Is dissent tolerated within Mormonism?

This is a difficult question to answer. The short response would be no, dissent is not tolerated in the LDS Church. However, such a response overlooks some key nuances and “exceptions” which do exist.

The best explanation of the Church’s view of dissent can be found in this 2008 press release. Essentially, the Church encourages members to have their own viewpoints and opinions however; speaking publicly in opposition to an announced Church policy, doctrine or position is not tolerated.

However, if an LDS Church member opposes a particular political issue that the Church officially supports, this is extremely unlikely to catch the attention of Church leadership. Tension between members and leaders generally arises when the member takes an explicit stance against the Church’s actions specifically or when a member criticizes the First Presidency directly. For example, many LDS members opposed Prop 8 in California and did in fact vote against the measure even though the Church took an official position in favor of the proposition. These members will likely face no Church discipline. However, those members who took an active stance not only against Proposition 8, but also against the Church’s involvement in the issue are much more likely to face Church discipline.

Of course, many LDS scholars publish information, which if examined carefully, clearly contradict Church positions. For example, in Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman dates the appearance of Peter James and John and the restoration of the Higher priesthood in the summer of 1830, months after the Church had been officially organized. This stands in stark contrast to the official Church dating of June 1829 and indeed; the 1830 date presents some potential theological difficulties for the Church. However, Bushman does not draw attention to the fact that his dating differs from the Church dating; Bushman simply makes a historical argument and presents it as is. This is true of Bushman’s work on Mormon history generally. Bushman will present difficult or “taboo” historical issues but does so very delicately and often without comment. This keeps Bushman on “safe ground” in the Church, as it were.

Armand Mauss, an LDS sociologist, also addresses difficult Mormon issues. In reading Mauss’ work, especially in regard to the issues of blacks and the Priesthood, it seems clear that Mauss is proposing a very human and sociological (i.e. non-divine or revelatory) explanation for the ban, yet Mauss does not condemn Church leadership but rather, addresses some of the “folk doctrine” often used within Mormonism (and even used by some Church leaders) to support or explain the priesthood ban.

Other LDS scholars such as Michael Quinn and Darron Smith have been more explicit in their discussions and have taken drawn attention to the differences between their conclusions and Church positions. Such attention has led to some within Church leadership to be uncomfortable with the work of Quinn and Smith.

So, LDS members have a choice. If they choose to publicly criticize the Church or its leaders, they can expect to receive Church discipline. If, however, they simply assume a position or argue a point, which is contrary to the Church position, but do not draw attention to the Church then they are unlikely to be disciplined.

Armand Mauss discusses this issue at length here.