The Church finally published an official list of Joseph Smith’s wives in late 2025.
“Up until late 2025, the LDS church had never actually published an official list of Joseph Smith’s wives… then the church did publish a list… it lists Fanny Alger as his first plural wife.”
What the record actually shows
In July 2025, the Church published Q&A‑style resources about translation, Joseph’s character, and plural marriage. They answer common questions and point to prior material; they’re not introduced as a definitive roster.
The Church’s Topics & Questions: “Plural Marriage” (2025) summarizes history and links to existing Church History Topics pages (e.g., Fanny Alger), which long pre‑date 2025 and already reported that several Latter‑day Saints later said Fanny married Joseph, becoming his first plural wife. That’s context—again, not a new, signed “official list.”
Earlier background essays (2014) like “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo” also provided historical framing years before 2025.
Calling the 2025 pages an “official list”overstates what they are. They’re Q&A resources that point to already‑available historical write‑ups (including the standing page on Fanny Alger). “Fanny as first” reflects a common 19th‑century recollection summarized for years—not a brand‑new 2025 proclamation.
Evaluation Table
Claim in a sentence
Verdict
Why we say that
Sources
“The Church published an official list in late 2025; it puts Fanny first.”
Partial / Misleading
2025 pages are Q&A resources linking to pre‑existing history pages; they’re not presented as a definitive list. Fanny Alger’s being “first” reflects long‑noted recollections already summarized earlier.
Church Newsroom Q&A; Topics & Questions “Plural Marriage”; Church History Topics “Fanny Alger”; Gospel Topics essay.
Findings 2
Joseph violated his own revelation (D&C 132) by not telling Emma.
“I don’t think there’s evidence that he broaches the subject with Emma until May of 1843.”
“So he violates the rules of the revelation that he ends up producing later.” — “I think that’s fair.”
Core claim
Because Emma wasn’t informed early, Joseph broke D&C 132’s rules.
What the record actually shows
D&C 132 was recorded July 12, 1843—after early Nauvoo sealings began. Reading it like a rulebook retroactively applied to 1841 behavior is anachronistic.
The text itself is complex: it expects discussion with the first wife, but also contains an exception clause (vv. 61–65) alongside teaching on priesthood keys (v. 7). Latter‑day Saint sources consistently note monogamy as the standing law unless the Lord commands otherwise; the 2014 essays explain that context.
It’s fair to say Emma learned late and that created serious personal strain. But calling that a violation of a revelation not yet recorded (and whose own wording is nuanced) is over‑simple and time‑shifted.
Claim in a sentence
Verdict
Why we say that
Sources
“He violated his own revelation by not telling Emma early.”
Oversimplified / Anachronistic
D&C 132’s recording date (July 12, 1843) postdates early sealings; its wording is nuanced, not a simple “tell first or it’s invalid” rule.
D&C 132; Institute/Seminary commentary; Essay “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.”
Findings 3
Topic: “The Louisa Beaman sealing was done in disguise and consummated; a witness ‘saw them in bed.’”
Word‑for‑word quotes
“According to one source, Louisa disguised herself with a coat and a hat….”
“The sealing was consummated afterwards… I saw him in bed with her.”
“That statement is in the 1890s… decades later… he may be over‑emphatic.”
Core claim
The first Nauvoo sealing involved a disguise and sex that night, witnessed by Joseph B. Noble.
What the record actually shows (summary)
Disguise under a tree: presented as from a single late source (“one source”). Good historians flag that as possible but not firm. The show itself notes it’s unusual.
“Saw them in bed” comes from Joseph B. Noble’s Temple Lot deposition decades later; the Q&A shows hedging under cross‑examination (he alternates between that night vs. “two or three nights after”). Treat as late, contested evidence, not a contemporaneous diary entry.
Bottom line: A sealing to Louisa Beaman (April 5, 1841) is well attested; details like disguise and same‑night consummation rely on late and not‑fully‑consistent recollections. Caution is warranted.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim in a sentence
Verdict
Why we say that
Sources
00:22:20
00:25:29
“Disguise + same‑night sex witnessed first‑hand.”
