Select Page
Pros and Cons of LDS Church Mandated Abuse Reporting

Pros and Cons of LDS Church Mandated Abuse Reporting

by | Dec 23, 2025 | Doctrines Policy Practice, Uncategorized

A Comparative Legal, Theological, Empirical, and International Analysis for an Interfaith Audience

Prepared for publication on mormontruth.org. This white paper is informational and does not constitute legal advice.

Abstract

This white paper offers an exhaustive, well-sourced examination of whether and how mandatory child‑abuse reporting should apply to local leaders in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter‑day Saints (LDS). We evaluate arguments on both sides using evidence from United States case law and statutes, public‑health and social‑work research, theological frameworks across traditions (Latter‑day Saint, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim), comparisons to health‑care and elder‑care industries, and current developments in common‑law jurisdictions abroad (notably Australia and the UK). We use the Arizona “Adams” case—in which an LDS bishop did not report an abuser—as a central case study for why mandated reporting can be valuable, while also integrating research (including Public Square Magazine’s critique) that cautions about system overload, false positives, and chilling effects on help‑seeking.1Table of Contents

Executive Summary

  • Mandated reporting can save children by triggering faster investigations and stopping ongoing abuse. The Arizona case illustrates risks when clergy do not report.2
  • But expanded mandates can also harm when overbroad: research shows universal mandates increase unsubstantiated reports and burden systems without improving substantiated safety outcomes; they can deter victims and families from seeking help.178
  • U.S. statutes vary widely. Some states require clergy to report with no privilege exceptions (e.g., New Hampshire, West Virginia). Others mandate reporting but preserve a clergy‑penitent privilege for confessions. Litigation is active (e.g., Washington State 2025 injunction protecting the Catholic seal of confession).91011
  • LDS theology has no sacramental confession analogous to Catholic practice, but communications in pastoral counseling are often covered by clergy‑penitent privilege under state evidence law. Church materials emphasize a victim‑first, safety‑first approach and compliance with law.1213
  • Internationally, several Australian jurisdictions require clergy to report even confessional disclosures; the UK is rolling out a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse; France has debated confession‑seal limits after abuse inquiries.141516
  • Recommendation in brief: Adopt a global, church‑level policy that (1) treats immediate victim safety as paramount; (2) requires reporting where civil law mandates it; (3) empowers leaders to encourage and assist reporting even when not mandated; (4) separates pastoral care from investigations; (5) standardizes training; and (6) respects lawful confidentiality regimes (e.g., the Catholic seal for interfaith contexts) while maximizing safety planning and support.

Definitions & Scope

  • Mandated reporting: Statutory duty to report suspected child abuse/neglect to civil authorities. Scope varies by jurisdiction (who must report, when, what counts as “reasonable suspicion”). See U.S. summaries by the Child Welfare Information Gateway.17
  • Clergy‑penitent privilege: Evidence‑law protection for confidential spiritual communications; scope and exceptions vary by state and country.10
  • LDS leadership in scope: Bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, Relief Society/Elders Quorum presidencies, youth leaders, and other calling‑holders who may receive abuse disclosures during ecclesiastical duties.

Case Study: The Arizona Bishop Non‑Reporting Case

In Arizona, a Latter‑day Saint bishop consulted the Church’s helpline after a member confessed to sexually abusing his children. Relying on Arizona’s clergy‑penitent provisions, the bishop did not report. Subsequent investigations revealed years of continued abuse, sparking litigation and national scrutiny.2 In 2023, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed that clergy could invoke privilege under state law in civil discovery,3 while later appellate proceedings questioned the scope of any duty to report and allowed claims to proceed.4

Why this case is often cited for mandated reporting: It exemplifies how privilege combined with permissive reporting (or institutional caution) can leave children at risk if disclosure isn’t promptly relayed to civil authorities. Survivors and advocates point to this outcome to argue for clearer reporting duties on clergy.

