Select Page
David Archuleta’s Mormon Story: Honouring His Experience While Fact-Checking Five Doctrinal Claims

David Archuleta’s Mormon Story: Honouring His Experience While Fact-Checking Five Doctrinal Claims

April 2026

David Archuleta’s Mormon Story: Honouring His Experience While Fact-Checking Five Doctrinal Claims

David Archuleta shares a real and painful story. His experience as a gay Latter-day Saint—the shame, the scrupulosity, and the silence—deserves to be heard. However, several historical and doctrinal claims in this episode need correction. Truth matters to everyone, especially people navigating faith transitions.

 

A Note Before We Begin

David Archuleta’s story is real, and it is painful. The shame he carried, the scrupulosity he developed, the silence he lived inside — these are documented experiences shared by many LGBT Latter-day Saints. His courage in telling this story serves people who have lived something similar and need to feel less alone.

This rebuttal does not dispute his personal experience. Instead, it examines five doctrinal and historical claims from the episode that are inaccurate or imprecise. Truth matters, and inaccuracy helps no one. Readers processing their own faith transition deserve both compassion and accuracy.

About This Episode

Mormon Stories Episode 2114 (January 2026) features an hour-long conversation between host John Dehlin and singer David Archuleta, discussing Archuleta’s memoir Devout: Losing My Faith to Find Myself. Archuleta describes growing up gay in the LDS Church, his mission, his encounters with Elder M. Russell Ballard, and his eventual departure from the Church in 2022.

Much of the episode contains personal testimony. Archuleta owns that lived experience, and this article does not challenge it. What we address are five specific doctrinal or historical claims that, as stated, are either inaccurate or present a misleadingly simple picture of what the LDS Church actually teaches or has taught.

Pattern to notice: This episode blends personal testimony with doctrinal claims. Personal stories deserve respect, while factual claims deserve verification. Because emotion can influence listeners, both require careful attention.

What the Episode Gets Right

Conceded — Historically Accurate

Earlier Church leaders taught homosexuality was a choice, could be overcome, and was among the gravest sins

✓ Historically Accurate

Archuleta describes being taught as a youth — through Spencer W. Kimball’s writings and from the pulpit — that homosexuality was a choice, was sinful, was comparable to grievous crimes, and could be overcome through righteousness. This accurately reflects Church teaching and culture from the Kimball era through the early 2000s. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness (1969) did teach these things, and it was widely circulated. Local leaders taught these messages.

The scrupulosity David Archuleta describes — becoming obsessively obedient as a way to “compensate” for or “cure” same-sex attraction — is a documented clinical pattern among LGBT Latter-day Saints of his generation, well-supported in research and consistent with what a Mormon therapist identified in his own case.

Bottom Line
The historical Church teaching David experienced was real. His suffering was real. Acknowledging this honestly is essential — and does not require overstating what the Church currently teaches.

The Claims — and the Full Picture

Claim 1 of 5

LDS scripture is “100% silent on homosexuality” — the Book of Mormon, D&C, Pearl of Great Price, all completely silent

⚖️ Partially Accurate — Requires Precision

“It always blew my mind that the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine of Covenants, Book of Abraham… all of Mormon scripture is 100% silent on homosexuality, 100%.”
— David Archuleta, ~00:16:14

This claim needs an important distinction. Archuleta is right that the unique Restoration scriptures — the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price — contain no explicit reference to same-sex sexual conduct. That observation is accurate and important.

However, the full LDS scriptural canon includes the Bible as one of the four “standard works.” The Bible does contain passages that the LDS Church — like most traditional Christian denominations — interprets as addressing same-sex sexual conduct (Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26–27, and others). The Church’s law of chastity is grounded in its interpretation of the whole scriptural canon, including these biblical texts.

The statement becomes inaccurate when the full LDS canon includes the Bible. The more precise and defensible statement is that the Restoration scriptures are silent — which is notable and worth discussing on its own terms.

Direct Answer

The Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price contain no explicit reference to same-sex conduct — accurate and noteworthy. But the LDS scriptural canon includes the Bible, which contains passages the Church does interpret on this subject. “All of Mormon scripture” is therefore not 100% silent.

Claim 2 of 5

The Family Proclamation “was just a legal brief that was developed for legal reasons” and was never really a revelation

⚠️ Misleading — Mischaracterises Origins and Status

“By the way, the proclamation of the family was just a legal brief that was developed for legal reasons that then ended up getting adopted — it was never really a revelation to begin with.”
— John Dehlin (not disputed by Archuleta), ~01:14:18

This is John Dehlin’s claim, not Archuleta’s, but it goes unchallenged and functions as a factual assertion in the episode. It is not accurate.

What is true: The Family Proclamation was issued in September 1995 during a period of active legal challenges to traditional marriage definitions. It was subsequently included in an amicus brief to the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1997 and in at least six other court cases over the following decades. The document emerged in a context where LDS leaders were closely watching same-sex marriage litigation.

What is false: Characterising it as “just a legal brief” erases its clear doctrinal origin. President Gordon B. Hinckley prefaced the Proclamation by saying it was “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” President Russell M. Nelson has described the year-long deliberative and prayerful process that preceded its drafting. It has been cited more than 250 times in General Conference addresses. Apostle Boyd K. Packer stated it “qualifies according to the definition as a revelation.” President Nelson presented a copy to Pope Francis as one of two gifts when they first met.

One can disagree with the Proclamation’s doctrinal claims and believe the legal context influenced its timing — that is a legitimate discussion. But “just a legal brief” is a rhetorical dismissal, not an accurate description of its origin, process, or reception in LDS theology.

Direct Answer

The Family Proclamation was a formal doctrinal statement issued by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles after a year-long drafting process described by its authors as prayerful and revelatory. It was subsequently used in legal briefs — but that does not make it a legal brief. The claim that it was “never really a revelation” contradicts the stated experience of its drafters.

Claim 3 of 5

The Church still teaches that being gay is a choice and that same-sex attraction can be prayed away

🕐 Historically Accurate — No Longer Current Teaching

“At the time when I was in Young Men’s… we were taught that yeah, it’s a choice and people who choose to be that way are sinning.”
— David Archuleta, ~00:30:00

Archuleta’s account of what he was taught is accurate for the period he describes — his childhood and young adulthood in the late 1990s and 2000s. Church culture and local leaders regularly taught that same-sex attraction was a choice and could be overcome. This is historically documented and not in dispute.

However, the episode does not clearly distinguish this as historical — leaving listeners to infer it is still the current position. The Church’s teaching has shifted substantially. By 2012, the Church’s official “MormonsAndGays” website explicitly stated that same-sex attraction is not a choice. By 2016, the Church affirmed that conversion therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is unethical. The current official LDS position states that the Church takes no position on the cause of same-sex attraction. It also states that individuals do not choose such attractions. The Church now states that “Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin.”

The shift from “choice that must be overcome” to “not a choice, not a sin” is significant — and truth seekers deserve to know when it happened and where the Church now stands, not only where it stood during Archuleta’s youth.

Direct Answer

The Church historically taught same-sex attraction was a choice — accurate for the period Archuleta describes. Since 2012, the Church has explicitly stated attraction is not a choice. Since 2019, it has stated conversion therapy is unethical. The current official position is that same-sex attraction is not a sin. The gap between historical and current teaching is real and significant.

Claim 4 of 5

The November 2015 policy “put same-sex marriage worse than pedophilia or rape” — mandatory excommunication for the former, never mandatory for the latter

⚖️ Partially Accurate — Framing Overstated

“The Church would have come out with that horrible November 2015 exclusion policy where same-sex marriage became grounds for mandatory excommunication… because pedophilia and rape had never been mandatory excommunicable offenses.”
— John Dehlin, ~00:59:58

The November 2015 policy was genuinely harmful and has been widely criticised, including by many faithful Latter-day Saints. The reversal in 2019 was widely welcomed. These are not contested points.

However, the specific framing deserves examination. The 2015 policy classified members in same-sex marriages as “apostates” — which did carry a presumption of formal disciplinary council. Sexual sins including serious assault are handled under the Church’s General Handbook through formal disciplinary councils as well, and have historically resulted in excommunication when adjudicated. The claim that rape and pedophilia “had never been mandatory excommunicable offenses” requires nuance — the Church’s approach to both has been inconsistent and has drawn serious criticism, but it is not accurate that these categories have been systematically treated more leniently than same-sex marriage by the institution’s formal rules.

What is true and important: the 2015 policy singled out same-sex marriage specifically for apostasy status — a category above ordinary serious sin — and this asymmetry was widely experienced as unjust. The reversal in 2019 was attributed by Church leaders to “continuing revelation.” As Elder Ballard reportedly told Archuleta privately, it was a mistake — though the Church did not use that word publicly.

Direct Answer

The November 2015 policy was genuinely harmful and unjust — it designated same-sex marriage as apostasy warranting mandatory disciplinary action, and was reversed in 2019. The specific claim that rape and pedophilia “had never been excommunicable offenses” oversimplifies a complex disciplinary history, but the core critique of the 2015 policy’s asymmetry and harm is well-founded.

Claim 5 of 5

The Church promoted the “elevation theory” to deny a link between its policies and LGBT youth suicide rates in Utah

⚖️ Nuanced — The Church’s Role in This Debate Requires Precision

“I foolishly believed [the elevation explanation] as well… I realize now that it wasn’t the elevation that got me to almost end my life in Tennessee.”
— David Archuleta, ~01:27:27

Archuleta describes believing an explanation — circulated in some Church-adjacent contexts — that elevated altitude, not religious culture, explained higher suicide rates in Utah. He now recognises this as inadequate given his own experience.

This requires care. The altitude/suicide correlation is a real peer-reviewed finding documented by researchers at the University of Utah and elsewhere — higher altitude is associated with lower serotonin levels and increased suicide risk. This finding predates and is independent of LDS Church policy debates. The research exists and has been discussed by physicians and public health officials, not only as Church PR.

However, altitude does not explain everything — particularly the documented spike in LGBT youth suicides and membership resignations following the November 2015 policy. The broader question of whether Church teachings contribute to higher suicide risk among LGBT members is supported by research, and the Church’s response to that research has been widely criticised as inadequate. Archuleta’s rejection of the altitude explanation as a complete answer is reasonable — the problem is treating a real (if partial) scientific finding as inherently a bad-faith deflection.

