S11 E16 Influencers | Disciplining Digital Dissenters

Episode 16 of Apostates examines the disciplinary actions taken by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against prominent online voices including John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, and Nemo the Mormon. We explore how the internet age has created new challenges for institutional control, analyzing the tension between truth-seeking and institutional loyalty. We discuss common patterns in these excommunication cases and what they reveal about apostasy in the digital era.

Sources

• Essay_John Dehlin Disciplinary Council Summary_MS
• Video_Excomm John Dehlin_Parts 1- 6_1264-1269
• Video_Excomm of Bill Reel_1025-1028_MS
• Video_Excomm Jeremy Runnels_621_MS
• News_Church responds to John Dehlin_LDS.org
• Essay_CES Letter resigns_CES Letter
• Podcast_Excomm Jeremy Runnels_Unraveled
• Video_British YouTuber to be Exed_1939_MS
• Video_The end of Nemo the Mormon?_Nemo
• News_Nemo booted from LDS Church_SL Tribune
• Podcast_Vigil for Nemo_Mormon Discussions

AI Prompt

Explore how and why the Church disciplines influencers - specifically Jeremy Runnels, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, and Nemo the Mormon. Review each of their stories separately. What do their experiences reveal about the values of the Latter-day Saint Church and apostacy within the faith? What key takeaways for Church members?

Transcript

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 are tackling, well, a sensitive and for many a deeply personal topic.

The disciplinary actions taken by the Latter-day Saint Church against some prominent online voices.

Yeah, it's definitely sensitive territory. We've pulled together quite a stack of sources for this deep dive. You know, articles, transcripts from meetings, press conferences, even excerpts from YouTube videos shared by the individuals themselves.

A lot to work through.

For sure. It's a rich but sometimes, uh, pretty challenging body of material. So our mission here is to really get into these sources, try to unpack the key bits of knowledge to understand how and why the Church has disciplined individuals who, well, gain significant online followings while publicly questioning or critiquing aspects of the faith.

Exactly. And to do that, we'll focus on the experiences of four individuals highlighted in this material. Jeremy Runnells, you know, the CES Letter guy,

John Dehlin from Mormon Stories podcast, Bill Reel, who hosts Mormon Discussions, and, and, uh the British YouTuber Nemo the Mormon. Looking at their stories, you know, as told through these sources, it offers a really unique window into this complex dynamic,

The institution versus the member in the digital age,

Right? It really shows what it means to navigate faith and doubt and public discourse today.

Absolutely. And before we even get into the individual cases, it's worth noting the sources highlight this major backdrop, this challenge the Church faces with information access. You know, the internet age.

That's a huge factor. One source actually quotes the current Church historian, Elder Steven Snow, saying quite plainly that with the internet, the Church can't continue that pattern of keeping historical records closed. It's an acknowledgement of a new reality. Really,

A big admission. And another source points out this striking irony. Information that maybe yesterday was dismissed as anti-Mormon lies can well become today's Church essay facts.

It really highlights this tension, doesn't it? This pull between trying to maintain a specific narrative and just the sheer availability of information that prompts questions and you know inevitably challenges that more traditional correlated story.

It does. And the sources kind of frame this as a fundamental shift. The age of Google social media made applying those old 20th century information control tactics feel almost,

Um, well, one source used the word Orwellian information is just too accessible now.

Okay, let's dive into our first case then. John Dehlin, what do the sources reveal about his experience. We learn he was involved in a lot of efforts aimed at understanding, supporting members who struggle or question things like the Why Mormons Question Survey StayLDS.com

His podcast too: Mormon Matters and A Thoughtful Faith.

Right. And according to sources within headquarters cited in the material he even felt some of these efforts were sort of aligning with the Church's own stated initiative to be more forthcoming about its history.

Yes. But the sources detail that Dehlin felt he was under these ongoing investigations leading up to 2014, which he described as feeling like harassment.

Whoa. Yeah.

And then he was contacted by a Stake President he didn't even know, Brian King, who informed him of an upcoming disciplinary council. The intent, according to the sources, was disfellowshipping or excommunication.

And the sources are pretty clear about the terms Dehlin was reportedly given to avoid that discipline, right?

Very clear. He was told he needed to stop voicing public doubt or criticism and also cease public support for same-sex marriage and the Ordain movement.

Tough terms.

And material shows both Dehlin and his wife responded. They just couldn't agree to those terms based on their conscience. So, his disciplinary council was initially set for January 25, 2015, then it got moved to February 8th.