Theological Frames: LDS & Interfaith Contexts

LDS Perspective

The LDS Church condemns abuse categorically and emphasizes immediate victim protection, compliance with civil law, and assistance for survivors. Official materials and handbook guidance underscore that abuse “cannot be tolerated in any form” and that the Church’s first responsibility is to help victims and protect the vulnerable.121819 Local leaders are counseled to follow the law and may consult the Church helpline to navigate complex statutory duties.20

Catholic & Orthodox Perspectives

In Catholic theology, the seal of confession is “inviolable” (Canon 983–984), and priests are excommunicated for directly violating it.2122 This creates intense legal‑theological conflict where statutes compel disclosure of confessional admissions. Recent U.S. litigation in Washington protected the confessional seal (preliminary injunction), even as priests remain mandated reporters outside confession.11

Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and other traditions

Most non‑sacramental traditions still rely on pastoral confidentiality. U.S. evidence rules in many states extend privilege to clergy across faiths for confidential spiritual counseling—though mandated reporting statutes may narrow that privilege in child‑protection contexts.10

U.S. Law & Policy Landscape for Clergy Reporting

States take markedly different approaches. The Child Welfare Information Gateway summarizes these patterns and notes frequent statutory amendments.1017

Approach Illustrative Jurisdictions Notes
Clergy are mandated reporters; confession not exempt New Hampshire; West Virginia Statutes deny clergy‑penitent privilege in child‑abuse contexts; duty applies even to pastoral/confessional settings.2324
Clergy mandated; confessional exception preserved Many states (e.g., California retains a penitential‑communication exception) Mandate exists but does not require breaching sacramental confession; other disclosures must be reported.2526
Recent constitutional litigation on confession Washington (2025) Federal court enjoined application of a new law to confessional disclosures; court highlighted inconsistent treatment vs. attorney privilege in parallel statute.11
Clergy not mandated reporters Small number of jurisdictions Some provide immunity if clergy choose to report; consult current state summaries.10

Other notable litigation includes a 2020 Montana Supreme Court case involving Jehovah’s Witnesses, which applied a statutory clergy exception to reverse a civil verdict for failure to report.27

What the Evidence Says

Do broader mandates improve child safety?

Peer‑reviewed studies find that universal mandated reporting (UMR) produces more reports—but not more substantiated cases; in some analyses, the proportion of unconfirmed reports increases and non‑professional reporters dominate, straining limited capacity.7828 Casey Family Programs’ evidence syntheses reach similar conclusions.29

System effects and family impacts

Investigative journalism and policy analyses (e.g., ProPublica/NBC’s Pennsylvania deep dive) show surges in hotline calls after legal expansions, with many allegations unsubstantiated, contributing to caseload saturation and delayed responses for the most endangered children.6 Meta‑synthesis research documents that caregivers and even child survivors may avoid services or fear disclosure because of mandatory reporting, undermining help‑seeking and therapeutic alliance.30

COVID‑period “natural experiment”

During early 2020, contact with mandated reporters (e.g., teachers) dropped markedly; some studies observed fewer reports but a higher proportion substantiated—consistent with a signal‑to‑noise problem in high‑volume regimes.31

Bottom line

Expanding mandate breadth alone is not a panacea. Targeted, trained reporting coupled with robust services and safety planning performs better than flooding hotlines with low‑quality reports. This aligns with the critique summarized by Mical Raz, MD, PhD: “increase supporting, not just reporting.”1

Comparators: Health Care, Hospitals & Nursing Homes

In U.S. health care, clinicians are widely mandated reporters for child abuse. HIPAA expressly permits required disclosures for child‑abuse reporting; thus privacy rules do not block compliance with state reporting statutes.3233 In elder care, the Elder Justice Act requires reporting of reasonable suspicion of crimes in federally funded long‑term‑care facilities within strict timelines, with penalties for failure to report.3435

Relevance for churches: These sectors show how confidentiality and duty‑to‑report can coexist where (a) roles are clear, (b) training is standardized, (c) timeframes are explicit, and (d) good‑faith reporters receive immunity. For ecclesiastical settings, analogous training and clear thresholds can improve reporting quality without obliterating legitimate confidentiality space (e.g., legally protected confession).

International Perspectives

Australia

Following the national Royal Commission, multiple jurisdictions imposed duties that encompass clergy; Queensland’s 2020 reforms criminalize failure to report or protect, removing reliance on the confessional seal for child‑sexual‑abuse matters.143637 Other states (e.g., Victoria, ACT) moved in similar directions;38 New South Wales created a criminal adult duty to report child‑abuse offenses (s.316A), while debates continue regarding confession‑specific carveouts.3940

United Kingdom

The UK (England) is introducing a mandatory reporting duty for child sexual abuse, following consultation and government response in 2024–2025; implementation details continue to evolve across services and faith settings.154142

