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. 

Welcome to the deep dive. Today we're, uh, digging into a single source that tackles a pretty sensitive topic.

Yeah. It's about whether excommunication, you know, works within the LDS Church context.

Exactly. The source is an interview with Margaret Tuscano from the Gospel Tangents YouTube channel.

And just to be clear, our aim here isn't to, like, agree or disagree with the topic itself. We're just trying to unpack the perspectives in that interview,

Right? What are the insights on its impact, its effectiveness? That's what we're pulling out.

We want to understand what this conversation might mean for you, the listener, especially if you're connected to the LDS Church today.

Okay, so let's jump in. The big question the source starts with is basically does excommunication work?

But right away it gets complicated, doesn't it? Like what does work even mean?

Yeah. Does it mean stopping a movement cold? Silencing people? Is that the measure of success? The source really wrestles with that ambiguity.

And uh one of the first angles explored is that well maybe it does work if your goal is to, to say kill or slow down a particular movement.

The source gives examples.

Yeah. They talk about examples like the September Six back in the early 90s,

The big one.

And, uh, the Ordain Women movement. Kate Kelly comes up there. Sonia Johnson, too, related to the ERA. The point being, when prominent people involved were disciplined, sometimes excommunicated.

The movements themselves seem to lose steam.

It appeared that way. Yeah. The organized push seemed to falter or at least slow down quite a bit.

But okay, does that mean the actual underlying issue or the, you know, the dissent itself just disappears.

Yeah.

The source offers a counterpoint there.

It really does. It suggests that while maybe a specific organization or effort gets dampened, the core issues or disagreements, well, they tend to find other ways to surface.

Like how?

The internet is mentioned as a big one. You know, things like the Feminist Mormon Housewives blog popping up after ‘93 or um how groups like Mormons for E.R.A. reemerged later on. The conversation might get pushed outside the main channels, but it doesn't necessarily stop.

So, if you're looking at it from the institution's perspective, what lesson might they have taken from this according to the source?

Well, the interpretation offered is that maybe the Church learned they can actually excommunicate these quite visible, often critical voices. Names like John Dehlin, Rock Waterman, Denver Snuffer, Kate Kelly are mentioned.

And the institution itself keeps going

pretty much. Yeah.

Yeah.

Without a massive, uh, internal collapse. The source suggests that for a lot of members - just these actions, while maybe noted, don't fundamentally shake their own connection or faith.

Which then leads to this idea in the source about what the Church's main priority might be in these situations.

Yes, the perspective presented is that maybe controlling the narrative, um, keeping a handle on the internal discourse is actually more important to the institution than preventing the loss of some members. Although the source does add that perhaps more people are leaving now than in the past over these kinds of things.

And one big consequence of this approach. Yeah.

Discussed in the source is the impact on the general membership. Right.

Absolutely. It can create, well, fear, a sense of caution. If you know that speaking out too critically or even just associating openly with people who've been disciplined could put you in the crosshairs,

You might just keep quiet or keep your distance.

Exactly. It discourages that open questioning or association, kind of chilling the environment within the Church community itself.

But then outside the institution's direct control, does it work?

The source suggests maybe not - that it can be counterproductive in a way. People do leave because of these actions or because they sympathize with those disciplined and they might find community elsewhere potentially strengthening alternative voices or groups outside the Church.

Okay, shifting just a bit, the source also kind of pushes back on the idea that excommunication is always strictly about, say, doctrinal purity.

That's a really interesting point they make. They use examples showing that the line for what gets you disciplined hasn't always been about some unchanging doctrine

Like what?

Well, think about the whole back and forth on using the word Mormon. You had President Hinckley's approach, then President Nelson's very different direction. Or they mentioned a 19th century case, the Bunker example, I think, where beliefs about Adam-God, once considered doctrine, were later grounds for discipline. It shows things can shift.

So, it's not just about correcting wrong beliefs necessarily.

The argument presented in the source is that it's often more about, uh, maintaining conformity, silencing voices that challenge the current authority or narrative, exercising control essentially.

They do note that maybe the idea of purity fits best when talking about sexual conduct. You know, past debates or the current focus on LGBTQ+ issues, but even then the source kind of ties it back to that broader theme of institutional control and demanding conformity from members.

Okay, so let's try and boil this down for you listening. What are the key takeaways from this analysis?

Well, first, the source presents excommunication primarily as a tool, a tool the institution uses to manage dissent, control the narrative, and handle perceived threats to its authority.

And second, its effectiveness in actually stopping dissent is well debatable according to the source. It might slow down specific movements,

But the underlying issues, the conversations, they often just resurface maybe online or in different forms. So, it doesn't necessarily make them go away entirely.

Third point, this practice can create a climate of fear or at least caution among members. It might make people hesitant to question things openly or associate with those who are seen as critical.

The source also puts different ideas on the table about how change happens, pressure and dissent versus, you know, visionary leadership and inspiration. It's not necessarily either, but different dynamics are discussed.

And finally, the source suggests that from the institution's viewpoint, maintaining that control over the discourse seems to be a really high priority, perhaps even taking precedence over retaining every single member.

So, it highlights this tension between institutional control and the impact on individuals - and maybe the wider conversation.

Definitely, it was about strategy and consequences.

Which leaves us with a final thought, something for you to chew on based on this analysis. If the priority is indeed control and conformity, often enforced through actions like excommunication, what might the long-term effects be on fostering real open dialogue, embracing diverse views, and tackling complex issues from within the Church community itself? 

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.