Last night, Natasha Helfer, a professionally-certified sex therapist, attended a church disciplinary council (they call them membership councils now, but let’s not kid ourselves) in Derby, Kansas to face charges of apostasy. These charges stem largely from her publicly-shared vocal opinions of normative sexual development and the harm caused by the church’s promotion of a purity culture rooted in sexual shame. She is also an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and the protection of same-sex marriage. She has also assisted in providing mental health counseling to Mormons experiencing faith crisis and to post-Mormons who are dealing with the trauma of losing their community and deconstructing their beliefs. Importantly, she has also spoken critically of church policies from a professional standpoint as a certified and practicing sex therapist who focuses on serving the broad spectrum of faith in the Mormon community.

There are many disturbing facets to this still developing story to which I want to react. I’m processing a lot of raw emotions at this time and I want to document them in some way. This blog and my Twitter account serve as a journal of sorts in which I vent my frustrations and work through my thoughts and feelings, so bear with me. Here are some of the details that disturb me about this story:

• Helfer is being called into a disciplinary council by her former stake president in Kansas—where she hasn’t resided for over a year. They have repeatedly refused to transfer her records to her new stake in Utah, despite multiple requests to have them transferred. This appears to be an abusive liberal reading of church policy (33.6.18).
• The stake president issuing her disciplinary summons and overseeing her inquisition is the boss of her former husband, with whom she is recently divorced and maintains a congenial relationship. This represents a problematic dual relationship and potential conflict of interest.
• Most of the charges Helfer is facing are related to her simply performing her job as a licensed mental health professional and being true to the ethical standards of practice in her field. The positions she has promoted reflect widely-accepted, evidence-based “best practices” in her field. She is being charged with apostasy for being a vocal advocate for the adoption of these best practices in the Mormon community that she serves as a professional because these practices contradict current church policies.
• Helfer received her disciplinary summons in Utah on April 4th—Easter Sunday and General Conference weekend. The original date of her tribunal was scheduled for only seven days away (April 11th), to be held in Kansas and requiring her to attend in person or make no defense. She managed to get this delayed to the following Sunday (April 18th), so that she could manage to attend and have time to find those who would be willing to speak in her defense.

These are only the beginning of a long list of abuses of ecclesiastical authority, some more of which I will touch on below.

“Alexa, Show Me the Meaning of Unrighteous Dominion”

Helfer went to pains to ensure that she followed the procedures outlined in the summons letter and emails from the Derby Stake Presidency. In her reply to the stake president, Helfer had requested that the high council be in attendance, in accordance with procedures outlined in the church’s General Handbook of Instruction § 32.9.2 This request was summarily denied. This is puzzling since the policy is quite clear that that conditions recommending their attendance for a stake-level disciplinary council we obviously met:

32.9.2
High Council
Members of the high council do not normally participate in stake membership councils. However, the high council may participate in difficult situations (see Doctrine and Covenants 102:2). For example, the stake presidency may invite the high council to participate when:

     • There are contested facts.
     • They would add value and balance.
     • The member requests their participation.
     • A member of the stake presidency or his family is involved (see 32.9.7).

General Handbook of Instructions; accessed 19 April 2021
Repentance and Church Membership Councils § 32.9.2. Emphasis my own.

After going through all the hoops created by the Derby Stake Presidency and ensuring clear and transparent communication throughout the process, Natasha Helfer and her supporters showed up in Kansas to defend herself against charges of apostasy. As part of the many requirements that the council placed on Helfer, she was required to sign an agreement that neither she nor anyone else participating in her defense would make an audio recording of the council proceedings. This undoubtedly stems from the number of high profile excommunications that have been recorded and published online, and this may possibly reflect a new standing policy by the church in all such cases.

Helfer and her supporters signed this agreement. However, she was required to turn off or surrender her phone before the council would begin their proceedings. Helfer had prepared notes that she wanted to consult while defending her case, which she needed her phone to accomplish. The stake presidency refused to allow this, and Helfer insisted that she be allowed to use her phone to consult her notes. At this impasse, the stake president called off the meeting—which Helfer and her supporters had made special arrangements to attend from out of state—and demanded they leave the premises. He even went so far as to call the police to escort them off the property. The council then held their meeting without the participation of Helfer or her witnesses.

