by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Church Leaders
Bottom Line
Joseph F. Smith’s legal testimony deserves scrutiny—not slander. Disagree with his tone or decisions, but do not accuse him of perjury without proof.
| Podcast |
Mormon Stories – John Dehlin |
| Episode |
“New Document Shows LDS Church Hid and Denied its own Prophet’s Polygamy Revelation” |
| Category |
Church Leadership Integrity |
| Quote |
“They subpoena Mormon leaders to go back to Washington… and under oath they have to talk about polygamy and they don’t want to and they dance around it. They play semantic games and sometimes honestly they just lie through their teeth.” — Narrator, 01:00:39–01:01:06 |
| Core Claim |
Joseph F. Smith lied under oath during the Reed Smoot hearings. |
| Conclusion |
Defamatory Risk / Misleading |
| Logical Questions |
- Was Joseph F. Smith ever charged with perjury?
- What did his actual testimony include?
- How is cautious legal language different from falsehood?
|
🔍 Core Finding
The claim accuses Joseph F. Smith of criminal dishonesty in a federal hearing—without presenting evidence. This raises potential defamation concerns. Legal transcripts of the Reed Smoot hearings show that Smith answered questions carefully but directly under oath, reflecting the sensitive nature of polygamy history and institutional responsibility.
Church leaders at the time faced intense scrutiny from government and press alike. Ambiguity in testimony is not equivalent to lying unless proven false and intentional. No court or official ever ruled Smith perjured himself, nor was he charged with such.
⚖️ Legal vs. Narrative Accuracy
- Testimony was cautious but within legal bounds.
- No legal body found him guilty of perjury or misleading Congress.
- Charging someone with “lying through their teeth” without evidence is reputationally and legally reckless.
📚 Sources
by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Church Conspiracy
Bottom Line
To claim that missionaries “don’t want full informed consent” is spiritually cynical and doctrinally untrue. The gospel invites faith, not frontloading. Missionaries teach with spiritual integrity under priesthood keys. Converts are responsible for their own seeking, prayer, and confirmation.
| Podcast |
YouTube – “Sister Grenfell” (Ex-Missionary Creator) |
| Episode |
Everything Mormon Missionaries DON’T Tell You |
| Category |
Missionary Practices / Alleged Concealment |
| Quote |
“And so all of that is important to share. so that you can understand that a missionary’s goal is to get you baptized… It’s not to explain everything about the church. The goal is not to have full informed consent.” — “Sister Grenfell”, 00:04:59–00:05:10 |
| Core Claim |
Missionaries deliberately avoid teaching full doctrine or “informed consent” and are primarily focused on securing baptisms quickly, potentially misleading converts. |
| Conclusion |
Misleading |
| Logical Questions |
- Does Preach My Gospel explicitly instruct missionaries to withhold information?
- What is the “milk before meat” principle and is it deceitful?
- Are converts truly uninformed at baptism, or are they introduced progressively in line with scriptural precedent?
|
🔍 Core Finding
📘 Do Missionaries Fast-Track Without Full Consent?
No. Preach My Gospel outlines a principle-based teaching framework where spiritual preparation and doctrinal understanding are nurtured line upon line (Isaiah 28:10, D&C 19:22). The focus is on spiritual readiness, not deceptive omission.
🥛 Meat Before Milk — Scriptural Not Secret
The “milk before meat” principle originates in scripture (1 Corinthians 3:2; Hebrews 5:12–14). Even Jesus withheld deeper teachings from disciples until they were spiritually ready (John 16:12). This is not deception — it’s sacred pacing.
🧾 Informed, Not Overloaded
Missionaries are not university professors giving a full religious dissertation. They are guides, introducing foundational principles as taught by Christ (faith, repentance, baptism). Conversion requires personal study, prayer, and spiritual confirmation — not academic overload (Moroni 10:4–5).
⚖️ Is it Informed Consent?
Yes — baptismal candidates must:
- Attend church multiple times
- Meet with missionaries and local leaders
- Affirm belief in restored gospel, commandments, and the Savior
- Pass a formal interview on commandments including tithing, chastity, Word of Wisdom, and sustaining Church leaders
All outlined in General Handbook 38.2.1.
📚 Sources
by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Joseph Smith
Bottom Line
The claim that Joseph equated himself with divine rulership is a distortion. The text plainly exalts Christ, not Joseph. This is scripture misrepresented as ambition.
| Podcast |
Mormon Stories – Joseph Smith Podcast |
| Episode |
Ep. 2046 – John Turner Pt. 9 |
| Category |
Prophetic Authority & Revelation Misrepresentation |
| Quote |
“He receives a revelation basically where he says he has Jesus saying, ‘I will be your ruler’ … it’s kind of like Joseph saying, ‘I will be your ruler.’ … That combined with ‘I am Joseph the prophet.’ That’s a level of hubris…” — John Dehlin, 00:36:29–00:38:29:contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0} |
| Core Claim |
Joseph Smith used divine revelation as a mask for personal power, equating “Jesus will be your ruler” with “Joseph will be your ruler.” |
| Conclusion |
False / Rhetorically Misleading |
| Logical Questions |
- Is the “I will be your ruler” phrase directly from Jesus Christ in canonized scripture?