France

After a landmark abuse inquiry, French debates have focused on whether civil law should override the confessional seal; government officials have pressed priests to report abuse notwithstanding sacramental claims, while bishops’ conferences have issued guidance to strengthen safeguarding.1643

Pros and Cons of Mandated Reporting for LDS Leaders

Strong Arguments for Mandated Reporting

  • Immediate safety and timely intervention. Mandates can trigger faster law‑enforcement and child‑protection responses, stopping ongoing abuse—as the Arizona case tragically illustrates when reporting does not occur.2
  • Clarity and accountability. Clear legal duties reduce hesitation by lay clergy unfamiliar with complex statutes. Good‑faith immunity laws protect reporters, and standardized training improves threshold judgments.10
  • Consistency with other protective sectors. Health‑care and elder‑care frameworks show that privacy and reporting can coexist when systems are designed well (HIPAA allows these disclosures; elder‑care mandates exist).3234
  • Deterrence and culture change. Public knowledge that disclosures of active abuse will be reported may deter offenders and can shift organizational norms toward survivor‑first practices.

Strong Arguments against Broad or Absolute Mandates

  • Empirical concerns. Research shows universal mandates increase low‑quality reports without improving substantiation or safety, potentially reducing protection for the most at‑risk children by diverting resources.729
  • Chilling effects on help‑seeking. Survivors, non‑offending caregivers, and even potential offenders may avoid clergy, therapists, and clinicians if they fear automatic reporting, undermining early intervention and pastoral care.301
  • Interfaith and constitutional conflicts. In traditions with sacramental confession, compelled disclosure can violate religious exercise; federal courts have enjoined such laws (Washington 2025), especially where comparable privileges (e.g., attorney‑client) remain intact.11
  • Jurisdictional variability and legal exposure. LDS is global; bishops face a patchwork of rules. A one‑size policy risks conflicts with local statutes; careful harmonization is necessary.10

Objective Policy Recommendations for the LDS Church

  1. Victim Safety as the Prime Directive. Make explicit: if anyone is in imminent danger, leaders must act immediately to secure safety (call 911/emergency services) regardless of privilege questions.
  2. Always Obey Applicable Law. Where civil law mandates reporting (e.g., NH, WV; many international jurisdictions), the Church’s policy should require clergy to report in compliance with statute and within prescribed timeframes.232414
  3. When not mandated, maximize assisted reporting. Encourage and assist victims or guardians in making the report; with their consent, accompany them. Document safety planning and referrals (medical, therapeutic, legal advocacy).
  4. Maintain a robust, jurisdiction‑aware helpline. Staffed by attorneys and licensed clinicians able to (a) map local law, (b) help leaders gauge “reasonable suspicion,” and (c) craft safety plans that do not impede civil investigations.20
  5. Clear separation of roles. Ecclesiastical interviews for spiritual care should not attempt to investigate. Avoid questions that could contaminate evidence; refer to professionals promptly.12
  6. Training & certification. Require initial and periodic training for all leaders and youth‑facing callings on (a) recognizing abuse, (b) jurisdiction‑specific reporting, (c) trauma‑informed care, and (d) documentation.18
  7. Communication & transparency. Post ward/stake‑level guidance on how members can report abuse externally and within the Church; include QR codes to state hotlines and to Church resources for victims.12
  8. Interfaith sensitivity. In ecumenical ministries (e.g., community coalitions) or in countries with confession‑seal laws, coordinate policies to respect protected religious rites while still prioritizing safety planning and lawful reporting outside sacramental contexts.2111
  9. Data, audits, and continuous improvement. Track de‑identified metrics (time to report when mandated, referral types, training completion) and audit annually to improve practice and reduce harm.

Model Policy Language

Mostly adapted in current Church policy:

1. Immediate Safety. When abuse is suspected or disclosed and any person is at imminent risk, leaders must contact emergency services immediately.

2. Compliance with Law. Leaders shall comply with all applicable civil child‑protection reporting laws. Where the law requires clergy reporting, leaders shall report within the statutory timeframe. Where the law prohibits disclosure of certain privileged communications, leaders shall respect such prohibitions while pursuing lawful safety planning.

3. Assisted Reporting. Absent legal barriers, leaders will encourage and assist victims, guardians, or witnesses to report to authorities and will facilitate access to medical and therapeutic services.

4. Pastoral Care vs. Investigation. Leaders provide spiritual care. They will not conduct civil or criminal investigations and will avoid questioning that could compromise evidence.