This is incredibly abusive behavior. Not only is excommunication a spiritually abusive practice to begin with, but the flippant way that President Daley dismissed Natasha Helfer’s requests and treated her and her witnesses with contempt and as criminals needing literal policing reveals much about this process in general. It shows that the stake presidency is approaching the situation with a predetermination of guilt and that the entire process is merely for show—a show that they want to control every aspect of in order to present the story they have in mind. The term kangaroo court doesn’t do it justice.

Building Dystopian Zion via Coerced Conformity

In this week’s Come, Follow Me response, I responded to the admonitions contained in the Doctrine and Covenants to “let every man esteem his brother as himself” and “be one; and if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C § 38:24–27). I highlighted that it is profoundly ironic that the same Sunday that church members are learning about the importance of striving to build Zion through a unity in our diversity, church leadership is actively trying to expel someone for voicing their professional opinions, because they challenge the policy positions of the church. Apparently the church’s interpretation of “if ye are not one ye are not mine” is to focus heavily on the “ye are not mine” portion of the passage—interpreting this as an indictment of heterodoxy among individuals rather than of a church that fails to make space for a diversity of perspectives.

To me, this seems to be the antithesis of the vision of building Zion through the striving for a unity in our diversity, as is frequently sold in the church’s promotional materials. Rather, the church’s practice of casting off those who deviate too far from orthodoxy, or who vocally criticize problems they observe in the church, seems to be an effort to achieve unity by purging itself of diversity. Formal discipline is the weapon wielded by the church to achieve a false unity through coerced conformity. What should only be used as a tool to protect the safety of the members from the threat of predatory individuals, is instead wielded as a sword to cut off those who pose a threat to the authority of church leaders to direct the personal affairs of the membership.

High-profile excommunications are used as a tool to suppress undesired voices or behavior through fear. The threat of excommunication—which comes with intense social ostracization among faithful members—manages to keep individuals in line and to enforce orthopraxy, if not orthodoxy. Moreover, with excommunication in their toolkit, church leaders can pressure conformity merely by indicating their displeasure with certain groups or practices. It adds teeth behind statements that discourage members from expressing certain ideas, engaging in certain practices, or associating with certain groups. This creates and maintains a culture of authoritarianism within the church that the members themselves participate in maintaining.

How Far is Too Far?

Whenever there is a high-profile church tribunal, there is inevitably the conversation among faithful members defending the church’s right to discipline their members for apostasy. Often this takes the form of scrutinizing the words and behavior of the one being summoned to a church court in an examination of their faith for any signs of whether or not they truly belong. In this way, the one facing church discipline is examined for their worthiness for inclusion in the church not only by their ecclesiastical leaders, but also by their faith community at large. An effect of this double examination—which generally begins with the presumption of guilt—is a heightened experience of social ostracization for the one already facing the prospects of formal expulsion from their faith community.

A number of factors serve as markers for the justification of church discipline in the minds of active believing members who find themselves examining the faithfulness of their summoned coreligionists. Insufficient humility or deference to the authority of the disciplinary council is a big one. Any attempt to make their case public is readily interpreted as self-aggrandizement and evidence of the defendant’s desires to hurt the church by “trying to create a spectacle.” Association with others who have been excommunicated, or who reside on the fringes of orthodoxy, provides guilt by association. There are multitudinous ways to discount the plight of the defendant in the effort to justify the actions of church leaders. This is one of the many ways that faithful members participate in maintaining the culture of authoritarianism within the LDS church.