- Does the context of the revelation support Dehlin’s inference?
- Is there a pattern in Joseph’s early revelations that shows consolidation of personal power?
|
🔍 Core Finding
This quote grossly distorts the meaning of Doctrine and Covenants 41:4, which reads:
“He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple… for it is meet that I should be your ruler, and your lawgiver.”
— D&C 41:4
The speaker is Jesus Christ, not Joseph Smith. The verse continues a scriptural tradition of divine kingship:
- Isaiah 33:22: “The Lord is our king.”
- Mosiah 2:19: “Ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly King.”
- 2 Nephi 10:14: “He that fighteth against Zion… shall be as a garment in a furnace of fire.”
Joseph’s leadership followed a revealed structure, with checks and ratification by councils and membership. D&C 28:2 makes clear:
“No one shall be appointed to receive commandments and revelations in this church excepting my servant Joseph Smith, Jun.”
— D&C 28:2
Bottom Line
The claim that Joseph equated himself with divine rulership is a distortion. The text plainly exalts Christ, not Joseph. This is scripture misrepresented as ambition.
📚 Sources
by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Church Leaders
1933 First Presidency Statement
Bottom Line
A poorly worded official statement isn’t proof of lies. Public policy is established by canon—not by retroactive accusations or ideological frustration. The Church lied in its 1933 First Presidency statement denying the 1886 revelation”
| Podcast |
Mormon Stories – John Dehlin |
| Episode |
“New Document Shows LDS Church Hid and Denied its own Prophet’s Polygamy Revelation” |
| Title |
“The Church lied in its 1933 First Presidency statement denying the 1886 revelation” |
| Category |
Institutional Transparency & Doctrine |
| Quote |
“This is one of the biggest whoppers ever told by church leaders… Unambiguously this was a very terrible idea.” — Narrator, 01:21:37–01:21:55 |
| Timestamp |
01:21:37–01:21:55 |
| Core Claim |
The Church knowingly lied about the 1886 revelation in the 1933 First Presidency statement. |
| Conclusion |
False Accusation / Misleading Framing |
| Logical Questions |
- Was the 1886 revelation known and authenticated by Church leaders in 1933?
- Does public release equal doctrinal adoption?
- Can mistaken or strategic language be equated with intentional lying?
|
🔍 Core Finding
The 1933 First Presidency statement, drafted by J. Reuben Clark, expressed skepticism about the doctrinal relevance of the 1886 revelation. While the phrasing may have downplayed its existence or status, there’s no verifiable evidence of intentional deceit.
The revelation was never canonized, never presented for common consent, and never treated as binding doctrine by the Church. Leaders are not required to treat every private document—however authentic—as public doctrine. The Church’s statements aimed to protect its position against schismatic interpretations, not hide scripture.
⚖️ Doctrine by Common Consent
- No revelation is binding until sustained by the Church as a whole (D&C 26:2).
- The 1886 revelation remained non-canonical for nearly 150 years.
- Canon omission ≠ coverup; doctrinal restraint is not deception.
📚 Sources
by Anonymous | Aug 9, 2025 | Doctrines Policy Practice
Ancient Temple Traditions and the Latter-day Saint Temple Ceremony
Abstract: This paper explores the origins, structure, and theological claims of the Latter-day Saint (LDS) temple ceremony, particularly the Endowment, in comparison with ancient Israelite and early Christian temple traditions. It incorporates scholarship from both LDS and non-LDS sources, including the work of Margaret Barker, and evaluates common critiques against the LDS temple experience from a doctrinal, historical, and psychological perspective. The paper ultimately argues for a pattern of restoration that connects modern LDS temple worship with ancient sacred traditions and practices.
Introduction
The temple holds a central place in Latter-day Saint theology and worship. Yet for many modern Christians—and especially former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the temple ceremony can seem unfamiliar, unnecessary, or even troubling. This study aims to evaluate whether the LDS temple ceremony is grounded in historical religious practices and if it is, as Latter-day Saints claim, a restoration of ancient ordinances and symbols.
1. Ancient Israelite Temple Worship
Temple rituals in ancient Israel involved washings, anointings, sacred clothing, covenants, and access restrictions to sacred spaces. The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, wearing white linen and performing sacrificial atonement (see Leviticus 16). These forms find reflection in the LDS temple, especially in the Initiatory and Endowment rituals.
Scriptural references: Exodus 28–30; Leviticus 16; 2 Chronicles 3–5.
