1) “Intentional hiding” + “punishing truth-tellers” is asserted as fact, not demonstrated

Where it appears in Dehlin’s essay: around lines 43–44.

Dehlin’s wording:

Church intentionally hiding its problematic history

Objective issue

This is a motive claim at institutional scale. Motive can be argued, but it can’t be declared as settled fact without
internal documentation (policies, directives, admissions) showing an intent to hide information—versus uneven teaching, cultural
assumptions, or “correlated” curriculum choices.

What the evidence can support

• There are documented cases where prominent thinkers faced Church discipline (e.g., the “September Six”), supporting a narrower claim:
  some public dissent collided with institutional boundaries.
• But “directly due to intentional hiding” is a stronger conclusion than the publicly available evidence in the essay itself establishes.

What would count as proof?

• Internal communications instructing leaders/teachers to withhold specific historical facts to preserve belief.
• Decision-maker testimony that concealment (not pedagogy, not prioritization, not correlation) was the goal.

Key links:
Dehlin’s Substack essay
Dialogue: “The September Six…”

2) “Podcasts forced transparency” is influence presented as proven causation

Where it appears in Dehlin’s essay: around lines 49–60.

Dehlin’s wording:
forced the LDS Church
(Substack line ~49)

Objective issue

It’s plausible that podcasts and online criticism added pressure. The problem is the upgrade from
“we influenced” to “we forced”—a causation claim that requires evidence from inside the decision chain.

What the record supports

• The transparency projects exist (Joseph Smith Papers, Gospel Topics pages/essays, Saints volumes).
• The Joseph Smith Papers Project was officially established in April 2001—well before the “podcast era” framing centered on pre-2005.
  That does not disprove later influence, but it does undermine “podcasts caused it” as a simple story.

Evidence-open framing

A defensible middle-ground claim is: podcasts likely contributed to external awareness and pressure, while these projects also reflect
long-running internal archival work, scholarly standards, and institutional priorities.

Key links:
Joseph Smith Papers FAQ (project established 2001)
Church Newsroom: Gospel Topics context

3) “Over $300B” + “fraud” framing mixes estimates with legal categories

Where it appears in Dehlin’s essay: around line 43 and again around lines 55 and 97.

Dehlin’s wording (short excerpt):
over $300 Billion
(Substack lines ~43 / ~55 / ~97)

Objective issue

“Hundreds of billions” is often discussed as an estimate (combining models for investments and other assets).
But presenting a single round number as a settled audited fact—then labeling the entire story “fraud”—blurs:
(a) what is proven by enforcement actions, (b) what is estimated, and (c) what is moral judgment.

What the record supports

• The SEC described disclosure violations related to Ensign Peak and the use of shell entities to obscure the Church’s equity portfolio
  and control structure, with fines totaling $5 million.
• The SEC action is real; what it proves is specific (a disclosure/reporting structure and related failures), not a blanket finding that
  “the Church committed $300B fraud.”

Evidence-open correction

A maximally accurate phrasing is: “The SEC found serious disclosure violations tied to Ensign Peak’s reporting approach; separately,
analysts estimate total Church assets in the hundreds of billions. Treat the $300B+ figure as an estimate unless an audited total is publicly released.”

Key links:
SEC Press Release (2023-35)
AP: SEC fines & portfolio coverage

4) “Internal pollsters” + “SEO caused rebrand” is highly specific—but unsupported

Where it appears in Dehlin’s essay: around line 69.

Dehlin’s wording (short excerpt):
internal LDS Church pollsters
(Substack line ~69)

Objective issue

This claim is both specific and consequential (it asserts internal polling results and strategic branding causation).
But the essay does not provide the poll, the methodology, or any internal documentation—so readers can’t verify it.

What we can verify publicly

• President Nelson publicly framed the naming emphasis as a doctrinal issue (removing the Savior’s name from the Church’s name, etc.).
  Whether one accepts that rationale or not, it is the stated public reason and must be weighed.
• Media dynamics (including SEO) are plausibly part of modern institutional communications—but “this caused the rebrand” needs evidence.

Evidence-open approach

If Dehlin (or others) can produce the polls or internal docs, this claim becomes testable. Until then, it’s best classified as
Not Provable and should be treated as an interpretation—not a documented fact.

Key links:
Nelson: “The Correct Name of the Church” (2018)
Reuters: “Mormonism besieged by the modern age” (2012)

5) “Women now serve at equal rates” is checkable—and doesn’t check out

Where it appears in Dehlin’s essay: around line 91.

Dehlin’s wording (short excerpt):
women now serve at equal rates
(Substack line ~91)

Objective issue

This is the kind of claim that strengthens an argument only if it’s accurate. “Equal rates” implies parity (roughly 50/50).
Public reporting does not support that.

What the public sources support

• The Church announced (Nov 21, 2025) that women can serve at age 18 (same minimum age as men), effective immediately.
• Reporting around that announcement described women as roughly ~29% of missionaries—not “equal rates.”

Evidence-open correction

A more accurate claim is: “Women can now serve at the same minimum age as men (18), and women’s participation has risen—but it is still not equal in share.”

Key links:
Church Newsroom: Women may now serve at 18
AP: Women now eligible at 18; women ~29% of missionaries