Direct Answer

The altitude-suicide correlation is a real, peer-reviewed finding — not an invention by Church PR. However, altitude alone does not explain the specific elevated risk documented among LGBT Latter-day Saints, particularly in the aftermath of the 2015 policy. Both things can be true: altitude matters, and Church teaching also matters.

Frequently Asked Questions About David Archuleta and LDS Church Teachings

Is LDS scripture completely silent on homosexuality?

Partially. The unique Restoration scriptures — the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price — contain no explicit reference to same-sex sexual conduct. This is accurate and notable.

However, the full LDS scriptural canon includes the Bible as one of four “standard works.” The Bible contains passages (including in Leviticus and Romans) that the Church interprets as addressing same-sex conduct. The more precise claim is that the Restoration scriptures are silent — not “all of Mormon scripture.”

Was the Family Proclamation just a legal brief?

No. “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was issued on September 23, 1995 as a formal doctrinal statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. President Hinckley described it as “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices.” President Nelson has described a year-long prayerful drafting process.

It was subsequently included in legal amicus briefs (beginning with the Hawaii Supreme Court in 1997) and used in political advocacy contexts. This legal use is real, but it followed — rather than constituted — the Proclamation’s origin. The claim that it “was never really a revelation” contradicts the stated experience of its drafters.

Does the LDS Church currently teach that being gay is a choice?

No — not since 2012. The Church’s earlier teachings did present same-sex attraction as a choice that could be overcome. But in 2012, the Church explicitly stated on its official website that same-sex attraction is not a choice. In 2019, it stated that conversion therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation is unethical. The current official position is: “Individuals do not choose to have such attractions” and “Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin.”

David Archuleta’s account of what he was taught during his youth (late 1990s–2000s) accurately reflects the teaching of that period. It does not reflect what the Church officially teaches today.

What was the November 2015 LDS policy and what happened to it?

In November 2015, the LDS Church updated its Handbook designating members in same-sex marriages as “apostates” subject to mandatory disciplinary councils, and barring children of same-sex couples from baptism until age 18 unless they denounced their parents’ relationship. The policy was immediately controversial and led to mass resignations.

In April 2019, the Church reversed both elements of the policy. Children of LGBT parents could again be baptised, and same-sex marriage was reclassified from apostasy to “a serious transgression.” The Church attributed the reversal to “continuing revelation.” Church leaders did not publicly describe it as a mistake, though Archuleta’s memoir describes Apostle Ballard privately acknowledging it as one.

What is scrupulosity and how does it affect LGBT Mormons?

Scrupulosity is a religious subtype of OCD characterised by intrusive fears of sin, excessive rituals of repentance or obedience, and a chronic sense of unworthiness that persists regardless of compliance. It is a recognised clinical condition distinct from healthy religious devotion.

Researchers and clinicians have documented elevated rates of scrupulosity among LGBT Latter-day Saints — particularly those who internalised the teaching that same-sex attraction was sinful and could be overcome through sufficient righteousness. The pattern David Archuleta describes — becoming obsessively compliant as a way to compensate for or neutralise same-sex attraction — is consistent with this documented clinical picture. A Mormon therapist he worked with identified it in his own case.

What does the LDS Church currently teach about LGBT members?

The current official LDS position: same-sex attraction is not a sin and is not a choice. Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual does not prevent full participation in the Church. Conversion therapy is unethical. The Church does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction.

However: same-sex sexual activity and same-sex marriage remain violations of the law of chastity and are subject to Church discipline. Members in same-sex marriages can attend services but cannot hold callings, temple recommends, or other ordinances. The theological framework — that exaltation requires an eternal heterosexual marriage — remains unchanged. Same-sex marriage is classified as “a serious transgression” rather than apostasy (since the 2019 reversal).

The Honest Summary

David Archuleta’s story deserves to be told, heard, and taken seriously. The shame he carried, the scrupulosity he developed, the silence he maintained — these were real consequences of real Church teaching from a real era. The suffering of LGBT Latter-day Saints is documented, significant, and must not be dismissed.

But compassion for a person’s story does not require abandoning accuracy about doctrine. Several specific claims in this episode need correction. The Restoration scriptures are silent on same-sex conduct — but the LDS canon includes the Bible, which is not. The Family Proclamation was not “just a legal brief” — it was a formal doctrinal statement that was subsequently used in legal contexts. The Church’s teaching on same-sex attraction as a choice was historically accurate for Archuleta’s youth but has been officially reversed since 2012. The 2015 policy was genuinely harmful and was reversed in 2019. And the altitude-suicide research is real science, even if it cannot fully explain the specific harms Church policy has caused.

Truth seekers—whether questioning members, former members, or curious observers—deserve two things: compassion and accuracy. David Archuleta’s experience matters. Historical and doctrinal facts matter as well. Readers can hold both truths at the same time.

 

 

Mormon Stories: Does the Mormon Church “Groom” Mothers?

Mormon Stories: Does the Mormon Church “Groom” Mothers?

Was Chelsey “Groomed” for Motherhood — or Prepared for It?

About This Episode

John Dehlin, host of Mormon Stories, interviews Chelsey Rencher Liaga in a compelling and emotional episode centered on LDS motherhood pressure and women’s identity in the Church. Chelsey argues that the Church’s emphasis on motherhood robbed her of identity, freedom, and choice. Her experience is clearly real and deserves compassion.

Chelsey, a licensed therapist in Arizona, shares her story of growing up devoutly LDS in Gilbert before leaving the Church. She discusses perfectionism, orthorexia, purity culture, a post-mission depressive episode, and her gradual faith deconstruction. Because much of her story is sincere and relatable, it becomes even more important to separate personal experience from broader institutional claims.

The Central Argument

This episode builds the case that LDS motherhood pressure systematically “grooms” women for motherhood. It argues that this pressure strips women of autonomy, damages identity, and creates measurable psychological harm. Furthermore, it frames these outcomes as direct products of Church doctrine.

The episode points to the Family Proclamation, purity culture, and the expectation to become a stay-at-home mother as evidence of a harmful system. As a result, viewers may leave believing these are universal realities within the Church rather than experiences shaped by culture, geography, and local leadership.

A Familiar Pattern

This follows a familiar pattern often seen in Mormon Stories episodes. A real and painful personal story is shared, validated throughout the interview, and then expanded into a larger claim about the Church as a whole. Chelsey’s struggles are real, but the broader framing deserves scrutiny.

Chelsey’s professional clients are people who often feel harmed by religion. Her close circle includes many former members of the Church. Therefore, her perspective may naturally focus on negative outcomes. The episode never interviews women who experienced the same teachings positively, making the piece feel more like advocacy than balanced journalism.

The Claims — and the Full Picture

Claim 1: The Church Teaches Women Their Only Value Is Motherhood

“No one ever asked me, ‘Do you want to be a mom?’ It was never a question… Everything was always framed around, well, it has to be flexible cuz you’re going to be a mom.”

— Chelsey Rencher Liaga (~00:15:12)

Chelsey’s experience of feeling pressure toward motherhood is genuine. For many viewers, this reflects what they describe as LDS motherhood pressure in certain communities. Many women in heavily LDS communities report similar cultural expectations, especially in areas like Gilbert, Arizona. However, the episode repeatedly presents this as official Church doctrine rather than local culture.

What the Church Actually Teaches

The Church has consistently encouraged women to pursue education and personal development. Leaders often cite Doctrine and Covenants 25:8 as support for lifelong learning and contribution. The BYU Religious Studies Center documents LDS women serving as physicians, lawyers, professors, homemakers, teachers, artists, and business leaders.

The Church does not teach that women cannot work outside the home. In fact, many faithful LDS women build successful careers while remaining active and respected in their communities. Therefore, the claim that women only have value as mothers does not reflect official doctrine.

Where the Tension Is Real

At the same time, earlier Church leaders sometimes strongly encouraged mothers to stay home. Ezra Taft Benson frequently emphasized this role, and that legacy still shapes some ward cultures today. The Family Proclamation teaches that mothers are “primarily responsible” for nurturing children, which carries real social and emotional weight.

That tension deserves honest acknowledgment. However, the episode presents the most restrictive cultural version of this teaching as if it were universal doctrine. Chelsey’s experience is real, but it is not the whole picture.

Bottom Line

The pressure Chelsey felt is real and documented in many LDS communities. However, the episode conflates culture with doctrine. The Church teaches that motherhood is sacred and important, but it does not teach that women have no value outside of it.

Claim 2 of 4

Claim 2: Purity Culture Damages Women

“The chewed up gum virtue lesson. You can’t un-chew gum…”

— Chelsey Rencher Liaga (~00:26:57)

This is one of the strongest and most honest criticisms in the episode. Lessons like the “chewed gum” analogy have caused real psychological harm to many young women. Faithful LDS members have criticized these teachings for decades because they often create shame rather than teach healthy doctrine.

What the Church Actually Teaches

The Church’s doctrine of chastity centers on covenants, dignity, and the sacred nature of intimacy. It does not teach that a woman’s worth depends on her sexual history. Lessons like the “gum” analogy were never part of official Church curriculum.

Instead, local youth leaders often improvised these object lessons. Therefore, these examples reflect poor teaching methods rather than official doctrine.

A Legitimate Concern

Even so, chastity teaching has often created more social shame for women than for men. Researchers and members have both documented this imbalance. As a result, many women experienced these lessons as deeply harmful.

The Church has taken steps to correct this. Newer versions of For the Strength of Youth and updated curriculum materials emphasize agency, personal revelation, and covenant-based teaching instead of shame.

Bottom Line

Shame-based chastity lessons caused real harm and deserve criticism. However, they were never official doctrine, and the Church has actively moved away from them.

Claim 3 of 4

Claim 3: Mormonism Caused Her Perfectionism, Orthorexia, and Depression

“A mission is the perfect storm…”

— Chelsey Rencher Liaga (~01:00:04)

Chelsey’s struggles with perfectionism, orthorexia, and depression are real. She discusses them with honesty and insight. However, the episode repeatedly frames these issues as direct products of Mormonism.