2. Margaret Barker and the First Temple Tradition
Methodist scholar Margaret Barker has posited that King Josiah’s reforms around 623 BCE removed elements of Israel’s older temple theology—such as the divine feminine (Asherah), visionary ascent theology, and the role of the High Priest as a mediator figure. Barker’s work has been received positively by many LDS scholars due to its alignment with Latter-day Saint temple doctrines, including belief in a Heavenly Mother and sacred rituals as a means of ascending into the divine presence.
Barker’s key texts: The Older Testament, Temple Theology, Great High Priest.
3. Josiah’s Reforms: Loss or Purification?
2 Kings 22–23 describes Josiah’s purge of high places and the “discovery” of a lost book of the law, which many scholars identify as an early version of Deuteronomy. Barker argues that these reforms may have suppressed legitimate temple teachings such as wisdom traditions, anointing rites, and the divine feminine. LDS scriptures such as the Book of Mormon claim that “plain and precious” truths were taken from ancient records (1 Nephi 13).
4. Early Christianity and Temple Imagery
Early Christians saw Jesus as the new High Priest (Hebrews 9–10), and the temple veil’s tearing as symbolic of broader access to God—not the end of ritual or sacred space. Many early Christian communities maintained liturgical practices, including washings (baptism), anointings (chrism), sacred meals (Eucharist), and even marriage as a sacred rite (see Gospel of Philip).
Early Christian texts such as the Acts of John and other apocryphal writings describe prayer circles, ritual clothing, sacred names, and esoteric instruction—patterns echoed in the LDS Endowment.
5. Latter-day Saint Temple Worship: Restoration or Innovation?
Joseph Smith introduced the Endowment in 1842. Critics note similarities to Freemasonry, which Smith had recently joined. However, LDS leaders and scholars argue that Freemasonry preserved degraded fragments of ancient temple ritual, and that Joseph Smith received revelatory restoration of their original spiritual purpose. Core LDS temple covenants—obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration—are not found in Masonic rites and align more closely with biblical covenants.
6. Modern Criticisms and Responses
a. The Veil Was Rent
Many Christians argue that Christ’s death made temples obsolete. LDS theology agrees that the veil’s tearing symbolizes open access to God—but contends that sacred ordinances and covenants still structure the process of entering His presence.
b. Masonic Influence
While Freemasonry and the LDS temple share superficial elements, the purpose, theology, and symbolic meaning differ significantly. Ritual washings, anointings, garments, and sacred handclasps appear in ancient texts independently of Masonry.
c. Changes Over Time
The temple ceremony has been adapted—most notably in 1990 and 2019—but the core doctrines and covenants remain unchanged. This aligns with the LDS belief in continuous revelation and is consistent with biblical precedent (e.g., Acts 15, changes to circumcision and dietary laws).
d. Secrecy and Psychological Objections
Critics sometimes describe the temple as secretive or emotionally challenging. Latter-day Saints understand temple teachings as sacred rather than secret, drawing on early Christian principles of the disciplina arcani. LDS leaders have also responded to valid concerns, making adjustments to improve clarity and inclusion (e.g., gendered language revisions in 2019).
7. Do the Parallels Prove Antiquity?
No one ancient source contains all elements of the LDS Endowment, but a constellation of practices—washings, anointings, priestly clothing, sacred names, ritual ascent, and symbolic marriages—do appear across ancient Judaism, Christianity, and early mystery traditions.
The cumulative case made by LDS scholars (e.g., Hugh Nibley, Jeffrey Bradshaw, David Calabro) is that these parallels support—not prove—the temple’s ancient roots. Margaret Barker’s independent findings further strengthen the plausibility of restoration claims.
Conclusion
The LDS temple ceremony stands at the crossroads of ancient and modern, ritual and revelation. Though modern audiences may find it foreign or challenging, its core elements—covenant, purification, symbolic ascent, and eternal union—mirror the most sacred traditions of the ancient world.
While gaps in historical continuity remain, the temple endowment exhibits unmistakable resonance with the sacred drama of temples past. Whether viewed as symbolic, psychological, or revelatory, the LDS temple invites all to ponder this ancient question anew: What does it mean to come into the presence of God?
References (Selected)
- Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. SPCK, 1991.
- ———. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. T&T Clark, 2003.
- Dever, William. Did God Have a Wife? Eerdmans, 2005.
- Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. Interpreter Foundation, 2014.
- Hamblin, William J. “Vindicating Josiah.” Interpreter, Vol. 4, 2013.
- Nibley, Hugh. Temple and Cosmos. Deseret Book, 1992.
- Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3), trans. Wesley Isenberg.
- Hebrews 9–10; Exodus 28–30; 2 Kings 23; 1 Corinthians 15:29.
- Interpreter Foundation, FAIR, Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Prayer Circle), LDS General Handbook (2020–present).