The institution
The September Six
Six writers and scholars disciplined between September 14 and 26, 1993, months after an apostle listed scholars among three dangers. The Church says they were six local decisions, and that confidentiality restrains its leaders from public comment on them.
The point in one sentence
If you grew up in the Church, you were probably told that discipline is handled locally by your bishop or stake president, and kept private. Between September 14 and 26, 1993, six Latter-day Saint writers and scholars were excommunicated (removed from membership) or, in one case, disfellowshipped (still a member), four months after an apostle told the Church’s leaders that “the so-called scholars or intellectuals” were one of three dangers. The Church says these were six separate local decisions, and that confidentiality keeps its leaders from explaining them. The dates are public and the reasons are closed, so members are asked to take the Church’s account on trust.
The six, by the numbers
Sources: dates and outcomes from Wikipedia’s entries, checked against Salt Lake Tribune reporting and FAIR; the First Presidency’s 1992 and 1994 statements.
The first council was Whitesides, September 14. Packer spoke May 18.
The case from inside the Church, at full strength
Start with what believing members say. They say membership is a covenant voluntarily taken, and that a church has the right to say what it teaches. The two highest governing bodies of the Church put their position in January 1994, in a statement that opens by naming these very cases: “In light of extensive publicity given to six recent Church disciplinary councils in Utah, we believe it helpful to reaffirm the position of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.” The statement’s closing paragraph says: “We have the responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective.”
The same statement also says: “We deeply regret the loss of Church membership on the part of anyone. The attendant consequences felt over time by the individuals and their families are very real.” And it draws the line this page has to respect: “In matters of Church discipline, the General Authorities do not direct the decisions of local disciplinary councils. Furthermore, the right of appeal is open to anyone who feels he or she has been unfairly treated by a disciplinary council.” The Church has a non-professional clergy, meaning its local leaders are ordinary members, not trained ministers, and they convene the councils. A Church statement quoted by KUTV in 2014 says the same: decisions are “made by local leaders and not directed or coordinated by Church headquarters.” This page found no document showing otherwise. FAIR makes the same case.
The six are also not one case. They wrote about different things, at different ends of the Church’s spectrum, and the sources do not show the same grounds for each. Avraham Gileadi was a Hebrew scholar whose 1991 book argued that Isaiah’s end-times prophecies pointed mainly to a human “Davidic king,” and Wikipedia reports that a regional Church authority had earlier counseled him to stop lecturing on it. Quinn’s charges, per Lavina Fielding Anderson as relayed by Wikipedia, included “very sensitive and highly confidential” matters that were not related to his historical writing. And discipline can be undone: Gileadi was rebaptized in 1996 and, per FAIR, “was never asked to retract any publications or statements.” Maxine Hanks was rebaptized in 2012. In November 2024 the First Presidency authorized the proxy rebaptism of Lavina Fielding Anderson, a year after her death.
No source shows that anyone ordered the councils, or that all six were disciplined for their scholarship. What the record does show is below.
The world it came from
By 1993 the Church’s relationship to some of its historians had been strained for years. Michael Quinn, a BYU history professor from 1976, had resigned in January 1988 amid pressure from Church authorities (Wikipedia). In 1985 he had published, in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, an article, “LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890–1904,” on marriages performed after the Church announced the end of polygamy. In 1990 the attorney Paul Toscano co-authored Strangers in Paradox; in 1992 Maxine Hanks edited Women and Authority: Re-emerging Mormon Feminism, to which Quinn contributed a chapter; and Lavina Fielding Anderson, an editor, spoke in August 1992 at the Sunstone symposium about how the Church treats dissenting members, then published a chronology on the same subject in Dialogue in Spring 1993.
That same August, the First Presidency acknowledged a committee that serves as a resource to local leaders (next section). And on May 18, 1993, Elder Boyd K. Packer spoke to the All-Church Coordinating Council, a leadership council. It was a talk to a leadership council, not a handbook entry or a General Conference address.
What Elder Packer said
Boyd K. Packer, Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council, May 18, 1993 (transcript on LightPlanet; excerpt at the University of Virginia)
There are three areas where members of the Church, influenced by social and political unrest, are being caught up and led away. I chose these three because they have made major invasions into the membership of the Church. In each, the temptation is for us to turn about and face the wrong way, and it is hard to resist, for doing it seems so reasonable and right. The dangers I speak of come from the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement (both of which are relatively new), and the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals.