Other Contributing Factors

Chelsey herself names several non-religious factors. She describes growing up around family diet culture and constant conversations about weight loss. She also identifies herself as a natural perfectionist and a “glass child” in a family with more demanding siblings.

American culture also places intense pressure on women’s bodies and appearance. Therefore, many of these pressures existed outside religion and likely shaped her regardless of faith.

What the Episode Leaves Out

The Church actively teaches mental health awareness and offers resources. Chelsey’s own story illustrates this. Her mission president’s wife first recognized signs of orthorexia and connected her to LDS Family Services.

That support came from within the Church structure. It did not come despite it. Furthermore, many studies show religious participation often improves mental health outcomes through support networks and meaning-making.

Bottom Line

Chelsey’s struggles were real, and mission life may have intensified them. However, the episode presents correlation as causation. The truth is more complex.

Claim 4 of 4

Claim 4: The Church’s Treatment of LGBTQ Members Is Indefensible

“If God is designing people to be born gay…”

— Chelsey Rencher Liaga (~01:09:53)

This is the most serious and emotionally weighty question in the episode. It deserves honest engagement rather than dismissal. Many faithful members have wrestled deeply with this same issue.

What the Church Teaches

The Church teaches that same-sex attraction itself is not sinful. It also teaches that God loves all His children equally. The law of chastity applies to all members and reserves sexual relations for marriage between a man and a woman.

Church leaders also teach that faithful members will receive every promised blessing in God’s timing. Therefore, the Church frames this issue within eternal theology rather than present-day fairness alone.

Where the Tension Is Real

Chelsey references the 2015 November Policy, which restricted ordinances for children of same-sex couples. That policy caused pain and confusion for many members. In 2019, Church leaders reversed it.

That reversal matters because it shows policy can change. However, the episode does not acknowledge this development. It focuses only on the pain without discussing the reconsideration.

Bottom Line

This is the most legitimate tension in the episode. The Church’s doctrinal position is sincere, not simple cruelty. However, the emotional and theological difficulty remains unresolved for many members.

The Honest Summary

Chelsey Rencher Liaga appears thoughtful, caring, and sincere. Her experience growing up in Gilbert, Arizona is real, and many of the pressures she describes exist in certain LDS communities. These include LDS motherhood pressure, shame-based chastity teaching, and the emotional intensity of mission life.

However, this episode fails to distinguish between culture and doctrine. It treats one woman’s painful experience as representative of a global institution serving millions. It attributes every negative outcome to the Church while ignoring positive experiences and internal reforms.

Truth seekers deserve both sides. The Church teaches motherhood is sacred, but it also values education and agency. Harmful local teachings have existed, but the Church has worked to move away from them. Serious LGBTQ tensions remain, but policies have changed and difficult questions continue to be discussed.

Ultimately, the debate over LDS motherhood pressure depends on whether those expectations come from doctrine, culture, or both.Chelsey’s story matters and deserves to be heard. It is not the full picture.

Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers: What We May Be Missing

Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers: What We May Be Missing

Builders. Messengers. Gatherers.

A Spiritual, Symbolic, and Scriptural Reading of
the New Young Women Age-Group Names —
and Their Parallels to the Aaronic Priesthood
Faith is built. Hope is carried. Light is gathered.
Together, these three ideas form a progression that shapes the entire structure of the program.

On April 20, 2026, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced the new Young Women age-group names: Builders of Faith, Messengers of Hope, and Gatherers of Light. These new names apply to young women ages 12 and older and are designed to help them understand their divine identity, spiritual progression, and role in God’s work.

More specifically, this document is a meditation on the depth of these names — their scriptural foundations, their ancient linguistic and symbolic roots, and the way they parallel the work of the Aaronic Priesthood offices that young men hold at the same ages. It is offered as a resource for leaders, parents, teachers, and the young women themselves. It is not an official Church publication, but a faithful exploration of what the Church has given us.

To begin, what are the new Young Women age-group names?

The new Young Women age-group names in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are:

  • Builders of Faith (ages 12–13)
  • Messengers of Hope (ages 14–15)
  • Gatherers of Light (ages 16+)

These names emphasize spiritual growth, covenant identity, and discipleship.

Before going deeper, a quick orientation to what follows: First, Part One reads each name deeply, tracing its scriptural anchor and its ancient symbolic resonance. Second, Part Two sets the Young Women progression beside the Aaronic Priesthood progression and shows how the two were designed to mirror each other. Third, Part Three offers concrete, weekly, repeatable action ideas so that each name can become lived identity. Fourth, Part Four closes with reflection, and lastly Part Five provides a sources and scripture index for further study.

Part One: The Names, Read Deeply

Why These New Young Women Names Matter

Before examining each name individually, however, it is important to understand the overall structure of the three names. Together, they form a clear spiritual progression. The Church has chosen faith, hope, and light — not the classical Pauline triad of faith, hope, and charity (1 Corinthians 13; see also Moroni 7:45–48). Church leaders placed light where charity would be. Why?

Ultimately, then, charity is the destination. In fact, Relief Society is explicitly described by President Freeman as “a lifelong sisterhood of charity,” and the Young Women progression is the preparation for that sisterhood. From there, the path is: Faith → Hope → Light → (Charity).

Therefore, light becomes the bridge between hope and charity — the medium through which charity itself becomes possible. You cannot love as Christ loves until you have first gathered enough of His light to see as He sees. Seen this way, the Gatherer of Light is not merely the third stage; she is the threshold stage, the one who stands at the door of covenant womanhood.

Another important detail is that each name is a verb in participial form: Builders, Messengers, Gatherers. These describe what a young woman does, not what she passively is. Contrast this with the retired names — Beehive, Mia Maid, and Laurel — which were metaphors of identity (an industrious insect, a maiden, a victor’s wreath). These names carry a theological shift: identity is formed through action and covenant, not inherited through symbol.

More Than a Name Change

At the same time, this is also — we should say plainly — a structure that mirrors how young men have been named for over a century. A deacon is not a symbol; he is the one who does deacon-things. A teacher teaches. A priest performs priestly acts. The new Young Women names finally give girls names of the same grammatical and theological kind: names that describe their work.

One more framing note. President Emily Belle Freeman has said the inspiration for the names came during a For the Strength of Youth conference in Tahiti in late 2025, as young women sang “As Sisters in Zion,” and she saw the three themes — building faith, sharing hope, gathering and reflecting light — in the verses of the hymn. The names therefore carry a double anchor: the printed scriptures the Church has assigned to them, and the sung scripture of a beloved Latter-day Saint hymn. Both are worth holding as you read what follows.

✦ ✦ ✦

Builders of Faith (ages 12–13)

“And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.” — Ephesians 2:20

Reading the whole passage, not just the verse

The First Presidency anchored this name in a single verse, but that verse only fully opens when you read it with the two verses around it. Ephesians 2:19–22 reads: “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

In fact, it is temple language.
Here, Paul describes the household of God as a temple being built up — a dwelling place for the Spirit, constructed out of people who were once strangers.
For a Latter-day Saint 12-year-old, however, this is not an abstract metaphor. Temple-building sits at the literal and symbolic center of the faith.
So when she is called a Builder of Faith at age 12, she is being named directly into that work.

The Hebrew wordplay: children and builders

There is a rabbinic tradition — recorded in the Talmud, Berakhot 64a — that reads Isaiah 54:13 (“and all thy children shall be taught of the Lord”) with a wordplay. In Hebrew, the word for “your children” is banayikh. The word for “your builders” is bonayikh. The two words are written with the same consonants — only the vowels differ. The Sages said: “Do not read banayikh (your children) but bonayikh (your builders).”

What follows is a striking theological claim: the children of the covenant are its builders. To be a child of God is to be a builder of God’s house. The two roles are not sequential; they are the same role. A 12- or 13-year-old Builder of Faith is not waiting to become a builder someday. She is a builder, now, by virtue of being a covenant child of God.

Moreover, this wordplay also illuminates why Isaiah 54 matters so deeply for Latter-day Saint women specifically. The chapter is addressed to a barren woman who is promised she will have more children than she can count. It is the chapter Christ quotes to His sisters in 3 Nephi. It is a chapter about women being promised the work of building up a covenant people. Placing 12-year-old girls in the bonayikh lineage means placing them in Isaiah’s prophecy of Zion’s daughters rebuilding a nation.

The chief cornerstone: what it meant in the ancient world

The phrase “chief corner stone” points back to Psalm 118:22 (“The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner”) and Isaiah 28:16 (“Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”). In the ancient Near East, the cornerstone was the first stone laid at the corner of a structure. Every other stone was measured and aligned to it. If the cornerstone was off by a fraction of a degree, the entire building would be out of true by the time it reached the top. The cornerstone held the two perpendicular walls in right relationship to each other.

Practically speaking, Christ as the cornerstone means: every other stone — every other person in the household of God — takes its orientation from Him. A Builder of Faith is not the architect. Nor is she the cornerstone. Instead, she is a living stone and a hand that lays other stones — always measuring to Christ, always drawing others into alignment with Him.

Worth noting: in some ancient Near Eastern traditions, the foundation deposit — the ritual objects placed beneath the cornerstone — was laid by the queen or by high-status women. The cornerstone marked the beginning of the building’s life, and that beginning was often entrusted to women. Placing the youngest group of Young Women in the foundation-laying role echoes this ancient pattern: the beginning of the structure is given to those just entering their covenant lives.

What the name actually promises her

In addition, the Church’s own description, from the Newsroom release, says Builders of Faith “can help to build God’s kingdom through faith in Christ and uplifting actions.” Notice the two prepositions: through faith and through actions. Faith is not abstract; it is built into the lives of others by what she does. Each act of faithful kindness is a stone laid into the house of God.

✦ ✦ ✦

Messengers of Hope (ages 14–15)

“Willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things.” — Mosiah 18:8–9

The Hebrew and Greek of ‘messenger’

In Hebrew, the word malakh (מַלְאָךְ) means messenger. In Greek, the word angelos (ἄγγελος) also means messenger.