This leads to the discussion of what is appropriate justification for church discipline and excommunication with regards to apostasy. Conservative members will argue that the church has a right to suppress heresy in an effort to maintain a purity of doctrine and orthodoxy of belief amongst its members. More moderately progressive members may make a distinction between what constitutes “true apostasy” and what is an acceptable degree of heterodoxy within the faith. This begs the question of what is the distinction between permissible heresy and apostasy, and who gets to make it? Ultimately, charges of apostasy in the church are about authority and control—specifically, the authority to control the personal affairs and expressions of faith of individual members in the church. This raises the question: if apostasy is about challenging the “legitimate” authority of church leaders, what does that say about what is valued in the church? It suggests that the standard of orthodoxy in the church is primarily about submissive fealty to church authority, and an agreement to not openly criticize its leaders.

Where Can I Turn for Peace?

The disciplinary actions taken against Natasha Helfer will have effects reaching much further than just her personal relationship with the church. By going after Helfer for the advocacy and services that fall within the domain of her role as a mental health professional, the church is sending a message to faithful practicing clinicians and the general membership about what will not be tolerated within the church. One can easily interpret these actions as a response to perceived challenges to the authority of Mormon ecclesiastical leaders to counsel their members regarding their personal affairs. While the church has softened their position in recent years by encouraging bishops and stake presidents to refer members to licensed professionals, it is clear by these actions that the church would still like a say in what sort of messaging members should expect to receive in those professional settings.

Tragically, by attacking Natasha Helfer for her behavior as a clinician, the church is further stigmatizing the work of mental health professionals that are informed by secular scholarship and evidence-based “best practices.” This will feed into an underlying culture that devalues the work of mental health professionals relative to the spiritual guidance offered by church leaders. This messaging follows in the tradition of statements like that made by Elder Boyd K. Packer that “the study of doctrine and the teaching of doctrine will change behavior more than the study of behavior will change behavior.” The message conveyed by disciplining Natasha Helfer will reinforce the tendency for members to seek counseling from their bishop or stake president regarding matters in which priesthood leaders have zero experience or training. Not only is this potentially harmful for the member seeking support, it can be incredibly damaging for the bishop who is not equipped to deal with the stories of trauma and abuse for which they are expected to provide guidance and spiritual healing.

The inquisition of Natasha Helfer for her practice as a clinician, and the associated work she has done with the Mormon Mental Health Association (MMHA), may also have a discouraging effect on faithful would-be practitioners in their efforts to serve the Mormon community. The message conveyed is that if they follow Helfer’s example in offering and promoting evidence-based treatments that contradict church policy positions, they too may be summoned to a disciplinary counsel. This only exacerbates the dearth of qualified professionals who are also able to provide culturally-competent counseling to Mormon clients. As a consequence, more members will be funneled into the church’s alternative programs—such as the Addiction Recovery Program—which relies on the outdated Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program, doubles down on sexual shame, and is generally led by wholly unqualified and untrained members called from within each stake. As a result, more members will not receive the professional counseling they need, but will receive instead outdated and uninformed advice that may greatly exacerbate their suffering.

Delegitimizing Their Own Authority

In the course of these events, I have been left to contemplate the LDS church’s teachings on authority, coercion, and unrighteous dominion.

34 Behold, there are many called, but few are chosen. And why are they not chosen?
35 Because their hearts are set so much upon the things of this world, and aspire to the honors of men, that they do not learn this one lesson—
36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.
37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.
38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.
39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.
40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

LDS Doctrine and Covenants § 121:34–44, emphasis my own.

Excommunication is a tool of coercion that is exercised “by virtue of the priesthood.” There is nothing of persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, or of kindness in casting someone out of their faith community. Any expressions of love made in performing this act are 100% feigned. In going after Natasha Helfer as they have, the church is attempting to cover their sins in their treatment of LGBTQ+ members, and in their promotion of a toxic purity culture based on sexual shame. They are trying to exert control and dominion over their members through compulsory means. In the abusive behavior of the Derby Stake Presidency—and by extension the leaders of the church supporting their actions—and in their efforts to cast out the dissident voices calling for institutional repentance and the acceptance of a higher love, they have rejected the vision of Zion as a unity in our diversity. They are condemned by their own scripture—amen to the priesthood and authority of these men.

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.

1 John 4:18 (NRSV)