Partly supported / Heavily contested
The sealing is solid; “disguise” and immediate consummation rest on late testimony with internal hedging.
JSPolygamy (Louisa Beaman; Evidence of Sexuality); B. H. Roberts transcript page.
Findings 4
Topic: “There was a quid pro quo: Noble performs the Beaman sealing (1841); exactly two years later Joseph seals Noble to Sarah B. Alley (1843).”
Word‑for‑word quotes
“Exactly two years after Noble seals Joseph Smith to Louisa Beaman, Joseph Smith sealed Noble to a woman named Sarah Alley… could be coincidence or quid pro quo.”
“I mentioned the reward later… Do we know about a threat or a promise in this case?”
Core claim
The timing proves a “you help me, I’ll get you a wife” deal.
What the record actually shows (summary)
Sarah B. Alley did become Noble’s plural wife on April 5, 1843 (biographical databases and academic work record it). The date matches the “two years later” observation.
But evidence of an explicit trade (“you get me a wife, I’ll get you wives”) is not documented. The show itself admits the tie “could be coincidence.” Correlation ≠ contract.
Nauvoo records do show tight trust networks (loyal men, kin ties, intermediaries). That context can explain timing without positing a transactional “swap.”
Bottom line: Dating aligns; quid‑pro‑quo intent is not proven. It’s an inference—one possible reading, not the only one.
Evaluation Table
Claim in a sentence
Verdict
Why we say that
Sources
“Two‑years‑to‑the‑day = quid pro quo.”
Speculative / Not proven
The marriage date is attested; no primary source confirms a deal. The show itself notes it might be coincidence.
CHD entry “Sarah B. Alley”; UVA Nauvoo projects; Dialogue analysis listing early polygamists.
Findings 5
Topic: “Joseph used the ‘angel with a drawn sword’ and promises of salvation to pressure women (e.g., Mary Rollins Lightner).”
Word‑for‑word quotes
“An angel with a drawn sword… he doesn’t have any choice… ‘this marriage will ensure her salvation. All that God gives me, I shall take with me, for I have that authority and that power.’”
“Joseph uses the justification that an angel appears to him three times threatening to slay him.”
Core claim
Joseph invoked a threatening angel and eternal promises to push women into plural marriage.
What the record actually shows (public summary)
The “angel with a drawn sword” motif appears in later reminiscences (not in an 1841 diary entry). A 1905 BYU talk by Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner is the best‑known source; the line is widely reproduced in collections. That makes the story late, but it does exist in first‑person reminiscence.
Lightner also remembered promises framed in salvation terms. Those statements reflect her words about Joseph later in life; others described personal spiritual confirmations, while some declined proposals. FAIR summaries point out that agency remained and not all accepted.
Bottom line: Yes—late sources do record Joseph invoking an angel and speaking in eternal‑salvation terms, and that language could feel heavy to listeners. Historically, these are late recollections that must be weighed with care, alongside cases where women declined or reported their own spiritual witnesses.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim in a sentence
Verdict
Why we say that
Sources
01:31:36
01:33:12
“Angel with sword + promise of salvation used as pressure.”
Partly supported / Based on late sources
The angel account and salvation promise are chiefly from late reminiscences (e.g., 1905 Lightner). Powerful language? Yes. Contemporaneous proof of systematic coercion? Mixed record; some accepted, others declined.
Anachronism risk: Applying a July 1843 text (D&C 132) as if it governed 1841 behavior is a timing error.
Inference vs. proof: The “quid pro quo” point is interpretation built on timing, not on an explicit written deal.
Late testimony caution: Claims like “I saw him in bed” and angel narratives rest on decades‑later accounts; that doesn’t erase them, but it does lower evidentiary weight compared with contemporary records.
Defamation/false‑light flags: Strong language such as “violated his own revelation” or “quid pro quo wife‑swaps” is opinion/inference, not established fact; labeling it as fact could mislead. (🟠 Moderate false‑light risk if presented as proven.)
Sources
Church Newsroom Q&A (July 30, 2025) — overview including plural marriage FAQs.
