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. 

Imagine feeling you need to speak out, you know, speak truth to power inside your own community, but then finding yourself kind of pushed to the margins.

Yeah. That's really the story for people like Sonia Johnson back during the Equal Rights Amendment fight or Kate Kelly with Ordain Women and uh more recently Sam Young trying to protect children.

Exactly. And their stories, they aren't just like personal accounts of conflict. They give us a really powerful way to look at how the Latter-day Saint Church, the LDS Church, deals with internal dissent. and um calls for change.

Right. So today we're doing a deep dive into these three activists. We've looked through the sources you sent over articles, interviews, notes, all that stuff.

Our goal is to really understand what motivated them, what they did, and critically how the institutional Church responded, including, you know, the disciplinary councils.

Yeah. And the mission here for this deep dive is to pull out what these specific stories might tell us about the Church's institutional values, like what gets prioritized?

And how concepts like apostasy actually play out in practice. Not just the definition, but you know the reality.

What about civil liberties? Things like freedom of thought, speech, assembly. How do those function or maybe not function for members?

Also, how does change even happen in the Church? Do these stories give us clues?

And finally, what are the key takeaways for you listening, whether you're an active member or maybe connected in other ways?

Think of this as, um, your shortcut to grasping a really complex, sometimes difficult, but definitely illuminating part of the Church's history and its culture seen through their experiences. Let's unpack this. Let's start with Sonia Johnson. Our sources put her in the spotlight around 1979, mostly connected to the Equal Rights Amendment, the ERA.

Yeah, the ERA, just a bit of background. It passed Congress in, uh ‘72. Lots of states ratified it quickly at first, but then things stalled. Some states even rescinded their ratifications, which is pretty unusual and you had organized opposition like Phyllis Schlafly's stop ERA movement, right?

Their argument was basically that the ERA would actually harm women, take away supposed privileges, maybe lead to drafting women or issues with alimony, child support, that kind of thing.

Okay. So, where did the Church fit into this picture? The sources say they were pretty involved in opposing it.

Oh, definitely. It was quite organized. You had public statements against it from leaders like Barbara Smith, a Relief Society General President then, and the First Presidency came out officially against it around ‘79. Now, they said members could vote their conscience, but the institution itself had definitely mobilized.

Mobilized how? What did that look like on the ground according to the sources?

Well, the materials mentioned things like Church citizens councils organizing bus trips to state legislators. They distributed literature talking points basically on how to approach legislators, leaflets, and Church parking lots. Sources even mentioned deacons distributing flyers and possibly bishops asking for donations, though the exact money trail isn't totally clear. It varied state by state, too.

And this is where Sonia Johnson and her group Mormons for ERA America come in.

Exactly. MERA started up in 1978. And part of what they did based on these sources was track what the Church was doing against the ERA in different states. They'd report back to their supporters, kind of keeping tabs on the Church's campaign.

Now, the sources highlight her perspective, especially her focus on the men. What did she mean by that?

It seems she used that as shorthand for the central Church hierarchy. leadership structure. She felt they used the priesthood lines of authority to influence women on this issue, seeing them as acting in unison, following directives from the top. She pointed to a specific committee, the special affairs committee, headed then by Gordon B. Hinckley, as being key in this effort.

And there's an anecdote in the sources about a specific moment that really pushed her towards the pro-ERA cause.

Yeah, it's quite telling. She talks about being at a meeting where a bishop spoke against the ERA. And he apparently admitted he just bought a magazine with an article on it on his way there and read it during the opening hymn.

Wow.

For Sonia, this just screamed unpreparedness, a lack of real engagement with a critical issue for women. She saw it as reflecting a broader disregard. She actually called that moment the beginning of the end for her relationship with the Church leadership's stance.

Her activism became very public protests, media appearances, and one thing that stirred up controversy was her comment about missionaries.