Now, here's where a detail from a Church newsroom response mentioned in one source becomes really interesting. It clarifies that while Dehlin’s positions on same-sex marriage and Ordain Women are inconsistent with Church teachings.

Which they state clearly,

Right? But they were not listed in the local leaders' letter as the specific reasons for the excommunication. The letter according to the sources cited public opposition to the Church.

Which is broader isn't it? It suggests the issue wasn't just holding those beliefs maybe but the public nature of expressing them.

Seems like it.

The sources also detail Dehlin's interactions with various local leaders. He actually recorded some conversations which were later released.

That's a key detail too.

Yeah. He felt some leaders like Bishop Stevenson and President Jensen were more understanding at first. I mean, President Jensen even allowed him to baptize his son, but President King seemed less focused on the specific content and maybe more on his public image, his perceived tone, things found via Google searches.

That detail about President King focusing on Google searches is pretty striking. And the sources include another uh particularly jarring account from Dehlin, his description of feeling like he was being secretly investigated.

By Home Teachers and a professor.

Yeah. Who he felt were reporting back to leaders. He used the term KGB to describe that feeling. That's intense.

It is. And he also mentions intelligence gathered by apologists being sent to his leaders as well. It paints a picture, you know, based on his account in the sources, of information flowing through these informal channels as part of the whole process.

Like a side channel investigation?

Kind of. But despite these local challenges, the sources do indicate he had some positive interactions with higher leadership figures. For instance, Elder Holland is quoted purportedly saying, "I wish we had 100,000 more John Dehlins."

Which contrasts sharply with the local actions.

It does. But then President King is also quoted stating he received no direct instruction from the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve. This suggests local leaders operate under general guidelines maybe, but the final decision power rests with them.

Interesting dynamic there. And at his final council, the sources say Dehlin brought witnesses, active family members, colleagues, and hundreds of people reportedly held a vigil outside the building showing support.

Yeah, a lot of support. The material notes President King offered informal probation, but was apparently very clear that if that didn't work, the next step was the disciplinary council.

So, summing up Dehlin's case from the sources, it seems like a mix of perceived informal surveillance, formal disciplinary threats, specific terms offered which he declined, and ultimately this charge framed as public opposition seemingly triggered by his highly visible online activities and positions.

Yeah, it certainly reveals a lot about how that online visibility intersects with institutional boundaries. It's a key theme.

Okay, let's turn next to Jeremy Runnells, author of the widely known letter to a CES director or the CES Letter. The sources describe that letter as his sincere attempt initially to get answers through Church channels after encountering what he calls disturbing information the Church hadn't shared.

Right. And the sources really emphasize the impact of the CES Letter. It resonated with hundreds of thousands - apparently led to thousands of personal contacts with Runnells.

Why do the sources say it had such reach?

Well, they highlight that it basically voiced questions many other people shared and it mirrored their experience, you know, encountering this kind of challenging information and wanting real answers.

Yeah.

And Runnells, according to the sources, actively worked to make this information accessible online in print,

Making it easy to find.

Exactly. Optimizing it for search engines, improving the sourcing away from less reliable places like say Wikipedia early on.

And the sources tell us Runnells was summoned to a disciplinary council on charges of apostasy. The material details multiple attempts to schedule this council which Runnells felt were kind of blindsiding him.

Yeah. He mentions one attempt to schedule it on Valentine's Day evening which seems pointed, especially given an earlier agreement to meet later because of a family hospice situation.

That timing feels significant based on the sources.

It does and a key point the sources repeatedly make is Runnells’ asking his leaders again and again for specific errors or mistakes in his CES Letter or on his website that he could publicly correct.

Which is apparently a requirement in the Church Handbook for discipline related to teachings.

That's what the sources indicate. Yes. And according to those sources, he was never provided with any specific errors.

That's a really crucial detail, isn't it? It suggests maybe as Runnell felt according to the sources that the discipline wasn't really about factual inaccuracies,

But about the very act of seeking and sharing this information publicly.

Right. He felt based on the sources that he was being punished for seeking and sharing truth. Much of which he argues is now verifiable through the Church's own Gospel Topics Essays. He felt the Church was trying to quote kill and silence the messenger rather than address the message.

Strong words. The sources show Runnells contrasting his experience with quotes from past Church leaders J. Reuben Clark, George Albert Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, people he felt encouraged investigation of truth.