Podcast: Radio Free Mormon • Episode: #434 • Category: Doctrinal / Historical / Reputational • Prepared: January 7, 2026
Summary (Bottom Line Up Front)
The transcript alleges (1) the Church “systematically” changes African-language Book of Mormon passages to remove “skin of blackness,” and (2) Selections-editions intentionally omit 2 Nephi 5:21 to “hide” racism. Word-for-word checks against the Church’s Gospel Library show that complete African translations (e.g., Yorùbá and Twi) do include 2 Nephi 5:21 and render “skin of blackness/darkness” unambiguously. Core verdict: Claims about altered wording in complete African translations are False; concerns about Selections stopping at v.20 are Accurate as to fact but misleading in motive attribution. See the Evaluation tables per segment below for detail.
Segment 1
Claim: The Church is “systematically changing” African-language translations to remove 2 Nephi 5:21
“…make it so it didn’t say skin of darkness… whether this is the church doing this intentionally in order to fool black people into joining the Mormon church… What would you think if I told you the LDS church is systematically changing the language of the Book of Mormon in African languages to remove the teaching that black skin is a curse from God?”
The Church intentionally alters wording in African-language complete translations (not just Selections) so that 2 Nephi 5:21 no longer states “skin of blackness/darkness.”
Logical Questions
Do current complete African translations include 2 Nephi 5:21?
How do Yorùbá and Twi actually render the key phrase?
Is there evidence of systematic avoidance in the complete (non‑Selections) editions?
Core Rebuttal (Textual Checks)
Yorùbá (Nigeria, full translation): 2 Nephi 5 shows v.21 and reads “àwọ̀ ara dúdú” (“black skin/skin of blackness”). See chapter page, v.21 line.
Twi (Akuapem) (Ghana, full translation): 2 Nephi 5 shows v.21 with the clause that their flesh/skin became black.
These complete translations retain the contested phrase. The transcript itself ultimately concedes the rumor about complete African translations “appears to be false.”
Doctrinal anchor: The Church’s Gospel Topics materials reaffirm that God “denieth none … black and white … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33), directly rejecting any racist soteriology.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:02:16
00:03:24
Church “systematically changing” African translations to remove “skin of blackness.”
False
Complete African translations (Yorùbá, Twi) include 2 Nephi 5:21 with the “blackness” wording; transcript later concedes rumor is false.
Yorùbá 2 Nephi 5:21; Twi 2 Nephi 5:21; Transcript admission.
Bottom Line
The allegation of systematic alteration in complete African translations is refuted by the texts themselves and by the presenter’s own later correction.
Segment 2
Claim: Selections editions uniquely stop 2 Nephi 5 at v.20 to avoid v.21 (“skin of blackness”)
“…there’s only one exception in the selections version where they do not translate an entire chapter. That one exception is 2 Nephi 5… when you get to verse 20, everything’s fine… it’s right at verse 20 that the selections versions … stop immediately. It doesn’t go to verse 21 or anything beyond…”
Speaker: Host • Timestamp: 00:03:24–00:04:23
Core Claim
Selections editions in certain languages publish 2 Nephi 5 only up to v.20, omitting v.21 and following.
What the record shows
Ekegusii (Gusii, Kenya) — Gospel Library page for 2 Nephi 5 in the Selections edition displays verses through v.20; no v.21 is present.
Quiché/K’iche’ (Guatemala) — Identified historically as a Selections language; 2 Nephi 5 shown through v.20.
Context: Some of the Church’s languages are Selections (roughly ⅓–½ of the book) used as a preliminary translation until full editions are completed.
Core Rebuttal (Intent vs. Format)
The fact of stopping at v.20 in certain Selections is accurate (e.g., Ekegusii).
The motive (intentional deception) is not proven. The Church’s published translation program describes Selections as provisional, not doctrinally redacted, and many languages later receive full editions including the contested verses.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:03:24
00:04:23
Selections editions stop at 2 Nephi 5:20, omitting v.21.
True (Fact) / Not Provable (Intent)
Demonstrated in Ekegusii page; however, the broader inference of deceptive intent lacks evidence given the stated purpose of Selections and subsequent full translations.