Right, that gets brought up a lot. The sources give some important context, though. She wasn't just saying, you know, don't let missionaries in your house. She was speaking to people who she felt were already so upset about the Church's anti-ERA campaign that they weren't letting missionaries in. Her point was, if you're doing that, you need to tell the Church and the missionaries why. Don't just shut the door silently. She apparently drew a parallel, thinking that similar kinds of feedback might have played a role in the decision to lift the priesthood ban back in 1978. Sort of leveraging that discontent.

But this public activism led to her excommunication, didn't it?

It did. December 1979. The sources note the specific reason given is sometimes debated, but it was fundamentally tied to her activities promoting the Equal Rights Amendment.

The material also touches on some difficult personal things happening for her around the same time.

Yeah. Sadly, her marriage ended right around then. Her husband Rick had initially supported her activism, but the sources describe a really painful situation. where he apparently met someone else and then used, well, a distorted version of feminist theory about marriage being oppressive to convince Sonia they should divorce only later revealing his actual motive was just wanting out.

That's rough.

And there's that weird sort of sad footnote in one source. She was excommunicated in the exact same building where Kate Kelly would face her own disciplinary council decades later.

Wow. Which yeah brings us right to Kate Kelly. Fast forward a few decades. The whole conversation about women's roles equality in the Church, it flares up again with Ordain Women,

Right? Kate co-founded that movement around 2013. Her background is different. She's a human rights lawyer,

But her motivation, according to the sources, also seems rooted in her faith, like living out Church principles, “do what is right”, that kind of thing.

Exactly. She felt that faithful women who had concerns about gender inequality deserve to have their voices heard, taken seriously, especially since women are what, at least half the Church membership.

Ordain Women's focus was specific specifically on advocating for women's ordination,

Right?

Seeking institutional recognition of equality.

Yeah. Their argument, as presented in the sources, wasn't about becoming equal. It was about seeking recognition for an equality they believed already existed so they could participate more meaningfully in rituals and leadership.

But that advocacy, especially the public actions like trying to attend the priesthood sessions at General Conference,

Yeah.

That led to her facing discipline.

Mhm. The sources say she didn't actually attend her council in person. She submitted a written defense and the process itself was apparently quite quick.

So what was the impact of that? Her excommunication on the Ordain Women movement.

Well, one perspective in the sources is that it felt like the Church successfully, you know, cut off the head that the movement lost steam after she was removed.

That makes sense. And it must have been incredibly difficult for active members still involved in Ordain Women.

Oh, absolutely. Feeling hurt, maybe even betrayed by the institution they were trying to change from within. Kate still stays involved though on their advisory board even after her excommunication.

Okay, let's shift focus now to Sam Young, a more recent case and centered on a different really sensitive issue, protecting children.

Yes, Sam Young. His activism really ignited after he learned his own daughter when she was 12 and then later three of his other children had been asked sexually explicit questions in private one-on-one interviews with local Church leaders, bishops or stake presidents. And his reaction, as he put it, was immediate. Everybody in the world knows that's wrong. Dead wrong.

So, what did he do initially? What steps did his activism take?

He launched the Protect LDS Children movement. It started with an online petition. The sources say it got over 55,000 signatures pretty quickly. Then he organized a big march in Salt Lake City. Thousands of people showed up. They delivered these thick books filled with thousands of stories from victims along with the petitions right to Church headquarters, addressed copies to every Apostle and First Presidency member. Sam described it as really powerful meeting people whose stories were in those books, seeing the validation it brought.

Did the Church make any changes in response to all this public pressure?

They did make some changes, yes, but the sources detail them as incremental and importantly Sam felt they were insufficient. Before the march, there was a small wording change like 16 words saying a leader may allow another adult if the child desires it.

May allow if the child desires it.

Right. Then after the march in June, the Church published a list of suggested interview questions; mostly standard temple recommend ones with a few removed. They also said the policy about possibly having another adult present should be shared with youth and parents at the first interview.

But Sam and his supporters didn't feel that was enough. Why not?

