Excommunication

Excommunication marks a formal rupture between a religious institution and a member, but the accounts here show that it does not settle what the person believes or where that person belongs. Robert Crossfield continued attending the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after being excommunicated, while Ron Lafferty was remembered as an excommunicated fundamentalist and later described himself in terms that resisted a clear religious label. The status could therefore mean exclusion, continuing attachment, or a contested boundary between religious communities.

Meaning and Institutional Context

The book places excommunication within a religious culture shaped by claims to revelation and authority. Joseph Smith first encouraged followers to seek personal revelations, then announced in 1830 that no one but him could receive commandments and revelations for the Church. Many Saints nevertheless continued to trust their own spiritual experiences. The resulting conflict over who could speak for God contributed to the splintering of Mormon groups, making institutional membership and the right to claim religious authority closely connected.

The distinction between formal expulsion and broader religious rejection matters. The evidence describes people as apostates and records restrictions on contact with those who leave the United Effort Plan community, but those circumstances are not themselves identified as excommunication. In Colorado City, apostates were condemned as especially wicked, and departed members could face separation from relatives who remained. Such social and familial penalties show the force of religious boundary-making without making every departure or ostracism a formal church expulsion.

Robert Crossfield’s Expulsion

Robert Crossfield, later known as Prophet Onias, collected twenty-three revelations into The First Book of Commandments by 1972. He paid to have the book printed and distributed copies to libraries and religious bookstores across Canada and the western United States. One copy reached LDS President Mark E. Peterson in Salt Lake City, after which Crossfield was excommunicated from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Expulsion did not immediately end his relationship with the church. Crossfield said that he loved it and continued attending Sunday services after his excommunication, until church officials eventually told him he could no longer come. Among fundamentalists in Creston, his rejection by the mainline church initially enhanced his standing: they admired his outspoken views. That approval later became unstable when Crossfield’s revelations turned against the local leadership. In 1974, he received a revelation declaring his own version of the true church correct and LeRoy Johnson’s version wrong. His experience thus shows that exclusion from one institution could be treated as a credential in another, without guaranteeing lasting acceptance there.

Ron Lafferty and Contested Affiliation

Neighbors recalled Ron Lafferty’s movement from active Mormon and conservative Republican to strict constitutionalist and excommunicated fundamentalist. He had served on Highland’s first city council after the town incorporated in 1977 and successfully led a drive to prohibit beer sales at its only grocery store. These details place his later religious identity against an earlier public image as a local civic figure and conservative community member.

After his arrest, Ron disputed the idea that he belonged to an extremist sect, denied practicing plural marriage, and professed love for the Mormon Church. At the same time, he argued that its current leadership had departed from the sacred doctrines of Joseph Smith. His statements do not erase the account of his excommunication; rather, they show that he continued to claim attachment to the church while challenging the legitimacy of its leaders. In this case, the status of excommunicated fundamentalist coexisted with a self-presentation that rejected the label of sect member.

Belonging, Authority, and Exclusion

These cases distinguish formal membership from personal conviction and communal recognition. Crossfield’s continuing attendance after expulsion demonstrates that institutional separation did not instantly sever his attachment. His reception among fundamentalists, followed by conflict with their leaders, further shows that religious communities could draw and redraw their boundaries around competing claims to revelation. Ron’s conflicting descriptions of his own affiliation similarly leave religious identity unsettled rather than resolving it through the fact of excommunication.

The broader accounts of Mormon and fundamentalist communities give that boundary additional weight. A sharp division between the faithful and outsiders could frame dissent as betrayal, while the authority to define legitimate revelation remained concentrated in church leaders. Excommunication belongs to this larger struggle over who may speak for a religious community and who is permitted to remain within it. The evidence also cautions against treating every apostate label or act of social exclusion as the same process: formal expulsion, continued belief, and separation from family are related but distinct experiences.