Both words are used for angels throughout scripture. As the Hebrew lexical scholarship notes, in the Hebrew Bible malakh refers to divine messengers in 124 cases and to human messengers in 88 cases — and the text rarely draws a sharp line between them. Scripture treats human messengers and angelic ones as doing essentially the same work.

Malachi’s — whose book closes the Old Testament — very name means “my messenger.” (Malachi 3:1 uses the same word for his name and his calling). John the Baptist is introduced in Luke 1:17 as one who comes “in the spirit and power of Elias” — language Malachi prophesied. In scripture, a malakh often fulfills a prophetic role in miniature.: one sent by God with a message that prepares the way.

Calling a 14-year-old a Messenger of Hope places her within a scriptural continuum that includes Gabriel, John the Baptist, and the prophets.
In other words, this is not decorative language — it is covenantal.

Mourning with those that mourn: the messenger’s actual work

Importantly, notice what kind of messenger the scripture assigns her. Nor is it a proclamation-style messenger — trumpet on a wall, announcing doom or victory. The Mosiah 18 charge is a ministering-style messenger: one who sits beside the grieving, comforts those who need comfort, and stands as witness of God in everyday settings.

In practice, this becomes even clearer: it maps precisely onto an ancient Near Eastern role that women specifically held. In Jeremiah 9:17–20, God commands: “Call for the mourning women, that they may come; and send for cunning women, that they may come … let them take up a wailing for us.” Professional mourning was a women’s office in ancient Israel. Similarly, 2 Samuel 14 describes a “wise woman” sent from Tekoah to speak parabolic truth to the king. These women were not peripheral figures. They were the designated messengers through whom the community carried its grief into ritual form and its truth into the halls of power.

The Messenger of Hope steps into a lineage of ancient women who held the community’s sorrow and spoke its deepest truths. Mosiah 18’s baptismal covenant — to mourn with those who mourn and stand as witness — is the spiritual DNA of that lineage.

Hope as a cord: tikvah and the scarlet thread

In English, “hope” often sounds like wishful thinking. The Hebrew tikvah (תִּקְוָה) means something very different. Its root, qavah, means to bind together, to twist into a cord, to wait with tension. Tikvah literally means a cord or rope — the kind made by twisting many fibers together until they become something strong enough to hold a body’s weight.

The first time the word tikvah appears in the Hebrew Bible, it is not translated “hope” at all. It appears in Joshua 2:18 — Rahab’s scarlet cord. The spies tell her to tie a tikvat shani (cord of scarlet thread) in her window, so that when the city falls, her household will be spared. That rope is her hope. It is the literal object she clings to. It is the sign that ties her fate to the covenant of the God of Israel. Every other time tikvah appears in scripture — Proverbs 23:18, Jeremiah 31:17 — it carries this image: a cord that connects the present to a promised future.

A Messenger of Hope is someone who carries the rope.

She brings the tether that connects someone in darkness to the promise of deliverance.

Taken together, this reframes the name entirely. In other words, she is not merely a girl carrying a sunny thought. She is a girl holding a lifeline. At times, she becomes Rahab tying the cord. Often, her text message, whose presence, whose note, whose sitting-beside becomes the scarlet thread in another person’s window when their city is falling. By extension, she becomes, a participant in the same work the Savior does when He stands at the door and knocks — except she stands at the window and throws the rope down.

The national anthem of modern Israel is called HaTikvah — “The Hope.” For a people who endured exile and the Holocaust to choose “our hope is not yet lost” as their song says something about what biblical hope is: not optimism, but a cord that refuses to break. That is the hope a 14-year-old Messenger is asked to carry.

The ordinance echo: baptismal covenant

Mosiah 18 is the baptismal covenant chapter of the Book of Mormon. Alma is baptizing believers at the waters of Mormon. The verses given to the Messengers of Hope are the words the baptized agreed to live by. This is a deliberate choice. A 14-year-old Young Woman has been baptized for roughly two years at this point. Her age-group name is the living-out of her baptismal covenant. It is the scripture she committed to when she went under the water. Now the Church is calling her by it.

✦ ✦ ✦

Gatherers of Light (ages 16 and older)

“That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” — Doctrine and Covenants 50:24

Gathering: the verb of the Lord Himself

“Gathering” is one of the central verbs of Latter-day Saint theology. The Church’s ninth Article of Faith speaks of “the literal gathering of Israel.” The Savior uses the word of Himself in some of His most tender scriptural moments. In Matthew 23:37 He says: “How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not.” He repeats this to His sisters on the American continent in 3 Nephi 10:4–6.

Significantly, the verb used of the oldest Young Women is the verb the Savior uses of Himself. To be a Gatherer is to participate in the work Christ has claimed as His own. This is not a small naming. It is assigning her the Savior’s own grammar.

In D&C 115:5, the Lord tells the Saints: “Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations.” The imagery of a gathered, shining Zion to which the nations come is also the imagery of Isaiah 60:1–3: “Arise, shine; for thy light is come … and the Gentiles shall come to thy light.” Therefore, the Gatherer of Light is not gathering for herself; she is helping Zion shine so that others can come.

The menorah and the daily tending of light

The temple resonance of this name is deep and specific. In the ancient Israelite tabernacle and temple, the menorah — the seven-branched lampstand described in Exodus 25:31–40 — had to be tended daily. Leviticus 24:1–4 describes the ner tamid (the “continual lamp”) that had to burn “from evening to morning before the Lord.” Priests gathered and kept the light — trimming wicks, replenishing pure olive oil, ensuring the flame never died. The light was never self-sustaining; it required the daily labor of the faithful.

In the same way, a Gatherer of Light steps into a priestly role of tending that light. Combined with the fact that 16 is the age when temple recommend interviews begin and endowment preparation deepens, this is not an accidental echo. It is the same work translated into a new dispensation. She is not tending a brass menorah — she is tending this light of Christ, in her own life and in others’.

And here the parable she has heard all her life comes into new focus. Matthew 25 adds another layer through the parable of the ten virgins who are all waiting for the Bridegroom. Five are wise because they have gathered oil for their lamps. Instead, it is the parable of a 16-year-old’s covenant life. At this stage, she is also being asked to be among the wise — to gather oil now, in daily small acts, so her lamp will burn when the Bridegroom comes. President Emily Belle Freeman’s bestselling book is, in fact, titled The Ten Virgins — another signal that this imagery is deeply in the mind of the presidency that chose these names.

D&C 50:24 and the trajectory of exaltation

The phrase “brighter and brighter until the perfect day” is not incidental language. It is the scriptural formula for the path of eternal progression itself. It appears again in D&C 88:67: “And if your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light … and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things.” This name points beyond youth for a stage of youth. She is named for the trajectory of exaltation itself. Her work at 16 and her work at 86 are the same work — gather more light, receive more light, grow brighter until the perfect day.

The parallel passage in D&C 88:6–13 describes the light of Christ as the light “which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed.” It proceeds from the presence of God and fills the immensity of space. It is everywhere — waiting to be recognized and received. In many ways, she lives in a universe already saturated with the thing she is gathering. Her work is perception and reception as much as seeking.

Charity, deferred and prepared for

At this point, remember the earlier observation: the classical triad is faith, hope, and charity — but the new names give us faith, hope, and light. Church leaders intentionally reserve charity for Relief Society. Why?

Because charity — the pure love of Christ, which Moroni 7 describes and which D&C 18:10 grounds in the infinite worth of souls — is the endowment-level gift. It is what flows from covenant temple worship, not what precedes it. The Gatherer of Light is being prepared for charity. Her light-gathering work becomes charity the moment she is endowed and enters Relief Society as the sisterhood of charity. She is not falling short of charity; she is being readied for it with the exact gift it requires — light enough to see as Christ sees.

Taken together, a Builder lays stones.
Then, a Messenger carries cords.
Finally, a Gatherer tends fire. All three are preparing the temple of her life for the day the Lord fills it with His glory.

Part Two: The Aaronic Priesthood Parallel

Why the parallel matters

The Aaronic Priesthood offices in the Church — described in D&C 20:46–60 and D&C 107:85–89, and elaborated in the General Handbook, chapter 30 — are not primarily titles. They are weekly, visible, repeatable actions that become a young man’s identity over time. A deacon is not a boy who has been given a label; he is the one who passes the sacrament every Sunday. After two years of doing it, that verb is him. The office shapes the soul by repetition.

This is, frankly, something the Young Men’s program has long enjoyed that the Young Women’s program has not. Young women have had lessons about virtue, faith, and service — but not a regular, bodily, visible act that the whole ward could see and that a girl would come to know as her own. The 2019 retirement of the old names left a six-year gap with no age-group names at all. The new names close that gap — and if they are to function like the Aaronic Priesthood offices, they need to be paired with actions, not just identities.

What follows is the parallel architecture. The Young Men’s actions are based on scripture and the General Handbook; the Young Women’s parallels are proposed, rooted in the scriptures already given to each age group, and drawn from the spirit of the names themselves.

The three Aaronic Priesthood offices

Deacons (12–13). Pass the sacrament. Collect fast offerings. Care for the meetinghouse. Assist the bishop. The theme is distribution. They carry the emblems of Christ’s body and blood from the sacrament table out to every person in the room. No one in the congregation is reached without them.

Teachers (14–15). All of the above, plus prepare the sacrament — setting the table, breaking the bread, pouring the water. Home ministering. The theme is preparation and accompaniment. They ready the sacred emblems and they go into homes with a companion.

Priests (16–18). All of the above, plus bless the sacrament, baptize, and ordain others to the Aaronic Priesthood. The theme is consecration and covenant. Their words sanctify the emblems; their hands bring others into covenant.

Notice the progression: carry → prepare → sanctify. Each age builds on the last. Each corresponds to a stage in how the sacrament reaches the congregation.

How the New Young Women Names Parallel the Aaronic Priesthood

Builders of Faith (12–13). The deacon makes sure no one is missed as the emblems pass. At this age, she begins to makes sure no one is without a place to stand. Both are foundational, distributive acts: the deacon distributes the emblems of Christ; the Builder distributes belonging in Christ’s house.

