He apparently called Boyd K. Packer a bully and a Pharisee. He found many General Conference talks uninspiring and directly questioned the basis of leaders authority, arguing it wasn't always based on truth.

Wow.

He even compared leaders asking him about his authority to the Pharisees questioning Jesus. And in one very blunt encounter, he reportedly told Apostle Neil Maxwell, he and the current apostles were the worst Apostles we've ever had in the history of Christianity.

That's incredibly direct.

Extremely.

So, what was the final spark? The trigger for his disciplinary action. The accounts point to his wife, Margaret.

Yes, Margaret. gave a speech at BYU to a women's group called Voice. She discussed the concept of heavenly mother.

Okay.

This led to a well sensationalized headline in the BYU student newspaper. Mother God repressed.

Oh boy.

And that headline reportedly landed right on Boyd K. Packer's desk. The accounts say Packer contacted Paul Stake President Kerry Hines asking him pretty pointedly why he couldn't control that woman.

The pressure from the top.

Significant pressure on the Stake President to act. When Hines met with Paul and Margaret, Paul flatly refused to tell Margaret to retract anything. He made it clear he supported her right to express her beliefs.

He stood by her.

Completely. Paul recounted a really confrontational meeting with President Hines after that. He apparently called Hines a real estate agent, basically implying he should stick to business and leave theology alone.

Ouch.

And he used this analogy about an elk's head on the wall to point out what he saw as hypocrisy enforcing some rules, like silencing Margaret while ignoring others that would be inconvenient. He felt Hines was just following Packer's orders.

So Paul had already been giving talks at Sunstone by this point since the mid-80s.

Yeah. Ever since that black mark appeared on his records. He started speaking at Sunstone in 1985. His talks focused on his core ideas, Christology, grace, but they got more forceful, more critical over time. He admitted it was partly frustration, feeling like no one in leadership was actually listening to his concerns.

Did he think they might change their minds?

He reflected that maybe he had a naive hope that leaders might eventually admit they were wrong about some things.

And his excommunication council. What happened there?

Apparently, they played a recording of one of his speeches titled Paul is not well in Zion. The leaders seemed particularly bothered by his suggestion that priesthood leaders could sometimes be abusive, even unintentionally in how they use their authority.

Did he back down?

No, he stood by it. Argued that abuse of authority maybe not malicious, but it happens. And interestingly, the accounts mentioned both he and Lavina Fielding Anderson were asked to give statements about Paul's character at his council.

Wow. But crucially, Paul remained a believer after all this.

That's what the accounts emphasize. Yes. He continued to affirm his belief in God, Jesus, Joseph Smith, the restoration, but on his own terms. He felt he didn't wear masks. He was convicted by his beliefs, but still open to being persuaded by reasoned argument.

Which he felt was the opposite of the leadership stance towards him.

Exactly. He characterized their approach as just we're right, you're wrong. He also pushed back hard on the idea that his or Margaret's words were damaging testimonies. He argued it was actually leaders’ positions on things like homosexuality or politics that were causing the real damage and that he and Margaret were trying to help people already hurt by the institutional juggernaut as he put it.

That's quite a story. It really highlights the intensity of the conflict.

It does. So, looking across all six: Lavina, Avraham, Maxine, Michael, Lynne, and Paul.

Mhm. What are the common threads? What ties these experiences together?

Well, several clear patterns jump out from the material, don't they? First, they were all intellectuals, scholars, writers, people deeply engaged with Mormonism's history, its doctrine, its culture, often pushing boundaries.

Yeah. Right. Deep thinkers. Second, they all used public platforms outside the official Church channels. Sunstone dialogue, books, speeches.

They weren't just quiet doubters. They were public intellectuals sharing their views openly.

Exactly. And third, They were all disciplined by the Church hierarchy within that incredibly short window September 1993 which really fueled that perception, noted in the sources, that these weren't just random local things but coordinated top-down actions.

Yeah, it's hard to ignore the timing.

And when you look at the specific issues for each person, the points of friction, they map almost perfectly onto those broader anxieties we talked about earlier,

Right? Concerns about doctrinal integrity, Gileadi.

Oh,

Challenges to traditional family and gender roles, Hanks, Anderson, Whitesides Toscano via Margaret speech.

And questions about authority and obedience. Whitesides, Toscano, Anderson documenting abuse. It really feels like a period where leadership was determined to consolidate control, ensure a unified message against what they saw as threats.