The stated worry is about members being “caught up and led away,” and the talk is addressed to leaders, not to the six. Packer goes on to say that “Our local leaders must deal with all three of them with ever-increasing frequency,” and warns leaders against becoming advocates for members who are hurting, because “the channels of revelation are reversed.” On scholars he says that “the doctrines of the gospel are revealed through the Spirit to prophets, not through the intellect to scholars.” Nothing in the portions reviewed names anyone.
The excerpt, University of VirginiaFour months later, the first of six councils met.
The talk did not name anyone, and no source shows it was read by the leaders who convened the councils.
The record from 1991 to 2024
The six, one by one
Dates and outcomes below are from Wikipedia’s entries on the six, checked against Salt Lake Tribune reporting and FAIR; the Church-adjacent source for the fact of the six councils is the January 1994 statement. Reported grounds are given only where a source states them. “Not verified” means this page did not find a source for the charge.
| Name | Field and work | Date (1993) | Outcome | Reported grounds | Later status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lynne Kanavel Whitesides | Mormon feminist; spoke on Heavenly Mother | Sept 14 | Disfellowshipped (still a member) | Summons cited conduct “contrary to the laws and order of the church” (Wikipedia); the Tribune reports it followed her writings on Heavenly Mother and public comments about the Church’s treatment of women | Wikipedia reports she remained a member until her death on July 7, 2025; the Tribune reported in 2024 that she had not sought reconnection |
| Avraham Gileadi | Hebrew scholar; The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretive Keys (1988), The Last Days (1991) | Sept 15 | Excommunicated | Apostasy (Wikipedia); a regional Church authority had earlier counseled him to stop lecturing on his reading of Isaiah (Wikipedia) | Rebaptized Feb 27, 1996. Told the Salt Lake Tribune, “not a single charge was true or supported by evidence,” and that “all mention of it was expunged from the church’s records.” |
| Paul Toscano | Salt Lake City attorney; co-author, Strangers in Paradox (1990) | Sept 19 | Excommunicated | “Apostasy and false teaching,” per Wikipedia; Toscano says the reason was his criticism of Church leaders | No reinstatement reported |
| Maxine Hanks | Mormon feminist theologian; editor, Women and Authority (1992) | Sept 19 | Excommunicated | Not verified | Rebaptized, Feb 2012 |
| Lavina Fielding Anderson | Editor and writer; Sisters in Spirit (1987, co-edited with Maureen Ursenbach Beecher); Dialogue chronology (Spring 1993) | Sept 23 | Excommunicated | Apostasy, following her Dialogue article on what she called ecclesiastical abuse (Salt Lake Tribune) | 2019: local leaders recommended rebaptism; the First Presidency declined (Aug 27, 2019), without explanation. Died Oct 29, 2023. In Nov 2024 the First Presidency authorized proxy rebaptism and restoration of her blessings, sought by her son. |
| D. Michael Quinn | Historian; LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages (1985), The Mormon Hierarchy | Sept 26 | Excommunicated, in a council he did not attend | “Conduct unbecoming a member of the Church and apostasy,” including “very sensitive and highly confidential” matters which, per Anderson, were not related to his historical writing (Wikipedia). The Tribune (2023) lists his writing on post-Manifesto polygamy as the reason; sources differ. | Not reinstated. Died 2021 |
Five of six were excommunicated; one was disfellowshipped.
Of the five excommunicated, three have been rebaptized: Gileadi, Hanks, and (posthumously) Anderson.
The Strengthening Church Members Committee
The committee is part of the story because of one question the public record does not answer: what information about members, if any, reaches the local leaders who decide?
In August 1992 the First Presidency confirmed in the Church News that the Strengthening Church Members Committee exists. The statement was issued, it says, “in light of extensive publicity recently given to false accusations of so-called secret Church committees and files.” It is the best evidence of what the committee is, and the passages that matter are reproduced below.
First Presidency statement, Church News, August 22, 1992
Because the Church has a non-professional clergy, its stake presidents and bishops have varied backgrounds and training. In order to assist their members who have questions, these local leaders often request information from General Authorities of the Church.
This is the Church’s stated reason for the committee. It begins with the lay leader who needs help, and the committee’s job is described as help to him.
The Church News archiveSame statement, on the committee (a separate paragraph from the next quotation)
The Strengthening Church Members Committee was appointed by the First Presidency to help fulfill this need and to comply with the cited section of the Doctrine and Covenants. This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.