Ekegusii 2 Nephi 5 (to v.20); Translation program overview.
Bottom Line
The stopping point at v.20 in certain Selections is real, but standing alone it does not establish deceptive intent. The same Church system simultaneously publishes full African translations that include v.21 (e.g., Yorùbá, Twi).
Segment 3
Claim: Twi/Yorùbá “change” 2 Nephi 5:21 to avoid “skin of blackness” (e.g., “flesh cut off,” “dark,” etc.)
“…in Yorùbá… it says that the Lord God did cause a blackness to come upon them… in Twi … the translation … says that… the Lord God caused that their flesh should be cut off… red alert… Let’s look closer…”
Speaker: Host • Timestamp: 00:26:06–00:27:46
Core Claim
Complete African translations (Twi, Yorùbá) avoid the “skin of blackness” language by rendering it differently or nonsensically.
Textual Check
Yorùbá: v.21 contains “àwọ̀ ara dúdú” (black skin).
Twi (Akuapem): v.21 includes wording that, when properly parsed (not via whole‑verse machine translation), expresses that their flesh/skin became black (not “cut off”).
Core Rebuttal
Machine‑translation of entire complex verses produced spurious outputs (e.g., “hack your skin off”). The transcript later acknowledges the “complete translations in African languages” rumor “appears to be false.”
Therefore, no evidence shows that complete Twi/Yorùbá editions “change” the doctrine by removing “skin of blackness/darkness.”
Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
Twi/Yorùbá avoid “skin of blackness.”
False
Both complete editions carry 2 Nephi 5:21 with the key idea intact (see the actual chapter pages).
Yorùbá 2 Nephi 5:21; Twi 2 Nephi 5:21; Transcript correction.
Bottom Line
The claim fails on the primary sources. Misreadings came from machine translation of whole verses, not from LDS translation policy or textual manipulation.
Segment 4
Claim: The Church’s use of Selections and language choices show intent to hide racism
“…the fact this is the only chapter not completely translated, coupled with the fact it stops precisely at 2 Nephi 5:20… indicates strongly the church is committed to keeping this information from certain language‑speaking populations… but… the rumor that the church in its complete Book of Mormon translations in African languages appears to be false.”
Speaker: Host • Timestamp: 00:28:17–00:29:24
Core Claim
Stopping at v.20 proves deceptive motive.
Assessment
Selections editions are publicly described as preliminary and partial (often ⅓–½) and are common across regions/languages, not targeted to “hide” one doctrine.
Simultaneously, the Church publishes full African translations (e.g., Twi, Yorùbá) that include v.21—contradicting a theory of systematic concealment.
Core Rebuttal
Doctrinal stance: The Church explicitly rejects racial discrimination as doctrine; see Gospel Topics “Priesthood and Race / Race and the Church…,” and 2 Nephi 26:33.
Historical clarity: The 1978 revelation (OD‑2) ended prior restrictions; Church history and Gospel Topics pages present this transparently.
Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
Stopping at v.20 proves intent to hide racism.
Misleading
Fact pattern (v.20 stop) is accurate in some Selections, but motive attribution is speculative and contradicted by the existence of full African translations including v.21 and by official doctrine repudiating racism.
Selections program context; Doctrinal resources.
Bottom Line
Evidence supports a translation‑pipeline explanation (Selections → Full), not a deception thesis.
Legal & Logic Analysis
Rhetorical Tactics & Fallacies
Confirmation bias / motive leap: An observed editorial cutoff (v.20) in some Selections is used to imply malintent without corroborating evidence.
Machine‑translation reliance: Using whole‑verse outputs as determinative evidence produced false linguistic conclusions later retracted by the speaker.
Defamation / False‑Light Check
🟠 Moderate false‑light risk: Suggesting the Church “systematically” manipulates complete African translations to “fool black people” could place the organization in a false light if asserted as fact. The transcript ultimately disclaims the charge for complete translations, which mitigates risk but does not erase the interim insinuation.
Reference framework (not legal advice): actionable defamation requires false statements of fact made with at least negligence; public‑figure claims require “actual malice.” Milkovich clarifies that assertions implying provable facts are not shielded by “opinion.”