5. Consultation. Leaders shall contact the Church’s helpline to obtain jurisdiction‑specific legal and clinical guidance and to develop a trauma‑informed safety plan.

6. Documentation. Leaders will make a contemporaneous pastoral note of the date/time of disclosure, actions taken to ensure safety, whether a report was made (and by whom), and referrals provided—stored consistent with Church record policies and applicable law.

7. Training. All leaders and youth‑facing callings must complete initial and triennial training on abuse prevention, recognition, legal duties, and trauma‑informed response.

8. Communication. Units will publicly post and routinely circulate information on how to report abuse to civil authorities and within the Church, including links to local hotlines and Church victim‑assistance resources.

Implementation Checklist for Stakes & Wards

  • Designate a stake safeguarding specialist to track local law changes and coordinate training.
  • Maintain a one‑page local reporting “cheat sheet” with hotlines, timelines (e.g., “within 24 hours”), and immunity provisions.
  • Run simulated reporting scenarios annually for bishoprics and youth leaders.
  • Establish referral partnerships with licensed therapists and child‑advocacy centers.
  • Ensure two‑adult policies and visibility practices for youth activities are enforced.

References

  1. Mical Raz, “Mandatory Reporting Isn’t the Solution,” Public Square Magazine, Sept. 19, 2022.
  2. Associated Press coverage of the Arizona LDS case (e.g., “Utah rep. told Mormon bishop not to report abuse, docs show,” Sept. 10, 2022).
  3. “Arizona court upholds clergy privilege in child abuse case,” Associated Press, Apr. 11, 2023.
  4. “Lawsuit against Mormon church moves forward…,” Axios (Salt Lake City), July 31, 2025.
  5. LDS Church Newsroom, “Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse,” Aug. 5, 2022.
  6. ProPublica/NBC News, “Mandatory Reporting Was Supposed to Stop Severe Child Abuse. It Punishes Poor Families Instead.,” Oct. 12, 2022.
  7. Grace W. K. Ho, et al., “Universal Mandatory Reporting Policies and the Odds of Identifying Child Physical Abuse,” American Journal of Public Health 107(5), 2017.
  8. Nadon, Park, Lee & Wright (summary), Casey Family Programs, “How do case outcomes differ based on child maltreatment referral source?,” Nov. 29, 2023; and Casey Family Programs brief on UMR efficacy, “Are Universal Mandatory Reporting policies effective…,” Sept. 2020.
  9. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 169‑C:29 & § 169‑C:32 (clergy privilege not a ground to fail to report).
  10. Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Clergy as Mandatory Reporters of Child Abuse and Neglect,” State Statutes Series, 2023–2025 updates (see also PDF).
  11. Jerry Cornfield, “Judge blocks WA requirement for priests to report child abuse disclosed in confession,” Washington State Standard, July 18, 2025.
  12. “Protecting Members and Reporting Abuse,” ChurchofJesusChrist.org (manual resource); see also “Protecting Children and Youth.”
  13. Church Newsroom (global/local), e.g., “How the Church Approaches Abuse” and “Protecting the Children.”
  14. Queensland: “New laws in Queensland mean priests no longer protected by seal of confession,” Sept. 9, 2020; see also QLD government pages (“Failing to report sexual offences against children,” updated Feb. 25, 2025) and the Act text (2020 Act No. 32).
  15. UK Home Office, “Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse: consultation,” May 9, 2024; Government response & impact assessment: response, and Impact Assessment (June 23, 2025).
  16. France: e.g., Reuters, “France’s top bishop acknowledges that law takes precedence over confession,” Oct. 12, 2021; Catholic News Service via Catholic Philly, “Seal of confession a topic of debate…,” Oct. 15, 2021.
  17. Child Welfare Information Gateway, “Mandated Reporting,” general overview.
  18. “Preventing and Responding to Abuse,” Church Newsroom (PDF), policy/pastoral guidance.
  19. Gospel Topics: Abuse, ChurchofJesusChrist.org.
  20. LDS helpline statement and guidance: “Church Offers Statement on Help Line and Abuse,” Aug. 5, 2022.
  21. USCCB, “Religious Liberty Backgrounder: The Seal of Confession,” Feb. 6, 2023; Vatican Code of Canon Law (Can. 983–984).
  22. Canon law references and commentary: e.g., Canon 983; Canon Law Made Easy (2024).
  23. Victim Rights Law Center: New Hampshire Clergy FAQs (clergy privilege does not excuse failing to report).
  24. W. Va. Code § 49‑2‑803 (mandated reporters include clergy; see Child Welfare Gateway state page).
  25. California: Clergy as mandatory reporters (state summary); attempted 2019 SB 360 to narrow confession exception: CA Senate analysis (analysis), LA Times coverage, bill tracking (TrackBill).
  26. Victim Rights Law Center: California Clergy FAQs.
  27. Núñez v. Watchtower, 2020 MT 3 (reversing failure‑to‑report verdict based on clergy exception); see AP recap here.
  28. Recent policy study: Are Mandated Reporting Policies Contributing to… (2025) (no link found between mandates and substantiation odds).
  29. Casey Family Programs policy impacts brief, “Do state child welfare policies impact…,” Aug. 11, 2021 (adding mandatory reporters increased reports without changing substantiations).
  30. McTavish et al., “Children’s and caregivers’ perspectives about mandatory reporting,” Child Abuse & Neglect (2019) (meta‑synthesis on fear/avoidance).
  31. Shusterman et al., “Child maltreatment reporting during the initial weeks of COVID‑19,” Child Abuse & Neglect (2022) (screen‑in dropped; substantiation share rose).
  32. HHS HIPAA, FAQs: “Does HIPAA preempt state child‑abuse reporting?” (No; HIPAA permits such disclosures).
  33. HHS, “Summary of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.”
  34. 42 U.S.C. § 1320b‑25, “Reporting to law enforcement of crimes in long‑term care facilities”; CMS memo, “Reporting reasonable suspicion of a crime.”
  35. LTCCC brief, “Requirements for Reporting Suspicion of a Crime.”
  36. ABC (Australia), “Queensland law to jail priests for not reporting abuse revealed in confession,” Sept. 8, 2020.
  37. Queensland govt explainer: “Laws targeting sexual offences against children,” updated Feb. 25, 2025.
  38. Catholic News Agency, “New Australian law requires priests to break confessional seal (Victoria),” Sept. 12, 2019.
  39. NSW Crimes Act 1900 s.316A, “Concealing child abuse offence”; NSW Health guidance “New child abuse related offences—failure to report.”
  40. ABC (Australia), “NSW won’t force priests to break seal of confessional, but…,” June 22, 2018.
Note on scope: Statutes and case law change frequently. The links above provide authoritative summaries and primary materials current as of October 6, 2025. Always consult local counsel for jurisdiction‑specific obligations.© 2025 — Prepared for mormontruth.org. Licensed for online publication with attribution.
Origin Claims of Mormon Temple Ceremony