Messengers of Hope (14–15). The teacher prepares what the deacon will distribute, and goes into homes. The Messenger of Hope prepares, too — she prepares comfort — and she also goes. Where the teacher breaks bread at the sacrament table, she breaks bread at kitchen tables where grief sits. The covenant of Mosiah 18 is the ministering covenant made visible.

Gatherers of Light (16+). Priests sanctify emblems and bring others into covenant. The Gatherer of Light cannot perform ordinances, but she does something structurally parallel: she prepares herself and others for the temple, which is the fullness of covenant. At 16, temple recommend interviews change, baptisms for the dead deepen, endowment is on the horizon. Her work is covenant-preparation — her own and others’. And through family history and indexing, she does something priests cannot yet do alone: she gathers the names of the dead for whom ordinances will be performed. She is the scout of the covenant.

For clarity, the parallel at a glance

Age Young Men (Aaronic Priesthood) Young Women (New Age-Group Names)
12–13 DeaconsDistribute the emblems of Christ’s body. Collect fast offerings. Care for the meetinghouse. Builders of FaithDistribute belonging and presence. Build the foundation — no one without a place to stand.
14–15 TeachersPrepare the emblems. Minister in homes. Accompany. Messengers of HopePrepare comfort. Carry the tikvah-cord. Go into lives of the grieving.
16–18 PriestsSanctify the emblems. Baptize. Ordain. Bring others into covenant. Gatherers of LightGather light in self and others. Tend the flame. Prepare self and others for temple covenant.
Arc Carry → Prepare → Sanctify Build → Comfort → Gather

Both young men and young women are doing priestly work in the broadest scriptural sense — one through ordinance, the other through ministry, witness, and covenant-preparation. Both are indispensable to the life of the ward. Neither is complete without the other. This is not a consolation prize for the girls; it is the other half of the covenant community.

Part Three: Weekly, Visible, Repeatable Actions

The deepest parallel between the Young Men’s and Young Women’s programs is this: both roles become identity only through repetition. A deacon becomes who he is by passing the sacrament every Sunday for two years. If the new Young Women names are to function the same way, each age group needs one or two weekly, visible, repeatable actions — not a lesson about building, but actually building, every week.

The actions below are proposals, not a program. Leaders, parents, and the young women themselves should pick one or two per age group and make them consistent. A girl who greets someone new every Sunday for two years will be a Builder of Faith when she graduates to Messenger. The girl who writes a note of comfort every week for two years will be a Messenger of Hope. A girl who names three places she saw light every week for two years will be a Gatherer of Light.

Builders of Faith (12–13) ↔ Deacons

The Young Men theme is to carry Christ’s body to every person.
Meanwhile, the Young Women theme is to build the foundation that holds the community.

Ordinance parallel: the deacon passes bread; she passes presence.

Action ideas

  • The Cornerstone Greeting. Every Sunday, each Builder is assigned one person (rotating) to personally greet and sit near — especially someone new, visiting, struggling, or alone. The deacon’s tray reaches every row; her presence reaches every person. This is her weekly ordinance-parallel.

 

  • Meetinghouse care. She participates in meetinghouse care alongside the deacons — setting up chairs, cleaning classrooms, preparing the foyer. Ephesians 2 is literally about building a house for God. She helps build the literal house, too.

 

  • The foundation note. Each week she writes one short note — to a ministering sister her family watches over, to a Primary child, to a Relief Society sister, to a grandparent. The deacon’s tray reaches every row on Sunday; her notes reach someone every week.

 

  • Pre-class setup. She arrives early and sets up the Young Women room — chairs arranged, lesson materials ready, a welcoming space for whoever walks in. Builders arrive before the building is used.

 

  • Fast offering accompaniment. In wards where fast offerings are still collected in person, she walks with the deacons at an appropriate distance and helps afterward with organizing what was given. The deacon collects what sustains the poor; she witnesses and participates in that sacred accounting.

 

  • Primary partner. Pair each Builder of Faith with a Primary child — she sits with them in Primary once a month, brings them to Young Women for a visit, writes them birthday notes. She is literally building up the next generation beneath her.

 

  • The builder’s journal. She keeps a small, simple journal titled “The House I’m Building” — one sentence each Sunday about one thing she did to build the kingdom. Two years of Sundays is 104 stones.

Spiritual logic: Ephesians 2 is about making the stranger into a household member. Her weekly act is turning strangers into household.

Messengers of Hope (14–15) ↔ Teachers

Young Men theme: prepare the emblems; go into homes.

Young Women theme: prepare comfort; sit with the sorrowing; carry the cord.

Ordinance parallel: the teacher breaks bread at the altar; she breaks bread at kitchen tables where grief sits.

Action ideas

  • They can serve in real ministering partnerships, visiting or contacting specific sisters in the ward alongside an adult Relief Society sister. Like teachers who go into homes, they bring comfort and connection.

  • Also, they can carry the tikvah thread by keeping a list of people facing hardship—illness, loss, stress, or transition—and doing one tangible act each week: sending a text, writing a note, bringing a meal, or simply showing up. In this way, they become a lifeline of hope.

  • Instead of only receiving comfort, they can prepare it. Just as teachers prepare the sacrament, Messengers of Hope can prepare meals or small acts of care for families in need, “breaking bread” in homes where sorrow lives.

  • They can also serve during funerals by setting up, serving meals, greeting family members, or helping with children. These moments make the Mosiah 18 covenant visible.

  • A witness notebook can help them record moments they see God’s hand in someone’s life and then share that witness. This turns ministering into testimony.

  • They may welcome new move-ins with Relief Society sisters, helping others feel at home quickly. They can also minister to a younger Builder of Faith, offering friendship, encouragement, and example.

  • Finally, they can practice a hidden fast once a month for someone they serve—quietly standing as a witness before God.

  • Just as teachers prepare the sacrament so grace can be distributed, Messengers of Hope prepare comfort so burdens can be shared and hope can grow.

Spiritual logic: A teacher prepares the sacrament so grace can be distributed. She prepares the conditions under which grief can be borne.

Gatherers of Light (16+) ↔ Priests

  • The Young Men theme: bless, baptize, bring others into covenant.
  • Young Women theme: seek, gather, and reflect the light; draw strength from sacred covenants; prepare self and others for the temple.

Ordinance parallel: the priest sanctifies the emblems so others can partake. She sanctifies her own life so others can gather light.

Action ideas

  • They can attend the temple regularly with purpose—bringing family names, helping with baptisms for the dead, and inviting younger girls when appropriate. Through family history, indexing, and using FamilySearch, they literally gather scattered souls across generations and help prepare ordinances for the dead.

 

  • Also, they can mentor younger Young Women, offering weekly or bi-weekly encouragement and guidance. In addition, they may lead scripture studies, share devotionals, or teach younger groups, becoming examples through both testimony and action.

 

  • As public witnesses, they can speak in sacrament meeting, bear testimony at youth events, and share their spiritual experiences openly. Each week, they might keep a “light inventory,” writing down moments they saw God’s light in scripture, prayer, or in others, then sharing one of those moments.

  • Preparation for future covenants is also central. They can intentionally study the temple and sacred covenants with a parent or mentor. Likewise, they can prepare for missionary service through language study, service, gospel study, and learning practical discipleship skills.

  • Two symbolic practices can make discipleship tangible. The oil jar—a journal or list of faithful acts—helps them “gather oil” like the wise virgins in Matthew 25. The menorah practice invites one daily habit that tends the flame, such as prayer, scripture study, journaling, or ministering.

Spiritual logic: Priests sanctify the emblems so others can partake. She sanctifies her own life so others can see — and gather — light.

Part Four: Reflection

What’s gained, what’s lost

It is worth naming, honestly, the tradeoffs. The older names — Beehive, Mia Maid, Laurel — had deep personal and heritage meaning for generations of Latter-day Saint women. The beehive especially tied to Deseret, to the pioneer founding story, to a specific Latter-day Saint aesthetic rooted in American-western soil. The new names are more universal but less particular. They will translate better in Tahiti, in Ghana, in Brazil — but they do not evoke the specific soil of the Restoration the way the old ones did. Something real is lost there, and it is appropriate to honor that.

What’s gained is significant. Action-oriented identity (doing rather than being). International translatability (Beehive was a very American symbol; Gatherer is not culturally bound). Scriptural density (each name carries an assigned scripture the old names did not). Clearer progression (each name builds on the last rather than being three parallel metaphors). And — perhaps most importantly — structural alignment with the priesthood, so that young women and young men now share a naming logic: you are what you do, in covenant.

A tension worth sitting with

President Freeman has said that “finding identity is one of the greatest desires of young women of this generation.” The new names answer that by assigning identity through role and action. A thoughtful observer might ask: does identity-by-assignment (“you are a Messenger of Hope because you turned 14”) function the same as identity-by-discovery?

The Latter-day Saint answer, if we take our theology seriously, is: covenantal identity is always received, not self-generated. That’s the whole point. A deacon does not choose to be a deacon; he is called, set apart, and given a work. The work then becomes him. That same structure now applies to the young women. This is not diminishment — it is the same grammar of covenant that scripture has always used.

The absence of charity

The triad stops short of charity. This is deliberate. The Young Women progression is preparatory to the fullness of covenantal womanhood — and charity, as Moroni 7:47 defines it, is the pure love of Christ, the gift bestowed upon “all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ.” Charity is what she graduates into when she enters Relief Society — the sisterhood named for it.

Think of it this way: a Builder lays stones, a Messenger carries cords, a Gatherer tends fire. All three are preparing the temple of her own life for the day the Lord fills it with His glory — for the day she receives her endowment, enters the sisterhood of charity, and the gift of love becomes the air she lives in.

One final thought

Young men have long been allowed to see themselves not as symbols of virtue but as people whose lives have a shape and a job. Deacons pass. Teachers prepare. Priests sanctify. The new Young Women names finally offer the same clarity. Builders build. Messengers carry. Gatherers gather. Both halves of the covenant community are now named for what they do — and both are doing the work of Christ.

