Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: What are the grounds for excommunication from the Mormon Church?
Executive Summary
Excommunication in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly called the Mormon Church) is described as a disciplinary process now often termed withdrawal of membership, reserved for serious transgressions such as apostasy, abuse, and criminal offenses, and aimed at facilitating repentance rather than merely punishing [1]. Public debates in recent years show tension between institutional protection of doctrine and members’ concerns about transparency and due process, with several high-profile cases and terminology changes prompting renewed scrutiny [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the Church says it withdraws membership — a rehabilitative framing that matters
Official explanations emphasize that Church discipline, including withdrawal of membership, is intended to help individuals repent and return to fellowship, to protect the innocent, and to preserve the Church’s spiritual integrity, not to serve as mere retribution [1]. The language shift from “excommunication” and “disfellowshipment” to “withdrawal of membership” and “formal membership restrictions” in 2019–2020 highlights an institutional effort to soften perceptions and to present discipline as restorative; this terminology change is presented as doctrinally consistent but pastorally reframing [4]. That reframing affects how members and observers interpret cases involving public figures or dissenters [5].
2. What counts as grounds — a blend of moral, legal, and doctrinal breaches
Across sources, the clearest grounds cited include apostasy—defined as repeated, open opposition to Church teachings or leaders—serious sexual transgressions such as adultery or same-sex sexual relations when judged under Church standards, and criminal actions like embezzlement or fraud [2] [1]. Abuse and other forms of harm are also listed among serious transgressions warranting withdrawal of membership; these categories overlap and the threshold for formal discipline often involves combinations of public conduct, confession, and perceived unrepentance [1]. Institutional lists are not exhaustive; disciplinary decisions involve local leaders interpreting Handbook guidance.
3. How the process is described — confession, councils, and the stated goals
The Church outlines a process where discipline is typically initiated when members confess significant sins or when leaders become aware of conduct that jeopardizes others or the Church’s integrity, culminating in membership councils that can recommend restrictions up to membership withdrawal [1]. The stated objectives are facilitating full repentance and reintegration while protecting victims and the faith community; local ecclesiastical officers apply the Handbook in individual cases rather than automatic statutory penalties [1]. Sources note this is meant to balance pastoral care with accountability, though implementation varies widely by congregation and leader.
4. Contention and criticism — accusations of secrecy and image control
Observers and former members assert that the Church’s disciplinary system can be secretive and skewed toward protecting institutional reputation, alleging lack of due process and foregone conclusions in some high-profile disciplinary councils [3] [6]. Critics point to podcast hosts, activists, and dissenting scholars whose cases became public flashpoints, arguing that discipline has been used to marginalize apostates and silence internal debate; proponents of discipline counter that confidentiality serves pastoral needs and protects private information [7] [3]. These conflicting narratives frame contemporary debates about transparency and ecclesiastical authority.
5. Recent terminology shifts and public cases — why this renewed attention matters
The 2019–2020 Handbook terminology changes drew attention when several high-profile disciplinary cases involving podcasters, former leaders, or vocal critics were reported, prompting resignations and public conversation about faith crises and institutional responses [4] [3]. Media coverage in 2017 and 2025 highlighted both enforcement of doctrinal standards in cases like a high-ranking official’s removal and community backlash when podcasters and dissenters faced discipline, underscoring how public figures amplify scrutiny of Church procedures and language choices [2] [3]. Those cases show how policy and public perception interact.
6. Where sources agree and where they diverge — mapping consensus and dispute
All sources concur that discipline exists for serious transgressions and that the Church frames it as restorative, not purely punitive [1]. They diverge on interpretation and emphasis: institutional or sympathetic accounts stress repentance and pastoral aims [1], while critical voices emphasize opacity and reputational protection, arguing that councils may lack fair process and serve to marginalize dissent [3] [6]. The tension reflects differing priorities—pastoral confidentiality versus calls for transparency—and affects how disciplinary actions are perceived by members and the public.
7. Bottom line for readers seeking to understand grounds and consequences
Grounds for withdrawal of membership are defined around apostasy, serious sexual misconduct, criminal behavior, and abuse, applied through local membership councils with the stated goal of repentance and restoration [2] [1]. Contemporary debates reveal a split between the Church’s restorative framing and external critiques of secrecy and institutional self-protection; understanding both perspectives is essential for assessing any particular case, since outcomes depend on local application of Handbook directives and the public profile of the person involved [1] [3].