The cited section is Doctrine and Covenants 123, discussed below.
Same pageSame statement, next paragraph
It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.
The last clause says the committee does not direct discipline. What the statement does not say is what a “resource” consists of, or what is kept. The next paragraph tells members to take questions “confidentially” to local leaders.
Same pageThe statement grounds the committee in Doctrine and Covenants 123, an 1839 epistle (a letter) written by Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail. The verses are quoted below. Verse 1 asks the Saints to gather “a knowledge of all the facts, and sufferings and abuses put upon them by the people of this State”; verse 3, “the names of all persons that have had a hand in their oppressions”; verse 4, that “perhaps a committee can be appointed to find out these things, and to take statements and affidavits; and also to gather up the libelous publications that are afloat”; and verse 5 extends to “all the libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom” The Church’s reading is that this covers information about those who harm members. The verses’ stated concern is the Saints’ Missouri persecutors; verse 5 also mentions “libelous histories that are published, and are writing, and by whom.”
Church spokespeople have since described its purpose more narrowly. A Church spokesperson, Jessica Moody, told KUTV in 2014: “This committee’s name is exactly what it is about, strengthening members. It acts as a clearing house to share public information with local leaders about members participating in abuse, fraud and other activities that may endanger others.” And Jeffrey R. Holland said in a March 2012 BBC interview, as FAIR reproduces the transcript, that the committee “was born some years ago to protect against predatory practices of polygamists,” and that it is “protective generally, just to watch and to care for any insidious influence.” He added, “I’m not on that committee so I don’t know much about it.” Those are Church statements of purpose and deserve to be read as such.
What the sources do establish: a General Authority committee of two apostles exists. The Church says it is a resource for local leaders and does not direct discipline. The Church’s spokesperson calls it a clearing house that shares public information with local leaders about members involved in abuse, fraud and other activities that may endanger others. And this page found no Church publication describing what the committee keeps or how a member would learn what is in it. Elder Nelson became President of the Church in 2018; Elder Faust did not, though he served as Second Counselor in the First Presidency from 1995 until his death in 2007 (Wikipedia).
The exhibits
Church statements first, then outside accounts. Every quotation is verbatim from the page linked.
First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, “Statement Released by First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve,” Ensign
January 1994
What it establishes: This is the Church’s own reason for not discussing the six cases publicly. It is a legitimate privacy norm, and it also means members and the public cannot test the local-decision account. The statement’s closing paragraph, separate from this one, reads: “We have the responsibility to preserve the doctrinal purity of the Church. We are united in this objective.”
As reproduced by FAIR (the Ensign page confirms the doctrinal-purity sentence)Same statement, on regret
January 1994
What it establishes: The statement’s second paragraph, in full.
The Ensign pageSame statement, on who decides
January 1994
What it establishes: The strongest paragraph for the Church’s account, quoted whole. The sentence on who decides speaks to who makes decisions, not to what information reaches them. The sentences around it say local officers “may seek clarification and other guidance from General Authorities” and that General Authorities provide “information that may be helpful in counseling members,” and the next sentence adds that the right of appeal is open to anyone who feels unfairly treated.
Same pageChurch statement quoted by KUTV
July 24, 2014
What it establishes: The Church’s own description of how its councils work, and the best version of the believing case. KUTV quotes it as a Church statement from earlier that week; it is a 2014 statement, not a 1993 one. Gileadi and Hanks did return, and Anderson was restored by proxy in 2024. The First Presidency’s 2019 answer to her request is the part that has been hardest to explain.
KUTV reportSalt Lake Tribune, on Lavina Fielding Anderson
2019
What it establishes: Anderson told her local leaders she had concerns about Church policies on LGBTQ members, women and the priesthood, and the role of Mother in Heaven. The Tribune reports the First Presidency rejected the recommendation without explanation. A believer can read that as the Church holding its line; a reader can also see a decision made in Salt Lake after a council decided locally. In November 2024 the First Presidency authorized her proxy rebaptism and restoration of blessings (Salt Lake Tribune, Nov 21, 2024).
Salt Lake TribunePatrick Mason, “The September Six and the Lost Generation of Mormon Studies,” Dialogue
Fall 2023
What it establishes: A fact both readings share: the six wrote about different things and stood in different places. The Church reads that as six unrelated cases. Mason, a historian writing in Dialogue, reads it as evidence of an assault on the whole community. His is an interpretation, not evidence of coordination, and this page cannot settle between the two readings.