Origin Claims of Mormon Temple Ceremony

by | Aug 9, 2025 | Doctrines Policy Practice

Ancient Temple Traditions and the Latter-day Saint Temple Ceremony

Abstract: This paper explores the origins, structure, and theological claims of the Latter-day Saint (LDS) temple ceremony, particularly the Endowment, in comparison with ancient Israelite and early Christian temple traditions. It incorporates scholarship from both LDS and non-LDS sources, including the work of Margaret Barker, and evaluates common critiques against the LDS temple experience from a doctrinal, historical, and psychological perspective. The paper ultimately argues for a pattern of restoration that connects modern LDS temple worship with ancient sacred traditions and practices.

Introduction

The temple holds a central place in Latter-day Saint theology and worship. Yet for many modern Christians—and especially former members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—the temple ceremony can seem unfamiliar, unnecessary, or even troubling. This study aims to evaluate whether the LDS temple ceremony is grounded in historical religious practices and if it is, as Latter-day Saints claim, a restoration of ancient ordinances and symbols.

1. Ancient Israelite Temple Worship

Temple rituals in ancient Israel involved washings, anointings, sacred clothing, covenants, and access restrictions to sacred spaces. The High Priest entered the Holy of Holies once a year, wearing white linen and performing sacrificial atonement (see Leviticus 16). These forms find reflection in the LDS temple, especially in the Initiatory and Endowment rituals.

Scriptural references: Exodus 28–30; Leviticus 16; 2 Chronicles 3–5.