Doctrinal Anchors
Stewardship Doctrine: Translation sequencing (Selections → Full) reflects stewardship with finite resources, not concealment; stewardship is visible in the Church’s global rollout and transparent language lists.
Authorized Priesthood Use: The 1978 revelation (OD‑2) and subsequent policies demonstrate authorized correction and unity, not racial preference.
Covenant Layering: 2 Nephi 26:33 centers equality before God—covenantal identity supersedes ethnicity (“black and white… all are alike unto God”).
Sources
Transcript (user‑provided): Radio Free Mormon #434 — “Black Skin a Curse from God?” — time‑coded excerpts as cited throughout.
Gospel Library — Book of Mormon (English / Equality text): 2 Nephi 26, esp. v.33 (“…he denieth none… black and white… all are alike unto God”).
Gospel Library — Book of Mormon (Complete African translations)
Yorùbá 2 Nephi 5 (see v.21: “àwọ̀ ara dúdú”).
Twi (Akuapem) 2 Nephi 5 (see v.21).
Gospel Library — Book of Mormon (Selections example)
Ekegusii (Gusii) 2 Nephi 5 (stops at v.20).
Program Context: Overview of translations and Selections vs full editions; language timelines for African translations.
Gospel Topics (Doctrine):
“Priesthood and Race.”
“Race and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints.”
“Priesthood and Temple Restriction” (history topic).
This episode repeatedly characterizes Latter‑day Saint beliefs and youth experiences as “brainwashy,” “chanting,” “cult,” and otherwise abnormal—framing ordinary worship and family religious life as inherently suspect. Across ten claims, the analysis below documents where the host’s statements are (a) correct, (b) partly true but misleading by omission or exaggeration, or (c) false in light of current, authoritative sources. We also flag discriminatory rhetoric targeting a faith community.
“Follow the Prophet” = “brainwashy chanting”
Word‑for‑word quote (Speaker: Alyssa Grenfell)
“Our first song is going to be Follow the Prophet… Kids start going to primary when they turn three years old… Follow the prophet… He knows the way… now the reason I wanted to start with this specific song is first because it’s very uh hypnotic… the idea of three-year-olds chanting follow the prophet… I don’t know what’s more brainwashy than chanting in my opinion.”
Core Claim
Primary song “Follow the Prophet” constitutes manipulative “chanting” and “brainwashing.”
Core finding
What the song teaches: Latter‑day Saint songs are designed to teach doctrine simply and invite the Holy Ghost; Church materials explicitly frame children’s music as a means to learn and feel truth, not to override agency. See “The Power of Primary Songs” (Liahona, 2024).
Parents encouraged to use hymns at home: The hymnbook preface invites families to sing in homes to bring “beauty and peace,” not coercion. Hymns Preface (see also Primary Songbook prefaces).
Modern‑prophet context stated correctly: The host notes President Nelson’s passing and President Oaks’s calling; this is accurate.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis:
Labeling core worship practices of a minority faith (children’s singing) as “brainwashy chanting” uses derogatory stereotyping and imputes lack of agency to believers. Such pejoratives generalize and demean adherents’ sincerity.
Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
“Follow the Prophet” is hypnotic “chanting” that “brainwashes” three‑year‑olds.
Opinion Unsupported / Misleading
Song invites faith and discipleship; Church teaches parents to use music to invite the Spirit, not to override agency.
Bottom line: Calling children’s religious songs “brainwashing” is a prejudicial framing, not evidence.
Finding 2 — “Secretly recorded temple video proves it’s a ‘cult ceremony’”
Quote
“a secretly recorded video of what you actually do once you get inside the temple… here I am chanting in a circle while wearing a green apron and doing secret handshakes… it’s just a cult ceremony.” Alyssa shows a video of the sacred temple worship inside an LDS Temple. At Mormon Truth, we don’t care if a sacred ceremony is LDS or a different religion altogether. This is disrespectful, even potential hate speech.
Core Claim
Because a hidden‑camera clip exists and includes symbolic gestures, the temple is a “cult ceremony.”