Give the young women something to do every week that matches their name,
and the name will become who they are.
$

Part Five: Sources and Scripture Index

Primary Latter-day Saint sources

1. Church Newsroom, “New Young Women Age-Group Names Emphasize Faith, Hope, and Light” (April 20, 2026). Official announcement and FAQ.
2. First Presidency letter, summarized in Church News, “First Presidency announces new names for Young Women groups” (April 20, 2026).
3. Deseret News, “Q&A: New Young Women age-group names” (April 20, 2026). Five key clarifications about how the new names function in wards.
4. Church Historian’s Press, Carry On: The Latter-day Saint Young Women Organization, 1870–2024 (2025). Comprehensive history of the Young Women organization and its previous class names.
5. “As Sisters in Zion,” Hymn 309. The hymn President Emily Belle Freeman identified as the inspiration for the three names during the 2025 For the Strength of Youth conference in Tahiti.
6. General Handbook, Chapter 30: “Aaronic Priesthood” and Chapter 11: “Young Women”.

Scripture index

Primary scriptural anchors

7. Ephesians 2:19–22 — cornerstone, household of God as temple. Builders of Faith.
8. Mosiah 18:8–10 — baptismal covenant, mourning with those that mourn. Messengers of Hope.
9. Doctrine and Covenants 50:24 — light brighter and brighter until the perfect day. Gatherers of Light.

Light and the path of exaltation

10. Doctrine and Covenants 88:6–13 — the light of Christ filling the immensity of space.
11. Doctrine and Covenants 88:67 — the eye single to God’s glory, the body filled with light.
12. Matthew 5:14–16 — ye are the light of the world, a city set on a hill.
13. John 8:12 — “I am the light of the world.”
14. Isaiah 60:1–3 — “Arise, shine; for thy light is come.”
15. Doctrine and Covenants 115:5 — “Arise and shine forth, that thy light may be a standard for the nations.”
16. Matthew 25:1–13 — the ten virgins and the gathered oil.
17. Exodus 25:31–40 — pattern of the menorah in the tabernacle.
18. Leviticus 24:1–4 — the daily tending of the continual lamp.

Gathering and covenant

19. Matthew 23:37 — the Savior’s “how oft would I have gathered.”
20. 3 Nephi 10:4–6 — the same language spoken to the Nephites.
21. Doctrine and Covenants 18:10 — “the worth of souls is great.”
22. Doctrine and Covenants 20:46–60 — duties of the Aaronic Priesthood offices.
23. Doctrine and Covenants 107:85–89 — the offices of deacon, teacher, priest, and bishop.

Cornerstones and foundations

24. Isaiah 28:16 — the tried and precious corner stone.
25. Psalm 118:22 — the stone the builders refused.

Hope as tikvah

26. Joshua 2:18 — Rahab’s scarlet cord (tikvat shani). First biblical appearance of tikvah.
27. Proverbs 23:18 — “thy hope (tikvah) shall not be cut off.”
28. Jeremiah 31:17 — “there is hope (tikvah) in thine end.”
29. Hebrews 11:31 — Rahab’s faith remembered in the New Testament.

Messengers and mourning women

30. Jeremiah 9:17–20 — the cunning (wise) mourning women of Israel.
31. 2 Samuel 14 — the wise woman of Tekoah sent as messenger to the king.
32. Malachi 3:1 — “Behold, I will send my messenger (malakh).”
33. Luke 1:17 — John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elias.

Charity as the Relief Society destination

34. 1 Corinthians 13 — Paul on charity.
35. Moroni 7:45–48 — Mormon on charity, the pure love of Christ.
36. Doctrine and Covenants 25 — revelation to Emma Smith on the role of an elect lady in Zion.
37. Isaiah 54:13 — “All thy children shall be taught of the Lord.”

Secondary and scholarly sources

Rabbinic and ancient Hebrew context

38. Talmud, Berakhot 64a:13–14 (Sefaria). The rabbinic wordplay banayikh / bonayikh — “do not read your children, but your builders.” Source of the builders/children homily.
39. Isaiah 54:13 with Jewish Thought (Sefaria). Jewish interpretive tradition on Isaiah 54:13 and the covenant-builder motif.
40. Joshua 2:18 (Hebrew text with commentaries) (Sefaria). The first biblical appearance of tikvah as scarlet cord.

Hebrew word studies

41. “Tikvah: Cling to Hope — A Hebrew Word Study,” International Christian Embassy Jerusalem. On the Hebrew root qavah (to bind, twist, wait) and tikvah as a woven cord of hope.
42. “Malakh and Angel,” Balashon (Hebrew Language Detective). On the Hebrew malakh (messenger) and its relationship to angelos in Greek. Documents the 124 divine / 88 human messenger split in the Hebrew Bible.
43. “Angels in Judaism,” Wikipedia (well-sourced overview). On mal’akh as the standard Hebrew word for messenger — human or divine.

Temple and menorah background

44. “Menorah (Temple),” Wikipedia. On the daily priestly tending of the temple menorah — wicks, oil, and the ner tamid (continual lamp).

For further reflection

A few threads worth pulling on further, each of which could be the subject of its own study:

  • First, the parallel between the tikvah-cord (a cord that binds to covenant) and the temple garments (a covering that marks covenant). Both are things worn or held that signal belonging.
  • Second, consider the theology of Isaiah 54—the barren woman whose children will be more than the stars — as the matriarchal subtext of the Builders of Faith. She builds because Zion is promised children she cannot yet see.
  • Another question worth exploring is why the Church has moved from identity-as-symbol (Beehive, Laurel) to identity-as-action (Builder, Gatherer) in an era when young women’s identities are most contested in the broader culture.
  • One more thing is the explicit temple resonance — cornerstones, menorahs, covenants — in all three names, read against the age progression of temple recommend interviews from 11 to 16 and beyond.
  • Finally, the structural theology of charity being held back until Relief Society: what does it mean to be in training for love?

May these reflections be useful in helping young women — and all of us — see the depth of what the Lord is doing in calling His daughters Builders. Messengers. Gatherers. May the names become lives. And may the lives become the house, the cord, and the light.

The Truth about Book of Mormon Anachronisms Discussed with John Dehlin

The Truth about Book of Mormon Anachronisms Discussed with John Dehlin

April 2026

“The Biggest Book of Mormon Anachronism” — What’s Accurate, What’s Overstated, and What’s Missing

About This Episode

Dr. John Lundwall presents a sophisticated argument that the Book of Mormon’s highly literate, text-centered religious world is anachronistic for 600 BCE. At first glance, some of his observations carry real scholarly weight. However, several key claims are overstated. The argument selectively presents evidence and ignores crucial counterpoints. As a result, readers are not given the full picture.

This is the most academically sophisticated anti-Mormon argument in our rebuttal series to date. Dr. Lundwall is a credentialed scholar making arguments rooted in real scholarship on orality and literacy. Dismissing his argument is not the right approach. Engaging it honestly and completely means acknowledging what he gets right, correcting what he overstates, and supplying the evidence he omits.

The Core Argument

Lundwall’s central argument is straightforward: ancient societies primarily practiced religion through ritual, oral tradition, agriculture, and cosmology—not through written texts. In contrast, the Book of Mormon repeatedly emphasizes writing, record-keeping, and textual preservation.

According to Lundwall, this “literate worldview”—with over 140 references to records, sermons, and written commandments—reflects Protestant print culture in early 19th-century America, not 600 BCE Jerusalem or ancient Mesoamerica.

What Lundwall Gets Right

Conceded Point

Ancient religion was dominated by ritual, not text — and the Book of Mormon does have a heavily literate worldview

✓ Substantially True — and LDS Scholars Have Said So

Lundwall is correct that ancient Near Eastern religion — including Israelite religion — was primarily oral and ritual-based, not centered on individual scripture-reading. This is not a new critique; LDS scholars have discussed it for decades. The real question is what it means for the Book of Mormon — and the episode never honestly engages the LDS scholarly response.

Notably, the Interpreter Foundation — a peer-reviewed LDS scholarship journal — published a substantial analysis titled “Literacy and Orality in the Book of Mormon” that directly addresses this.

The study directly addresses this issue. It concludes that the text reflects a primarily oral culture with an elite literate class.

This matches what we expect in an ancient Near Eastern setting. Most people in the narrative do not read. Instead, a small priestly and royal class keeps records.

In addition, oral performance patterns appear throughout the text. These include chiasmus, repetition, and phrases like “and it came to pass.”

As a result, record-keeping remains concentrated in a small elite. This pattern aligns with known ancient scribal cultures.

This is exactly what we find in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Israel: writing was the preserve of an elite scribal class serving the temple and state. The Book of Mormon shows Nephi explicitly trained as a scribe before leaving Jerusalem — consistent with this model, not anachronistic to it.

Bottom Line
The orality of ancient religion is real. LDS scholars have acknowledged and studied this for decades. The existence of an elite literate class in the Book of Mormon is consistent with ancient patterns — not evidence of 19th-century projection. This conceded point should be heard carefully, but it does not settle the question.

The Claims — and the Full Picture

Claim 1 of 4

“There’s no way there’s a set of brass plates. Priests in Jerusalem in 600 BCE were doing rain dances — they were not compiling scriptures into books and bound plates”

⚠️ Misleading — Overstates the Archaeological Picture

“There’s no way there’s a set of brass plates. Those temple priests at that time, 600 BCE, are doing rain dances… They’re not compiling their scriptures into books.”
— Dr. John Lundwall, ~00:24:38

Why This Claim Matters

Lundwall argues that writing on metal plates and maintaining scriptural records would have been impossible in 600 BCE Jerusalem. If true, this would directly challenge the Book of Mormon’s historical plausibility.

What the Evidence Actually Shows

Literacy in 600 BCE Jerusalem

However, the archaeological record contradicts this claim.
Ancient Israelites were writing in meaningful ways at the time of Lehi’s departure. A Tel Aviv University study published in PNAS

shows widespread literacy in Judah around 600 BCE.
Researchers analyzed ink inscriptions from the Arad fortress and identified at least six authors.
This suggests a functioning educational system capable of producing complex texts.

In addition, the Lachish Letters—military correspondence from around 590 BCE—show routine written communication.
Likewise, the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls contain the oldest known biblical text.

Writing on Metal Plates

FAIR LDS documents many examples of ancient writing on metal plates across the Mediterranean and Near East. These include the Pyrgi gold tablets, the Darius gold plates, and the Etruscan gold book.
Archaeologists have also found many copper and bronze inscriptions.