The dynamic really seems to be based on these accounts, the institution prioritizing coherence, obedience, that clear we're right, you're wrong stance.

Over say fostering open debate, acknowledging nuance, allowing diverse interpretations, especially if those views challenged leadership authority or the established narratives.

Okay. So, what was the impact immediately and longer term? What's the lasting legacy of the September Six?

Well, the immediate impact was huge. And as one source put it, it felt like a blunt force designed to send a clear message.

And did it work in the short term?

It seemed to. Yeah. It created a very real chilling effect among LDS intellectuals and scholars. The individuals themselves were stigmatized. Some accounts mention others becoming hesitant to even quote or attribute the work of the September Six, fearing guilt by association.

So it cowed a generation as one source said.

That's the phrase used. Yeah. At least for a time.

Is there also this idea of a lost generation of scholars?

That's discussed in the sources too. Talented people who might have contributed a lot to Mormon thought, history, but were maybe deterred from pursuing it openly because of the fallout from 93, which could have left the field with, you know, a smaller, maybe less experienced pool of scholars. for a while. 

But what about longer term? Did that chilling effect last forever?

The material suggests that while the fear, the whispers remained, the most intense effect eventually diminished over time. And the key insight seems to be that ideas, well, they ultimately cannot be quelled by fiat, by decree alone.

Right?

Power or influence that's maintained just by fear or intimidation, it can't last indefinitely.

So, new people eventually picked up the torch,

it seems. So, this led to the rise of a new generation of intellectuals and scholars. Maybe more cautious at first, but they carried forward that spirit of inquiry. They started revisiting some of the very questions and topics that got the September Six in trouble. The conversations didn't die. They just maybe shifted platforms or waited for a different climate.

And we should remember this wasn't just an internal Church story.

No, absolutely not. Like we said with Lynne Whitesides, it became a national story. It got coverage in places like Time magazine.

Which prompted a response from the Church.

Yes. That national attention led the Church hierarchy to issue a formal statement in October 1993 right after the disciplines. They explicitly affirmed their role and responsibility for maintaining the doctrinal purity of the Church.

Kind of framing their side of the story if it -

Exactly. Solidifying their position and giving the institutional reason for the actions.

Okay. So thinking about all this history, this tension, the experiences of these six people,

What are some key takeaways for us? You know, listening today as we navigate our own faith, our own intellectual lives.

No, one major point that really comes through is the, um, sometimes ambiguous nature of doctrine and authority within the Church. Like where is official doctrine really found? Is it conference talks, manuals, the website, specific leader statements? How much authority do different sources have? The September Six era really threw that into sharp relief.

Yeah. The lines weren't always clear. And it forces you to confront that inherent tension, right, between ongoing revelation, personal inspiration, which encourages individual seeking and the institutional need for unity, control, standardized belief and practice.

Definitely. And the events of 93 show a time when the institution leaned very heavily towards standardization and policing what it saw as deviations, especially in those areas, doctrine, family, body.

And what about for members today who are intellectuals, scholars, or maybe just have questions or different perspectives?

This history really prompts reflection, doesn't it, on what the actual space is for critical thinking, for doubt, for dissent within the Church today. The September Sixth experiences show the potential friction when deep inquiry bumps up against those perceived institutional boundaries or leadership anxieties.

So, the legacy is complex. It's about the chilling effect, the fear in the short term,

but also the longer-term resilience of intellectual inquiry, the ongoing desire many people have to engage deeply with Mormonism's rich, sometimes challenging history and doctrine, finding ways to do it, even, even if it means using spaces outside the traditional structures sometimes.

It's a story that definitely continues to resonate shaping conversations about faith, authority, intellectual freedom.

Within the Latter-day Saint community and even beyond. Yeah,

It truly is. And that leaves us with a thought maybe drawn from the sources for you, the listener, to mull over if power or influence ultimately can't and maybe ethically shouldn't be maintained just by fear or compulsion.

What does this history tell us about how authority perhaps should function within the Church. And given this context, how might you navigate your own intellectual and spiritual journey within or around the faith today?

If you find value in this exploration, please like, share, follow, and consider becoming a subscriber. Your contributions help keep these conversations going and allows us to maintain the highest quality production. You can find all the details at studyfaithwithai.com. Thank you for being part of this journey.