LDS excommunication
Executive summary
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints practices withdrawal of membership—historically called excommunication—as its most serious form of church discipline, reserved for “serious sins” or willful apostasy and intended to protect the church, the innocent, and to encourage repentance [1] [2]. The process is governed by the Church’s handbook and local leaders, has formal effects on membership records and participation in ordinances, and can culminate in rebaptism if repentance is judged sufficient [1] [3] [4].
1. What “excommunication” means in LDS practice
What laypeople often call excommunication is technically a formal withdrawal of membership in LDS usage since 2020; it ends an individual’s recognized membership record and removes the ability to participate in ordinances, hold callings, speak in sacrament meetings or attend temples in a member capacity until—or unless—membership is restored [5] [3] [6]. Church materials describe such discipline as an act taken only when a person “has chosen to live in opposition to the Lord’s commandments” and thus is disqualified for further membership until repentance [2].
2. Why the church disciplines: stated purposes and typical grounds
Church guidance frames withdrawal of membership as a corrective, not merely punitive: to protect others, to help the individual access Christ’s redeeming power through repentance, and to protect the institution’s integrity [1] [7]. Historically and in contemporary practice, offenses that commonly lead to the most severe discipline include violent crimes, sexual abuse, adultery, polygamy, open apostasy or public teaching of false doctrine, though specifics can vary by case and local leaders’ judgments [8] [9] [10].
3. How the process typically works and who decides
Disciplinary action usually begins with local leaders—bishops, stake presidents and their counselors—who counsel privately, hold membership councils when needed, and deliberate in prayer using the General Handbook as guidance; the intent expressed in official materials is confidentiality and a focus on repentance and restoration [7] [5]. The Church’s public-facing descriptions emphasize a pastoral court model—“courts of love”—and state that rebaptism and restoration are possible following sincere repentance and recommended interviews [10] [4].
4. Practical effects and record-keeping
Withdrawal of membership is reflected on Church records and can include annotations that remain part of those records even after the person departs; restoring membership typically involves rebaptism and administrative steps to remove annotations, overseen by local leaders and sometimes by headquarters processes [11] [10]. Practically, an excommunicated person is treated, in most canonical respects, as someone who never held membership until restoration of covenants, a point emphasized in both educational and apologetic LDS sources [3] [6].
5. Criticisms, contested cases and competing narratives
Critics argue that the power to withdraw membership has at times been used to silence or punish dissenting scholars, activists or those who press uncomfortable issues—examples such as the “September Six” and academic conflicts at BYU are repeatedly cited in discussions about potential abuse of disciplinary mechanisms [1] [12]. Defenders and official materials counter that discipline is rare, governed by procedures meant to protect both individuals and the community, and intended ultimately to bring people back into fellowship [1] [6].
6. The unresolved questions and where reporting falls short
Public sources document procedures, stated purposes, and notable cases, but key details—how often councils result from doctrinal dissent versus moral transgression, variations in local application, and the lived consequences for families—are unevenly reported across the referenced materials and often rely on individual accounts or institutional summaries rather than systematic data [1] [12] [5]. Where sources diverge, readers should weigh institutional explanations (Church handbook and newsroom guidance) against scholarly and first-person accounts that highlight potential for discretionary or uneven enforcement [2] [1] [12].