In addition, William Hamblin’s peer-reviewed study explores this evidence in detail. Therefore, the claim that brass plates could not exist is not just debatable—it conflicts with known findings.

To be fair, Lundwall raises a valid point. Many examples are ritual, not historical. However, “they don’t exist” and “this exact type doesn’t exist” are different claims. The episode blurs that distinction.

Claim 2 of 4

Monotheism is impossible in the Book of Mormon’s time — ancient peoples were all polytheistic, and you need literacy to develop monotheism

⚖️ Partially True — But the Israelite Case Is More Complex

“The Book of Mormon, everyone’s monotheistic… In the Book of Mormon we should be finding monotheistic iconography in the architecture and archaeology of Meso America or North America. And everywhere we go, we find polytheism.”
— Dr. John Lundwall, ~01:10:56

Lundwall’s Argument About Monotheism

However, Lundwall argues that monotheism requires literacy.
He claims that reducing many gods into one demands abstract thinking shaped by literacy. This is an interesting theoretical framework, but it has a serious problem when applied to the Israelites specifically: it doesn’t fit what we know about Israelite religion.

Historical Context: Israelite Religion in Transition

Lundwall himself acknowledges that early Israelites were “not monotheistic” — they worshipped multiple gods including Asherah. This is true; the Hebrew Bible itself records this. However, prophets like Lehi, Jeremiah, and Isaiah challenged that culture.
They taught explicit monotheism against dominant polytheism.
This tension defines the Deuteronomistic reform period (~630–600 BCE). The narrative framework of the Book of Mormon places Lehi in exactly this prophetic reform context. He is a dissenter from mainstream Israelite polytheism, aligning himself with the prophetic tradition that called Israel back to exclusive Yahweh worship. His departure from Jerusalem just before the Babylonian exile places him squarely within the historical moment when this tension was at its peak.

At the same time, the archaeological evidence Lundwall cites for polytheism in Meso-America is a separate question — the absence of monotheistic archaeology in the Americas is a genuine challenge for Book of Mormon geography models. But his claim that monotheism was simply impossible in 600 BCE Israel is not accurate; prophetic monotheism existed as a minority position alongside widespread popular polytheism, and the Book of Mormon’s narrative is built around exactly that tension.

Bottom Line
Prophetic monotheism existed in Israel in 600 BCE — it was a minority reform movement against popular polytheism, and that is precisely the context from which Lehi comes. The absence of monotheistic archaeology in the Americas is a real challenge for LDS geography models. But Lundwall’s broader claim — that monotheism was impossible in Lehi’s time — misreads the specific historical moment the Book of Mormon is set in.

Claim 3 of 4

“The only archaeological evidence we can find for the Book of Mormon is in the Old World” — and Nahom is not credible evidence

⚠️ Misleading — Dismisses Nahom Without Engaging the Actual Evidence

“The only archaeological evidence we can find for the Book of Mormon is in the Old World amongst the people who are trying to hide. And yet in the new world where there’s millions of people, we can’t find a single thing.”
— John Dehlin, ~02:07:54

What the Nahom Evidence Is

Dehlin makes this comment, not Lundwall — and the episode leaves it unchallenged and uncorrected, so it stands as an implicit claim of the episode. This claim matters because it mischaracterizes the Nahom evidence.

The Nahom discovery does not support the idea that ‘Old World people were trying to hide.”

Archaeologists discovered three altar inscriptions with the name NHM.
A German team—not LDS researchers—found them at the Bar’an Temple in Yemen.
They date to the 7th–6th centuries BCE.

This location matches where the Book of Mormon places Ishmael’s burial.
It also aligns with the point where Lehi’s group turns east.

 These altars were found by independent, non-LDS archaeologists and predate Joseph Smith by 2,400 years. Multiple peer-reviewed LDS studies document the convergence of name, location, date, and direction.

Why the Dismissal Falls Short

However, critics argue that Joseph Smith could have found “Nehhm” on 18th-century maps.
They also suggest the name match may be coincidental. These are legitimate points that researchers continue to debate. But dismissing Nahom as if it has no evidentiary value, or treating it as an embarrassing last resort, misrepresents the actual state of the scholarship. Terryl Givens described the NHM altars as “the first actual archaeological evidence for the historicity of the Book of Mormon” — not because it proves everything, but because the convergence of independent factors is not easily explained by coincidence.

Bottom Line
Nahom/NHM represents genuine, non-trivial archaeological evidence discovered by non-LDS researchers that corresponds to a specific Book of Mormon claim about a specific place, time, and directional turn. Whether it proves the Book of Mormon is a different question — but dismissing it as if it doesn’t exist or has no weight is not intellectually honest.

Claim 4 of 4

The dominoes argument: “If there are no gold plates, there’s no John the Baptist, no Aaronic priesthood, no temple endowment — it all falls”

🔷 Theological Claim — Asserted, Not Demonstrated

“If there’s no Moroni, there’s no John the Baptist. And therefore, there’s no restoration of the Aaronic priesthood. There’s no Peter, James, and John… All the dominoes fall. It all goes back to a literal historical tight translation.”
— John Dehlin, ~00:45:37

Dehlin presents this “dominoes” argument as obvious.
However, it assumes something deeper.
It assumes LDS faith depends entirely on a strict, literal translation model.
It also assumes no other framework exists.

Alternative Faith Models Within LDS Thought

The LDS Church’s Gospel Topics Essay on Book of Mormon Translation explicitly acknowledges that Joseph Smith used a seer stone placed in a hat and that he did not always look at the plates during translation — a disclosure that itself undermines a simple tight-translation model. Many faithful LDS scholars, including those published in the Interpreter Foundation, BYU Studies, and Dialogue, hold nuanced views of the translation process that allow for Joseph’s language, culture, and cognition to have participated in the text.

The “domino” logic also presupposes that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is the only basis for LDS truth claims. But the Church’s theology is grounded in multiple independent lines: the First Vision, the Restoration of priesthood authority, continuing revelation, living prophets, and the personal spiritual witness available to any sincere seeker. Lundwall and Dehlin are entitled to argue that the book’s historicity is foundational. But presenting this as so obvious that it doesn’t require argument — while millions of faithful members hold a more textured view — is not honest intellectual engagement.

Bottom Line
Whether Book of Mormon historicity is the single load-bearing pillar of LDS faith is a theological claim, not an established fact. The Church itself has acknowledged complexity in the translation process. Many faithful scholars and members hold views that don’t reduce to “tight translation or nothing.” The domino argument is rhetorically powerful but intellectually lazy — it presents one particular framing of LDS faith as the only possible framing.

The Honest Summary

Dr. John Lundwall presents a serious and intellectually sophisticated challenge to the Book of Mormon. His emphasis on the oral nature of ancient religion is well-supported, and his observations about literacy deserve careful consideration.

However, when we examine the full body of evidence, a more complex picture emerges.

Here’s what the episode leaves out.
Jerusalem in 600 BCE had documented literacy. It was not limited to temple elites.
Writing on metal plates appears across the ancient world.

In addition, the Nahom/NHM discovery provides real archaeological data.
Non-LDS researchers discovered it.

At the same time, prophetic monotheism already existed in Israel.
It functioned as a minority reform movement.

Finally, the idea that Book of Mormon historicity supports all LDS truth claims is a framework—not a proven fact.

Serious questions about the Book of Mormon deserve serious engagement on both sides. This episode provides one side with sophistication and the other side with nothing. Truth seekers deserve better than that.

Christianity “at its core” Socialism?

Christianity “at its core” Socialism?

April 2026

Is Christianity Socialism? Does the LDS Church Misuse Hundreds of Billions? A Fact-Check of Tucker Carlson’s Easter Podcast

Tucker Carlson and guest Nathan Appfeld raise serious concerns about war, exploitation, and institutional corruption —many of them thoughtful and worth engaging. However, two specific claims in the episode contain significant factual and theological errors: first, that Christianity is socialism at its core, and second, that the LDS Church’s finances are as described.

In what follows, we examine both claims carefully and compare them against verifiable evidence and established theology.

 

About This Episode

In this Easter Sunday episode, Tucker Carlson delivers an extended commentary criticizing President Trump’s social media post about Iranian civilian infrastructure. He then interviews Nathan Appfeld, a documentary filmmaker focused on corruption in religious institutions.

Overall, the conversation offers a serious and often scripturally grounded critique of prosperity gospel leaders and the influence of money in modern Christianity. In that sense, much of the discussion carries real substance.

However, two claims in particular require closer examination. Specifically, Appfeld argues that Christianity is “socialism at its core,” and he presents several assertions about the LDS Church’s wealth and financial behavior.

These points are not minor—they shape how viewers interpret both Christianity and one of the world’s largest religious institutions. Therefore, they deserve careful fact-checking.

The Two Specific Claims We Are Addressing

This rebuttal does not address the episode’s commentary on Trump, Iran, or Paula White. We focus on: (1) Nathan Appfeld’s assertion that “Christianity is socialism at its core” based on Acts 2, and (2) a cluster of claims about the LDS Church — its alleged $350 billion in assets, its defense investments, its COVID vaccine response, and its use of the Joseph-and-Egypt narrative to justify indefinite stockpiling.

Context matters: Unlike most episodes in this series, this is not a podcast hostile to religion. Carlson and Appfeld are sincere Christians. The errors here come from genuine theological imprecision and factual inaccuracy — not anti-religious animus. The goal is to correct specific claims, not to dismiss the episode’s broader concerns, many of which are legitimate.

Before diving into the details, it’s important to clarify scope. This analysis does not address the episode’s political commentary or its critique of individual religious figures. Instead, it focuses strictly on two verifiable areas: theology and financial claims.

Claim 1 — Christianity and Socialism

Claim 1 of 4

“Christianity is socialism at its core” — the early church in Acts proves it

To begin with, Appfeld’s broader concern—that Christianity calls believers to radical generosity and care for the poor—is both valid and deeply rooted in scripture. However, his conclusion that Christianity is “socialism at its core” does not follow from the biblical text.