Well, several reasons according to the sources. A big one was putting the onus on the child to ask for another adult. Kids might not understand the risks or feel intimidated, especially if sensitive topics come up. They don't understand grooming tactics, for example.

That makes sense.

Also, the suggested questions didn't actually ban sexually explicit questions. Bishops were still directed to the For the Strength of Youth guide for chastity guidance. Sam argued this still opened the door to potentially harmful teachings and questions, pointing to teachings comparing sexual sin to murder. He estimated the changes maybe impacted 1% of one-on-one interviews, leaving that private setting as the default.

And then there was that comparison he made which really resonated with people. The Church requires two adults to count tithing money,

Right?

But not necessarily when a child is alone with an adult leader discussing potentially intimate details. To him and many others, it looked like money was being prioritized over child safety. He also pointed out that sadly abuse had sometimes occurred in the bishop's office itself.

So feeling the changes weren't adequate, he took a much more drastic step, a hunger strike. What was the reasoning there?

He described it as just sheer urgency. Having heard thousands of stories of harm, he felt it was like seeing a baby carriage rolling into traffic. You have to act now. He didn't do it lightly, though. Sources say he did a lot of research, prepared carefully, consulted doctors and nutritionists to manage the health risks.

What was that like for him physically?

The sources mentioned significant weight loss. He lost 14 lbs prepping, then another 13 in the first 13 days, ending up losing about 35 lbs over the 23 days he fasted. He reported some faintness early on, but said he wasn't overwhelmingly hungry or weak. Initially crediting the preparation; he took vitamins, minerals, electrolytes. Doctors monitored him. His wife supported him, though it is described as a difficult process for her, too. He wasn't planning to die, but he knew he was risking his health.

And he laid out specific conditions for ending the strike.

Yes. Three conditions were listed in the sources. One, somewhat humorously presented, was a second interview on the Mormon Stories podcast with John Dehlin. Two, the Apostles publicly announcing a policy change to no one-on-one interviews for children. Period. and three, President Nelson agreeing to meet with survivors and concerned members.

He also issued a very direct public challenge to the Apostles themselves.

He did. He compiled a list of 29 specific sexually explicit questions that victims reported being asked really disturbing questions.

Like what?

Things like, "Do you know what a vagina is?" "What were you thinking of while you masturbated?" "Where and how did your boyfriend touch you?" Wow, just awful stuff. He held a press conference and challenged the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to publicly condemn just one of those questions, just one. And he highlighted the difficulty he had getting the questions published. Newspapers hesitant, Facebook flagging an ad as pornographic. His point was, society finds these questions too explicit to even discuss openly. Yet, Church policy allows children to potentially be asked them in private.

And all this led eventually to a disciplinary council notice for Sam.

Right. He'd apparently been threatened before, but this time he received the formal letter. It was actually delivered by local leaders who were his friends, which he said made it really hard for everyone involved, leaving him feeling angry and disappointed.

What reasons did the letter actually give for the council?

The letter, as quoted in the sources, stated he was acting repeatedly in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders. It specifically called out encouraging others to vote opposed during sustaining votes for leaders and organizing public actions expressing opposition.

And how did Sam respond to those charges based on the material? He pushed back, invoking the principle of common consent. He argued members have a right to sustain or oppose, and discussing your vote is part of that. He felt the charge was basically a way to silence him, not something grounded in scripture. He made a distinction. He was criticizing a policy he saw as harmful to children, not attacking leaders personally. He referenced his covenants, but insisted he never covenanted not to criticize policy. He even cited scriptural examples like Abinadi or Samuel the Lamanite as people who spoke out against wrongdoing.

The letter apparently offered to just cancel the whole thing if he'd request his name be removed,

which Sam saw as another attempt to just silence him. Go away quietly. Likely an offer originating from Salt Lake, he suspected.

But despite all that, he chose to attend the council. Why?