Core finding
What the endowment is: The Church publicly explains the endowment’s purpose—covenants to follow Jesus Christ and learn God’s plan. ; About the Temple Endowment
Transparency via open houses: Before dedication, every temple holds a free public open house; after dedication, the interior is reserved for members. Open Houses; Newsroom.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: Pejoratively labeling the sacred rites of a religious minority as a “cult ceremony” is a classic stigmatizing trope that encourages social contempt, not understanding.
MTOPS Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
Hidden‑camera clip proves the temple is a “cult ceremony.”
Misleading
Symbolism ≠ secrecy for deception; the Church publicly explains ordinances and invites the world inside before dedication.
Bottom line: The existence of ritual symbolism doesn’t make a religion a “cult.” The Church explains and publicly tours temples prior to dedication.
Finding 3 — “In the temple you ‘promise to obey my husband’”
Quote
“…I did promise to obey my husband… someday I will enter a temple and I’ll promise to obey my husband…”
Core Claim
The current temple endowment requires women to promise to “obey” their husbands.
Core finding
Historical shifts: The “obey” wording was removed in 1990; in 2019, women and men make the same covenants, with “hearken” language removed. Documented by mainstream and Church‑adjacent outlets reporting the January 2019 update. Biblical language, interpreted with contemporary standards and trends, is not so easily interpreted lacks context. Salt Lake Tribune; Famili Is the Endowment?LA Times (1990).
Today’s language: Official summaries describe covenants to follow Jesus Christ (laws of obedience, sacrifice, chastity, gospel, consecration)—not spousal subordination. About the Temple Endowment.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: Presenting superseded, pre‑2019 language as if it is current invites contempt toward Latter‑day Saint women, implying institutionalized female inferiority that no longer reflects the ordinance.
Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
Women covenant to “obey my husband.”
Misleading (Outdated)
1990: “obey” removed; 2019: gender‑equal covenant language; current endowment does not require women to obey husbands.
Bottom line: The host’s wording reflects outdated ritual language and misrepresents today’s covenants.
Finding 4 — “You covenant to give everything you possess to the Church”
Quote
“…in the temple you will promise and covenant with God to give everything you possess to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints…”
Core Claim
The law of consecration is a pledge to transfer one’s property to the institutional Church.
Core finding
Actual covenant summary: Members covenant to dedicate their “time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed [them]” to building up Jesus Christ’s Church—a personal discipleship commitment, not a blanket legal transfer of assets. Official handbook/temple pages: General Handbook 27; About the Temple Endowment.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: The phrasing “give everything you possess to the Church” caricatures a sacred covenant of service as institutional greed—an inflammatory framing that invites public scorn.
MTOPS Evaluation Table
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
Consecration = giving all possessions to the Church.
Partial Truth / Misleading
Consecration is comprehensive devotion to God’s work; no blanket property assignment is required by the modern endowment.
Bottom line: The covenant is to consecrate one’s life to Christ’s work—not to deed away personal property.
Finding 5 — “Temple open houses”
Quote
“…there’s a short period of time called a temple open house where the general public is allowed to go in… young kids can go through and see what the interior of the temple looks like… we would drive for hours just to walk through.”
Core Claim
Public open houses allow anyone (including children) to tour a temple before dedication.
Finding 6 — “Ages: baptisms for the dead at 12; endowment ~18”
Quote
“…to enter the temple to do baptisms for the dead, you can’t do that till you’re 12. And then you can’t do your endowment ceremony till you’re around 18 to a little older.”
Evaluation
True (with nuance) — Youth recommends for proxy baptisms/confirmations begin in January of the year one turns 12 (with worthiness/recommend). Proxy Baptism overview.
Generally true — Endowments are available to adult members who are prepared; many receive the endowment around missionary/service or marriatps://www.churchofjnual/gospel-topics/endowment?lang=eng” target=”_blank” rel=”noopener”>Gospel Topics: Endowment.
Bottom line: Accurate on proxy‑baptism age; endowment timing depends on readiness and circumstances.