DialogueThe visual breakdown: what the Church says, and what only it can check
Two columns. On the left, claims the Church makes about these cases, with where they come from. On the right, whether a member or reporter can check them from the public record.
| What the Church says | Source | Can it be checked? |
|---|---|---|
| General Authorities do not direct the decisions of local councils. | January 1994 statement | Not from Church records, which are confidential to the councils. The members involved have given their own accounts (for example Anderson, Quinn, Toscano, Gileadi), and Quinn did not attend his. |
| The committee does not impose or direct discipline. | August 1992 First Presidency statement | Not independently. What it keeps and who receives it is not published. |
| The committee is a clearing house for public information about members involved in abuse, fraud and other activities that may endanger others. | Church spokesperson, KUTV (2014) | The stated purpose is public. This page found no published account of what the committee kept in 1993 or what it passed on. |
| Each case was local. | Church statements; FAIR | The dates are public: six councils in Utah, Sept 14 to 26. Whether that is coincidence is the open question. |
| The door is always open to return. | Church statement, KUTV (2014) | Partly. Gileadi (1996) and Hanks (2012) returned; Anderson’s membership was restored by proxy in 2024, after the First Presidency declined in 2019. |
Put together, this is what the record shows. Most of what the Church offers in its defense is something a member cannot check. The one thing a member can read is the calendar, and the Church says the dates are not connected.
The common rebuttals
“These were six separate decisions by six local leaders. It’s not a conspiracy.”
Correct, and this page does not claim a conspiracy. No document shows central orders. The claim is smaller and survives the rebuttal. The First Presidency itself confirmed a General Authority committee that, per a 2014 Church spokesperson, shares public information with local leaders about members involved in abuse, fraud and other activities that may endanger others. An apostle named scholars as a danger four months earlier. Six councils met between September 14 and 26. And the Church’s explanation is a confidentiality norm that restrains public comment on why. A system does not need to issue orders for members to learn what it will tolerate.
“They were disciplined for apostasy, not for their scholarship, and every church disciplines apostasy.”
Often true of the stated grounds, and the cases differ: Gileadi’s concerned, as far as reported, his reading of Isaiah; Quinn’s charges, as Anderson reported them, included confidential matters not related to his writing. But the same rebuttal cuts the other way for Anderson, whose reported grounds follow her own article on how the Church treats intellectuals. A church may define apostasy. The Church’s position is that each decision was local and separate.
“Some of them came back, so the door is open.”
It is, and that is the strongest evidence in the Church’s favor. Gileadi and Hanks returned in life, and Anderson’s membership was restored by proxy in 2024, five years after the First Presidency declined it. Toscano, per the Tribune, has not sought to return; Whitesides was disfellowshipped, not excommunicated, and remained a member until her death in 2025; Quinn died in 2021 outside membership, though he considered himself a believer. Reinstatement shows discipline can be reversed. It does not show the first decision was reached for reasons a member could see.
Later cases
The Church News is not the only record. Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women, was excommunicated in June 2014 on a charge of apostasy, defined in the reporting as “repeated and public advocacy of positions that oppose church teachings.” John Dehlin was excommunicated in 2015; Wikipedia reports that the council found his online activity amounted to apostasy and that the First Presidency denied his appeal. Both are activists rather than scholars and are not part of the 1993 pattern, but they show the same kind of process, operating two decades later.
The Church says each of these was a local decision. It also says confidentiality restrains its leaders from commenting on them.
What a member can see is the calendar: May 18, then six councils between September 14 and 26.
What this means
What was established is this. Six people were disciplined between September 14 and 26, 1993. A General Authority committee that the First Presidency confirmed in writing in 1992 is, in the Church’s description, a resource for local leaders, and in a 2014 spokesperson’s words shares “public information with local leaders about members participating in abuse, fraud and other activities that may endanger others.” An apostle had named “the so-called scholars or intellectuals” as a danger four months before. And the Church’s defense, which is serious and deserves respect, is that the decisions were local and that confidentiality restrains public comment on them.
A church can keep its councils private. But then it is asking members to trust the reasons without being able to see them.
The Church’s answer is that discipline protects its doctrine and is decided locally. That is a fair statement of its position, and members cannot check it. Six writers were disciplined on those September dates, four months after an apostle named scholars as a danger, and the Church has not publicly explained why those six, on those dates.