So pointing out a perceived contradiction.

Exactly. He felt based on the sources that the Church was applying quote 20th century censorship and control tactics in a 21st century social media connected world.

He also expressed really strong feelings in the sources about being placed in the same category as say murderers or rapists through the act of excommunication. He's quoted saying, "I have done nothing wrong. I just wanted the truth."

Yeah. And he specifically mentions President Ivins attempting to, in his words, spiritually execute him without actually answering his questions.

So ultimately, what happened?

Well, the sources state Runnells chose to resign from the Church before they could excommunicate him. He framed this as him excommunicating the Church from my life, citing the lack of transparency and honesty, the treatment of questioners, and his resentment at being equated with criminals.

A preemptive move.

Seems like it. He stated his goal wasn't to drive people out, but to get official answers. He argued that the facts and information themselves, often verified by Church sources, are what challenge testimonies, not necessarily his sharing of them. He believes members and investigators deserve to have all of the facts and information on the table for a fully informed decision. You know, consistent with the ideal of free agency.

So, Runnells’ story, according to the sources, really highlights this perceived challenge of getting answers through official channels and then the pretty severe consequences faced for compiling and publicly sharing information that raises questions even when it aligns with information the institution itself later publishes.

Exactly. It really emphasizes that tension between truth seeking outside the approved narratives and institutional control or image management.

Okay. Our next case from the sources is Bill Reel, a former bishop, host of the Mormon Discussions podcast. His faith crisis, as he describes it in the sources. It stemmed from really deep, broad study of Mormonism's history from all sorts of sources.

Yeah. Leading him to realize the issues were quote: “way more complicated than the Church led on.”

A common realization described in these narratives.

It seems to be. The sources describe his disciplinary council which he also recorded and made public. And it also mentions the significant support he received.

Another vigil.

Yeah. A vigil outside the building. Hundreds reportedly attending throughout the night. And notably, Sam Young, who'd also been excommunicated for questioning child interview policies, was there among the supporters.

Showing solidarity. Definitely the sources recount details from inside the council too. Things like phones being collected, the physical setup where he and his wife sat far from the Stake Presidency, and an opening prayer asking council members to really pay attention. Reel notes in the material that they seemed to listen pretty intently as he shared his story.

And what was his defense according to the sources?

Well, as detailed in the sources, it centered on his belief that he was simply shining a light on issues and facts within Church history and doctrine. He brought up a whole range of specific controversial topics

Like what?

Things like Joseph Smith's treasure digging and its links to seer stones, the different accounts of the first vision, especially the 1832 one reportedly removed by JF Smith. Details about Joseph Smith's polygamy, young wives, polyandry - things like that.

Difficult topics for sure.

Absolutely. Also questions about the timing of priesthood restoration accounts, historical racial teachings now disavowed as theories in the Essays: the Adam-God doctrine, Lamanite DNA issues, shifting teachings on handicapped children, and even the perceived lack of verifiable biblical style supernatural miracles in modern history compared to scriptural accounts.

Oh, that's quite a list of very specific historical and doctrinal issues he raised directly from the sources.

It is he argued according to the material that the Church is struggling to get comfortable with the facts of its story and often addresses them sort of in the shadows which he felt was unhealthy for members. He felt it needed to be more open.

Yes. He stated he had spoken to scholars, even higher leaders like Elder Holland and Marlin Jensen, who he said acknowledged there were serious questions in the history and that the situation was quote, “way worse than the Church often presents”.

So he felt even leaders acknowledged the complexity privately.

That's what he stated in the sources. Yes. And he directly challenged the council members asking if an institution that doesn't allow for addressing concerns or for leaders to admit mistakes like lying actually has integrity.

Posing a direct ethical challenge.

He did. He even used a Santa Claus analogy suggesting truth can be found in myths even if not taken literally implying there should be room for nonliteral belief and maybe the Church is slowly moving towards allowing less literal belief. He pointed to how past doctrines like McConkie Mormonism or J.F. Smith Mormonism seem to fade over time.

So arguing for more intellectual and historical honesty from the institution itself, the sources also mention his wife testified at the council.

Yes. She described the positive impact their work had had on others struggling with faith and how she felt safe sharing despite not being an extrovert.

And Reel’s final position according to the sources.

He stated clearly in the sources that he felt he was being disciplined not for immoral sin but because he told the truth. He argued it was a shame to excommunicate someone for shining a light on what he saw as a lack of institutional integrity, forthrightness, and honesty, especially when people are hurting and not being validated. But he still held some belief.