“Capitalism should not be anywhere near Christianity. Christianity is — I don’t like the word socialist with the weight it carries — but Christianity is socialism at its core, non-authoritarian… you look at that early church of Acts and it transformed Rome.”
— Nathan Appfeld, Tucker Carlson Network, ~01:52:19

What Acts 2 Actually Describes

Appfeld’s broader concern — that institutional Christianity has been corrupted by capitalist greed, and that Christians are called to radical care for the poor — is well-taken and scripturally grounded. But his specific claim that Christianity is “socialism at its core,” derived from Acts 2, is a well-documented misreading that scholars across the theological spectrum have rejected.

While Acts 2:44–45 and Acts 4:32–35 do describe believers sharing possessions, the details matter. The Greek verb tenses indicate repeated, voluntary actions over time—not a single, enforced redistribution. In fact, many translations reflect this nuance with phrases like “from time to time.”

Private Property in the Early Church

More importantly, Acts 5:4 explicitly affirms private property. Peter tells Ananias that both the land and its proceeds were fully under his control. This directly contradicts the idea of mandatory economic collectivism.

Therefore, the passage describes voluntary generosity—not a political or economic system. Unlike socialism, there is no state authority, no coercion, and no abolition of ownership.

Socialism as a political-economic system requires state coercion and the abolition of private property. Acts describes neither. What Acts describes is extraordinary, voluntary generosity — which is a more demanding standard than any political system, and an entirely different thing.

How LDS Doctrine Clarifies the Issue

The LDS theological tradition actually provides the most precise framework for this question. The Law of Consecration — revealed through Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants 42 — explicitly preserved private property through the stewardship system. Members consecrated their property, received it back by deed as a personal stewardship, and contributed surplus voluntarily. LDS Church leaders drew a sharp line: in 1942 they stated that “communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order.” Joseph Smith himself, after attending a socialist presentation in Nauvoo in 1843, declared he “did not believe the doctrine.”

Direct Answer
No — Christianity is not socialism. Acts 2 describes voluntary, periodic, need-based generosity with private property rights intact throughout. Socialism requires state coercion and abolition of private property; neither appears in Acts. LDS doctrine is explicit: the Law of Consecration preserved private property through stewardship, and Joseph Smith personally rejected socialism.

Claims 2–4 — The LDS Church and Ensign Peak

Claim 2 of 4

The LDS Church is “sitting at $350 billion in net assets” and will “hit a trillion in 15 years”

✗ Factually Inaccurate — Number Is Significantly Overstated

“The LDS, the Mormon church, they’re sitting at like 350 billion in net assets… They’ll hit a trillion dollars in market assets if they keep their profit margin in the next 15 years.”
— Nathan Appfeld, ~01:18:54

Turning to the financial claims, the assertion that the LDS Church holds $350 billion in net assets is not supported by verified data. While widely circulated online, this number does not come from official disclosures or audited reports.

What Can Actually Be Verified

Ensign Peak Advisors’ publicly disclosed stock portfolio — the portion required by SEC reporting — stood at approximately $56.8 billion as of late 2024, according to Salt Lake Tribune reporting on SEC filings. The broader Widow’s Mite analysis, which includes estimated non-public assets, puts total Church wealth at approximately $265 billion. Even accepting that higher informal estimate, $350 billion is an overstatement. The trillion-dollar projection is speculative extrapolation, not verified data.

The SEC Filing and What It Means

The Church does hold significant financial reserves, and that is a legitimate subject for public discussion. The SEC matter — in which the Church and Ensign Peak were fined $5 million for filing investments through 13 shell LLCs rather than a single consolidated form — was a real regulatory violation, appropriately penalized, and the Church has since filed consolidated reports. But presenting an unverified $350 billion figure as established fact, when the SEC-disclosed portfolio is less than a sixth of that, misrepresents the situation.

Direct Answer
No — the LDS Church does not have $350 billion in assets. Ensign Peak’s verified SEC-disclosed stock portfolio is approximately $57 billion. Independent estimates of total Church wealth (including non-public assets) reach approximately $265 billion — not $350 billion. The trillion-dollar figure is speculation.

Claim 3 of 4

The LDS Church “profits from war” — and its COVID vaccine recommendation was financially motivated by Pfizer and Moderna investments

Next, the discussion shifts from total wealth to how those funds are invested.

⚖️ Partially Accurate on Investments — Misleading on Intent and the Vaccine Claim

“They’re heavily invested in machinery of war… The LDS actually profits from war… they are heavily invested in Pfizer and Moderna and all the vaccine companies… and the prophet got a shot live on camera.”
— Nathan Appfeld, ~01:24:30

Defense Investments in Context

It is accurate that Ensign Peak holds shares in defense contractors such as Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, and General Dynamics. However, context is critical. These holdings largely reflect a broad, index-based investment strategy that mirrors the S&P 500.

In other words, these positions are not unique to the Church—they are common across universities, pension funds, and nonprofit endowments.

Consequently, the claim that the Church “profits from war” overstates intentionality. A diversified portfolio is not the same as a targeted investment strategy

The Vaccine Claim and Causation Error

On the COVID vaccine claim — what’s false reasoning: The implication that the Church recommended COVID-19 vaccination because it was invested in Pfizer and Moderna is conspiracy-level reasoning that mistakes coincidence for causation. The Church encouraged vaccination for the same stated reason as most major global health institutions: to protect member health during a pandemic. Holding index fund shares that include pharmaceutical companies does not constitute a financial motive for health policy, any more than holding S&P 500 shares in a grocery chain creates a financial motive to recommend eating food.

Direct Answer
Ensign Peak’s defense contractor holdings are real and verified — a legitimate question for members. But the phrase “profits from war” overstates intent; the investments mirror the S&P 500 index as standard institutional practice. The vaccine-motivation claim conflates owning index shares with institutional policy intent — that’s not how causation works.

Claim 4 of 4

The Church uses the Joseph-and-Egypt story to justify indefinite stockpiling — and “God isn’t there”

Finally, Appfeld raises a more substantive concern: why the LDS Church continues to accumulate large reserves while still requesting tithing from members.

“Joseph only stockpiled for seven years… The Mormon church has stockpiled indefinitely… they would never have to ask a dollar from any congregant again, but they still ask you for your money… I don’t see where God fits into that. He’s not there, bro.”
— Nathan Appfeld, ~01:19:28

The Core Question: Why So Much Reserve?

This is the most substantive LDS-related claim in the episode and deserves the most careful response. Appfeld raises a real tension that faithful members should be able to engage honestly: the Church holds enormous reserves relative to its annual operating needs. That is not in dispute, and the question of proportionality is legitimate.

The Church’s Stated Use of Funds

What the Church actually says about its reserves: The Church has been explicit about the purpose of its financial reserves — to fund an unprecedented pace of temple construction (over 360 temples in operation, under construction, or announced), to sustain a global missionary force of over 90,000 full-time missionaries, to fund BYU and other educational institutions, and to support global humanitarian programs that have provided over $1 billion annually in recent years. The Church also teaches members these same financial principles — avoid debt, save for the future, prepare against uncertainty — and treats its reserves as an institutional application of them.

On the Joseph-and-Egypt comparison: The Church’s stated rationale is financial capability during periods of economic disruption, grounded in D&C 104 and the principle of self-sufficiency. Whether current reserves are proportionate to that purpose is a fair question. But characterizing it as straightforward greed misses the theological framework and ignores documented humanitarian spending.

Why Tithing Still Exists

On why tithing is still asked: The LDS Church teaches that tithing is a commandment — a covenant rooted in Malachi 3 and D&C 119 — that members keep as an act of faith regardless of the Church’s institutional financial position. The spiritual purpose of tithing is not primarily fundraising. It is developing in the individual the disposition to consecrate their life to God. The Church could theoretically operate without member tithing from investment returns. But the command to tithe is not an institutional fundraising mechanism — it is a covenant between the individual and God.

Direct Answer
The reserve-level question is legitimate. But the Church has explicitly stated its reserves fund 360+ temples, 90,000+ missionaries, universities, and $1B+/year in humanitarian aid — not indefinite self-enrichment. Tithing remains a covenant command for individual spiritual reasons, independent of the Church’s financial position.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Christianity socialism?

No. The New Testament describes voluntary generosity, not a state-enforced economic system.

Does the LDS Church have $350 billion?

No. Verified public filings show about $57 billion in stocks, with higher estimates remaining unconfirmed.

Does the LDS Church invest in defense companies?

Yes, but primarily through index-based investing common to large institutions.

Was the COVID vaccine recommendation financially motivated?

No evidence supports that claim; it reflects standard public health guidance.

Why does the LDS Church still ask for tithing if it has billions in reserves?

The LDS Church teaches that tithing is a divine commandment — a covenant rooted in Malachi 3 and Doctrine and Covenants 119 — whose primary purpose is spiritual, not institutional fundraising. It develops in members the disposition to consecrate their lives to God. Paying tithing is an act of faith and obedience to God’s law that is independent of the Church’s institutional financial position. The Church’s reserves are designated for specific purposes: 360+ temples, 90,000+ missionaries, universities, and over $1 billion annually in humanitarian aid.

Does the LDS Law of Consecration support socialism?

No. The LDS Law of Consecration explicitly preserved private property through the stewardship system. Members voluntarily consecrated property, received it back by personal deed as a stewardship, and contributed surplus to the bishop’s storehouse. The LDS Church made a formal statement in 1942 that “communism and all other similar isms bear no relationship whatever to the United Order.” Joseph Smith himself, after attending a socialist presentation in Nauvoo in 1843, stated that he “did not believe the doctrine.”

The Honest Summary

In summary, Tucker Carlson’s Easter episode raises important and often valid concerns about corruption, accountability, and the influence of money in religion. Those critiques should not be dismissed.

At the same time, accuracy matters. The claim that Christianity is fundamentally socialist misinterprets key biblical passages, while several financial assertions about the LDS Church rely on overstated or speculative figures.

Ultimately, serious discussions about religion—especially at this scale—require both moral clarity and factual precision. Without both, even well-intentioned critiques risk misleading the very audiences they aim to inform.

Content is for educational purposes. We cite our sources and welcome correction.