Finding 7 — “Don’t criticize the Lord’s leaders—even if true”
Quote
“…there’s a lot of quotes that modern leaders have given… one of which is that you should not criticize the Lord’s leaders even if the criticism is true.”
Core Claim
A standing rule exists: it is wrong to criticize leaders “even if the criticism is true.”
Core finding
The oft‑quoted line is associated with then‑Elder Dallin H. Oaks in a 1980s context and is frequently quoted without context. Responsible summaries note he was counseling against public fault‑finding that undermines Church service. See FAIR’s documentation with the original context. FAIR analysis.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: Presenting a de‑contextualized phrase as iron‑clad doctrine paints believers as forbidding inquiry, fostering the stereotype of blind, unthinking obedience.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:10:49
00:11:21
“No criticism even if true.”
Misleading (Context‑stripped)
Counsel addressed destructive public criticism; not a doctrinal ban on truth or accountability.
Bottom line: The claim, as framed, misleads by ignoring context and scope.
Finding 8 — “Prophet’s ‘one set of earrings’ rule”
“…one rule from a prophet… President Hinckley had announced the rule that girls should only have one set of piercings.”
Evaluation
Historically True — President Gordon B. Hinckley counseled against tattoos and multiple piercings; he allowed for one modest pair of earrings. Oct 2000 talk.
Current guidance — The 2022 For the Strength of Youth pamphlet emphasizes principle‑based, Spirit‑guided standards without listing an earring count. Coverage summary.
Bottom line: Correct historically; current materials emphasize principles over numeric lists.
Finding 9 — “Temple recommend question: ‘Do you believe President Oaks is a prophet of God?’”
Quote
“…there’s a list of questions… but there is one question about Joseph Smith specifically… ‘Do you believe that the church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that President Oaks is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?’”
Core finding
What is actually asked: The official questions include (1) a testimony of the Restoration and (2) sustaining the President of the Church as prophet, seer, and revelator (by office; the presiding officer’s name changes over time). See the current list. General Handbook 26 (Temple Recommends); Newsroom explainer, 2019 update.
Follow‑up prompts: Interviewers may ask personal, pastoral follow‑ups (e.g., “what does that mean to you?”), but the printed questions don’t hard‑code a particular name beyond the office and certainly don’t require the interviewer to ask, “What does that mean to you?”.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: Portraying standard Christian‑style recommend questions as unique authoritarian control suggests believers hand their conscience to leaders—an unfair inference.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
01:13:55
01:14:50
Official question names “President Oaks” verbatim.
Partial / Needs Context
Official wording sustains the President of the Church by office; interviewers can reference the incumbent’s name.
Bottom line: The concept (sustaining the living prophet) is correct; the official printed question is by office, not by permanently naming a particular person.
Finding 10 — “Warm feelings replace evidence; no DNA/archaeology needed”
Quote</strowhile I sing this song I feel happy, it’s objective proof… There’s no need for archaeological evidence. There’s no need for DNA evidence…”
Core finding
The Church does not claim DNA can “prove” or “disprove” the Book of Mormon; the official essay explicitly says DNA studies “cannot be used decisively” on historicity. Gospel Topics: DNA and the Book of Mormon.
Personal spiritual witness is central to faith, but the Church publishes robust historical and doctrinal resources and encourages study.
Discrimination/Prejudice Analysis: Reducing believers’ convictions to “feeling happy while singing” caricatures a faith’s epistemology and belittles sincere spiritual experience common across world religions.
Evaluation Table
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:52:55
00:54:02
Church dismisses need for evidence (esp. DNA).
Misleading / Strawman
Official essay: DNA evidence is indecisive either way; spiritual witness complements study, not replaces it.
Strawman: Collapsing spiritual witness into “happy feelings” and implying the Church forbids evidence (Segment 10).
Context omission: Using pre‑2019 temple wording as if current (Segment 3); overstating consecration as property transfer (Segment 4).
Defamation & False‑Light Risk
🟠 Moderate — Present‑tense claims about temple vows (“obey my husband”) risk false‑light portrayal of current practice (2019 changes documented).
🟢 Low — Most statements are opinion about a religion rather than verifiable assertions about a private person (less defamation exposure).