He testified that he still held a testimony of Jesus in the Book of Mormon, viewing it as scripture, maybe not a historical translation, and believed in prophets to some extent. He said he just didn't see the world in black and white terms anymore.

So, Bill Reel’s case then, as presented in the sources, seems rooted in this public discussion of difficult historical and doctrinal facts framed by him as a search for integrity and honesty, but viewed by the institution based on the disciplinary action as something warranting excommunication. It certainly highlights the challenge the institution faces when members publicly engage with historical sources that complicate the simplified narrative and the well the consequences for those who choose to do so.

Okay, our final case study from the sources is Nemo the Mormon, a British YouTuber. The sources describe him as an active member right up until his membership was withdrawn. His core belief according to the material is that robust debate and the ability to hold Latter-day Saint leaders publicly accountable is critical to our resilient faith.

Interesting framing. Nemo's motivation based on the sources was this desire for the Church to be a healthier and more self-reflective organization, especially for younger generations.

Why younger generations specifically?

He cites the high suicide rate among LDS LGBTQ youth as one major reason he sought out research and resources for those struggling. He mentioned in the sources telling his High Council in an email a year prior that the dishonesty of their brethren was like a cancer that is killing the Church.

Strong words again.

Very. And the people are leaving because they're losing trust in the institution, not necessarily losing faith. That distinction between trust and faith comes up.

So a focus on trust and institutional integrity, much like Bill Reel, but maybe more tied to contemporary issues like LGBTQ inclusion. Sources indicate Nemo was somewhat surprised by the timing of the disciplinary action.

Yeah, he asked why now.

He felt his current public commentary wasn't the main trigger, even though his emails to the High Council from a year ago were cited as the basis for the charge of apostasy.

That delay is curious.

It is based on the sources. He also felt leaders were unwilling to engage with him on why those specific emails from a year ago were considered problematic. 

Now, any speculation in the sources as to why?

He speculated in the sources that concern about him potentially recording conversations like John Dehlin did might have been a factor. He noted an amended agreement was signed at his council allowing the clerk to take notes. Acknowledging a conflict with his initial position on not permitting notes.

Ah, so the potential for recording public proceedings seemed to be on the institution's mind based on that detail.

It appears so. And like the others, Nemo received significant community support. The sources mentioned friends traveling long distances like Paul from Scotland and another vigil held outside the council building. His wife and mother were reportedly allowed inside the council.

The vigils seem like a recurring theme.

They do. The sources show Nemo expressing a really powerful sentiment about his discipline. He felt that being excommunicated for apostasy in the 21st century, particularly for standing for truth and for marginalized communities, actually puts one on the right side of history.

Wow.

And that it can be seen as an honor rather than a mark of shame. This viewpoint, according to the sources, is shared by others in the community who feel he speaks for them.

That's a fascinating reframing of excommunication, taking it as a badge of honor.

It is. He saw his discipline as sort of his turn to pay the price for speaking truth to power. He highlighted how historically truth seekers and people who had testimonies were often quote: “thrown under the bus for things that were later accepted or acknowledged by the Church”.

So drawing historical parallels,

Yes, he believed according to the sources that the Church is terrified of members listening to voices like his because they essentially legitimize questioning and deconstruction for active members.

Interesting perspective. So Nemo's case, based on the sources, it brings in these contemporary issues, the idea of institutional trust and this strong sense of being disciplined for speaking truth to power on behalf of a community leading to this almost defiant pride in the disciplinary action itself.

Yes, it really rounds out the picture presented in the sources showing how similar dynamics play out with different individuals and different contemporary concerns.

Okay, that's a lot to unpack from these four stories, Dehlin, Runnells, Reel, and Nemo. Let's try to connect the dots based on what the sources reveal. What common threads emerge regarding how and why the Church disciplines influencers like these?

Well, based on the sources, the charge is often apostasy, but it's defined in these broad terms like public opposition or repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition,

Vague terms almost.

They can seem that way. But the actions triggering these charges, according to the material we reviewed, consistently involve publicly sharing information, questioning doctrine or history, or supporting positions like LGBTQ inclusion or greater roles for women that challenge the correlated narrative or established leadership positions.

It really does seem like the public nature of the questioning and critique, especially when it's amplified by online platforms and gains influence, is the critical factor - maybe more so than just having private doubts.