He felt attending would raise awareness for members and non-members, and it was a chance to speak directly to those leaders, the Stake President, counselors about protecting kids. He said he was going like a lion to war for children, not a lamb to the slaughter.

And even with the pending discipline, he said he still wanted to remain a member at that point. Anyway,

Yeah, his reasoning was that children's safety, his grandkids safety was more important than his membership status. He felt his faith was in Jesus Christ's teachings, not necessarily the current leadership or policies. He saw himself as shedding the sheep's clothing to be a lion for the kids.

He also voiced some strong disappointment, didn't he? Particularly towards other members.

He did express frustration at what he saw as a lack of outrage or support from members, even about child safety. He chalked it up to a culture of fear, being lulled into a false sense of security, unwilling to criticize Salt Lake.

Contrasting that internal quietness with all the media attention his campaign got, local, national.

Yeah. And he pushed back on the idea that leaders might hesitate to change because they don't want to look weak. He called that view arrogant, infantile. Said, "Doing the right thing takes courage. Okay, so let's step back. We have these three stories. Sonia Johnson, Kate Kelly, Sam Young. Different eras, different issues. ERA, women's ordination, child protection. What do they show us collectively?

Well, one clear theme emerging from the sources is how institutional authority often seems prioritized over individual conscience or even things we might think of as civil liberties when there's a conflict, especially when dissent goes public and gets organized.

Yeah, conformity to policy and directives seems highly valued. And we saw that pattern of framing issues, especially around gender and sexuality, as purely moral or family matters, which then justifies certain political or policy stances.

And thinking about apostasy in these cases, it looks less like it's about private belief, you know, what someone thinks deep down, and more about public actions, organizing, challenging policy, questioning leadership publicly.

The source has even mentioned excommunications happening on the ultra-conservative side of things, which reinforces that idea. It's the public opposition to authority that seems to be the trigger maybe more than the specific ideology itself.

Which leads to the question about civil rights within the faith: freedom of thought, speech, assembly. These stories suggest the boundaries are pretty tight.

Organizing protests like Sam did, seeking institutional change like Kate did, speaking against the Church's political stance like Sonia did, all led to discipline. It really makes you wonder if the institution sees that kind of public dissent or organizing, even if it's morally driven, as fundamentally incompatible with membership.

The space for public dissent seems very narrow if you want to stay in good standing.

And what about how change happens? These examples suggest it's often reactive, right?

It seems that way, spurred by sustained public pressure from activists, like the timing of the policy tweaks before Sam Young's march, but often the changes come after the activists themselves have been disciplined or pushed out.

And then, as the sources note, sometimes those changes get presented as coming purely from internal revelation, kind of erasing the role that external advocacy played.

So, okay, key takeaways for you, the listener, trying to navigate all this. First, just understanding this history gives really important context for today's policies and culture around dissent.

And second, it's crucial to recognize the real risks, the significant personal costs that can come with publicly challenging Church policy or authority, even if you feel morally compelled to do so. Discipline is a real possibility, as these stories show.

You're often left wrestling with that tension, aren't you? Loyalty to the institution versus following your own conscience when they seem to point in different directions. It's not simple.

It might also be helpful to think about how the institution frames issues like calling something a moral issue or focusing on protecting children. Understanding that framing helps you analyze the policies even if you end up disagreeing with how they're implemented.

And the bottom line seems to be that pushing for significant institutional change, whether from inside or outside, often requires immense personal sacrifice from those who lead the charge.

So, we've taken this deep dive into Sonia Johnson, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, their activism, their conflicts, the discipline they faced. It really illuminates the dynamics between individual conscience and institutional power in the LDS Church.

It absolutely does.

So, given everything we've discussed, the personal costs, the institutional patterns, here's something to think about. What does it really mean to live a principled life connected to the LDS Church today? And if you feel a need to advocate for change, what does that path really look like knowing this history we've just explored.

Definitely something to mull over. Thanks for joining us for this deep dive.

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.