The episode repeatedly mocks Latter‑day Saint worship and misstates key facts (temple covenants, consecration, leadership questions), encouraging the audience to view a minority religion as irrational and “cult‑like.” Where the host makes factual points (open houses; baptism age), they align with public Church sources. Where claims turn on pejoratives, they function as discriminatory rhetoric, not careful analysis.
Stewardship Doctrine: Parents teaching faith via music at home is an act of stewardship, not manipulation.
Authorized Priesthood Use: Leadership succession and temple covenants follow established, published processes.
Covenant Layering: Temple covenants (obedience to God, sacrifice, chastity, gospel, consecration) are Christ‑centered and publicly summarized.
Sources Consulted (Transparency)
Primary: ChurchofJesusChrist.org (Gospel Topics, General Handbook, Temple pages); Church Newsroom; Salt Lake Tribune; LA Times; Liahona; FAIR Latter‑day Saints. Supplementary media coverage as linked above.
Leaked 2024 leadership slides by President Dallin H. Oaks telling leaders to ‘excommunicate more’”
Podcast: Radio Free Mormon • Episode: RFM 432 (recreating RFM 363) • Title in transcript: “The King of Excommunications!” / “The show the LDS church doesn’t want you to see.”
Core Claim
In 2024, President (then Elder) Dallin H. Oaks directed leadership training whose message was to increase excommunications.
Core Finding
Independent corroboration: No official Church source has published such a directive. RFM’s own pages repeat the claim; that is not independent verification.
General Handbook: The purposes of membership restrictions/withdrawal are to protect others, help repentance, and protect Church integrity. These actions are not intended to punish. Leaders determine whether personal counseling or a membership council is appropriate; personal counseling is often sufficient. Councils are required only in specified serious cases; otherwise they may be necessary depending on circumstances.
Status/dates: Dallin H. Oaks was set apart as the Church’s 18th President on Oct. 14, 2025; no announcement referenced a policy to “increase excommunications.”
Bottom Line
Category:Not Provable — The Handbook promotes case‑by‑case discernment, not numeric targets.
Evaluation
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:00:32
00:01:43
Leaked Oaks slides telling leaders “you’re not excommunicating enough Mormons”
Not Provable
No primary source published; self‑referential claims on program pages do not verify authenticity.
Legal & Logic Analysis: Loaded paraphrase (“up those numbers”) with no primary proof. Risk: 🟠 Moderate
RFM CLAIMS “This is the show the LDS church doesn’t want you to see” & copyright strike = ownership
“The fact the church did a copyright strike proves the church claims ownership. These are the real deal. These slides.”
Core Claim
The Church (via a YouTube copyright strike) both “doesn’t want you to see” the episode and thereby proves it owns—and authenticates—the alleged slide deck.
Logical Questions
Does a YouTube copyright strike prove the filer owns the content or merely that it alleged infringement under the DMCA?
Even if a Church‑affiliated entity filed a takedown, does that authenticate the alleged slides or confirm their contents/meaning?
Core Finding
Under the DMCA (17 U.S.C. §512), a takedown is based on a notice alleging infringement to preserve a platform’s safe harbor; it is not an adjudication of ownership or authenticity.
YouTube processes copyright removals as a legal claim; removal on receipt of a proper notice does not prove the filer’s claims.
Historically, the Church protects its IP via Intellectual Reserve, Inc. (IRI) (e.g., Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry); past enforcement shows capacity to act, not that specific leaked slides are genuine.
Bottom Line
Category:Misleading (legal inference) — A DMCA strike does not by itself prove the authenticity or authorship of the alleged slides, nor a censorial intent beyond routine IP enforcement.
Evaluation
Start
End
Claim Summary
Category
Evaluation
Sources
00:00:01
00:00:47
“Show the Church doesn’t want you to see” because a prior version was taken down
Misleading
Takedown = platform compliance with a legal notice; it is not proof of ownership/authenticity or hidden intent.
Legal & Logic Analysis: Appeal to secrecy (“they don’t want you to see”), and confirmation by suppression fallacy. Risk: 🟠 Moderate (false‑light framing)