I think the sources strongly suggest that we heard from both Runnells and Reel about the difficulty of getting direct answers through official channels right and how their efforts to publicize the questions came when those answers weren't forthcoming.

The public square becomes the only option in their view

potentially. The sources also show a pattern in the process. These initial letters from local leaders, requests for confidentiality that aren't always accepted, and then disciplinary councils where individuals are expected to respond to charges that might initially lack specifics, sometimes feeling like they come out of the blue.

Feeling blindsided, as Runnells put it.

Right. And we saw evidence in Dehlin's case, according to the sources, of these informal investigations and the gathering of information from other members and apologists outside the formal process.

Yeah, the KGB feeling he described from the sources that stuck with me.

Exactly. And fundamentally, the sources highlight this deep tension between individual conscience and the search for truth on one side and institutional loyalty and unity on the other. These individuals felt compelled to speak out about issues they saw as important or harmful.

Hidden history, lack of integrity, damaging treatment of marginalized groups like LGBT members, and youth as Reel and Nemo mentioned.

Precisely. Meanwhile, based on the outcomes documented in the sources, the institution appears to view these actions as undermining its authority, its correlated truth claims, or maybe just its public image.

And the visible support shown by friends, family, and the online community. Those vigils. People attending councils weren’t allowed. The witnesses brought. That's also a significant part of the picture presented in the sources, isn't it?

Absolutely. It underscores the social context. These disciplinary actions aren't happening in a vacuum. It suggests these individuals aren't just isolated figures, but that their questions and concerns resonate with many others who see their voices as validating, maybe normalizing their own feelings.

That community aspect revealed in the sources is very important. It shows the broader impact. Okay. So, what do these experiences as told in the sources tell us about the Church's values and its approach to the concept of apostasy?

Well, based purely on these cases documented in the sources, the Church appears to place a very high value on institutional unity, adherence to correlated teachings, and maintaining a controlled public image.

Control seems key.

It appears so. Sometimes, according to these accounts, this seems to take precedence over open historical inquiry or public dissent, even when that dissent is rooted in publicly available facts or, you know, concerns about institutional integrity and well-being, like Nemo pointed out regarding the suicide rate linked to LGBTQ policies.

So, apostasy in these specific instances documented by the sources seems to be tied more to public challenge, perceived disloyalty, and questioning of authority, especially when it gains traction online.

Yeah, it seems less about just holding nuanced or even contradictory personal beliefs, particularly if those beliefs are then openly advocated for or shared widely, influencing others. Runnells’ account of not being provided with specific errors to correct, really underscores this point from the sources,

Right? It suggests the challenge was the public sharing of the information itself, not necessarily any factual inaccuracy within it.

That distinction feels like a key takeaway from the sources. Yes.

Okay. So, what other key takeaways might active or questioning Church members draw from these deep dives based on the material we've explored?

Well, I think these cases, as presented in the sources, illustrate pretty clearly that publicly challenging the institution or sharing unsanctioned information, even when it's based on documented facts or comes after attempts to seek answers through official channels, carries a real risk of formal disciplinary action, potentially up to and including excommunication.

A sobering reality presented in these accounts.

It is. It suggests the space for public critique or raising difficult questions is, well, limited particularly for those who gain influence online. So members might need to weigh the potential personal and social costs of public dissent. They might need to understand how the institution seems to differentiate between private doubt and public opposition.

And grapple with the challenges.

Exactly. Grapple with the challenges of navigating complex historical and doctrinal issues when correlated sources may not present, as Runnells put it in the source material, all of the facts.

This deep dive into the disciplinary experiences of John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Bill Reel, and Nemo the Mormon based entirely on the sources we gathered has certainly been uh eye opening, illuminating. It really highlights how the internet age and the explosion of accessible information are creating new challenges and well driving specific responses within the Latter-day Saint faith.

It definitely raises profound questions, doesn't it? Questions about the very nature of faith, doubt, loyalty and what constitutes truth in a world where information is just so readily available and public discourse can be amplified instantly online.

So, reflecting on everything we've explored in these sources today, here's something for you, the listener, to ponder. When an institution is perceived by some based on accounts like these as struggling to reconcile its history and teachings with new information or evolving social understanding, how does its response to public questioning and criticism shape the trust and faith of its members, particularly those who are seeking transparency and institutional integrity.

It's a heavy question. Consider what these stories drawn from the sources we looked at might mean for your own personal journey as you navigate faith, information, and community in this digital age.

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.