2. Margaret Barker and the First Temple Tradition

Methodist scholar Margaret Barker has posited that King Josiah’s reforms around 623 BCE removed elements of Israel’s older temple theology—such as the divine feminine (Asherah), visionary ascent theology, and the role of the High Priest as a mediator figure. Barker’s work has been received positively by many LDS scholars due to its alignment with Latter-day Saint temple doctrines, including belief in a Heavenly Mother and sacred rituals as a means of ascending into the divine presence.

Barker’s key texts: The Older Testament, Temple Theology, Great High Priest.

3. Josiah’s Reforms: Loss or Purification?

2 Kings 22–23 describes Josiah’s purge of high places and the “discovery” of a lost book of the law, which many scholars identify as an early version of Deuteronomy. Barker argues that these reforms may have suppressed legitimate temple teachings such as wisdom traditions, anointing rites, and the divine feminine. LDS scriptures such as the Book of Mormon claim that “plain and precious” truths were taken from ancient records (1 Nephi 13).

4. Early Christianity and Temple Imagery

Early Christians saw Jesus as the new High Priest (Hebrews 9–10), and the temple veil’s tearing as symbolic of broader access to God—not the end of ritual or sacred space. Many early Christian communities maintained liturgical practices, including washings (baptism), anointings (chrism), sacred meals (Eucharist), and even marriage as a sacred rite (see Gospel of Philip).

Early Christian texts such as the Acts of John and other apocryphal writings describe prayer circles, ritual clothing, sacred names, and esoteric instruction—patterns echoed in the LDS Endowment.

5. Latter-day Saint Temple Worship: Restoration or Innovation?

Joseph Smith introduced the Endowment in 1842. Critics note similarities to Freemasonry, which Smith had recently joined. However, LDS leaders and scholars argue that Freemasonry preserved degraded fragments of ancient temple ritual, and that Joseph Smith received revelatory restoration of their original spiritual purpose. Core LDS temple covenants—obedience, sacrifice, chastity, and consecration—are not found in Masonic rites and align more closely with biblical covenants.

6. Modern Criticisms and Responses

a. The Veil Was Rent

Many Christians argue that Christ’s death made temples obsolete. LDS theology agrees that the veil’s tearing symbolizes open access to God—but contends that sacred ordinances and covenants still structure the process of entering His presence.

b. Masonic Influence

While Freemasonry and the LDS temple share superficial elements, the purpose, theology, and symbolic meaning differ significantly. Ritual washings, anointings, garments, and sacred handclasps appear in ancient texts independently of Masonry.

c. Changes Over Time

The temple ceremony has been adapted—most notably in 1990 and 2019—but the core doctrines and covenants remain unchanged. This aligns with the LDS belief in continuous revelation and is consistent with biblical precedent (e.g., Acts 15, changes to circumcision and dietary laws).

d. Secrecy and Psychological Objections

Critics sometimes describe the temple as secretive or emotionally challenging. Latter-day Saints understand temple teachings as sacred rather than secret, drawing on early Christian principles of the disciplina arcani. LDS leaders have also responded to valid concerns, making adjustments to improve clarity and inclusion (e.g., gendered language revisions in 2019).

7. Do the Parallels Prove Antiquity?

No one ancient source contains all elements of the LDS Endowment, but a constellation of practices—washings, anointings, priestly clothing, sacred names, ritual ascent, and symbolic marriages—do appear across ancient Judaism, Christianity, and early mystery traditions.

The cumulative case made by LDS scholars (e.g., Hugh Nibley, Jeffrey Bradshaw, David Calabro) is that these parallels support—not prove—the temple’s ancient roots. Margaret Barker’s independent findings further strengthen the plausibility of restoration claims.

Conclusion

The LDS temple ceremony stands at the crossroads of ancient and modern, ritual and revelation. Though modern audiences may find it foreign or challenging, its core elements—covenant, purification, symbolic ascent, and eternal union—mirror the most sacred traditions of the ancient world.

While gaps in historical continuity remain, the temple endowment exhibits unmistakable resonance with the sacred drama of temples past. Whether viewed as symbolic, psychological, or revelatory, the LDS temple invites all to ponder this ancient question anew: What does it mean to come into the presence of God?

References (Selected)

  • Barker, Margaret. The Gate of Heaven: The History and Symbolism of the Temple in Jerusalem. SPCK, 1991.
  • ———. The Great High Priest: The Temple Roots of Christian Liturgy. T&T Clark, 2003.
  • Dever, William. Did God Have a Wife? Eerdmans, 2005.
  • Bradshaw, Jeffrey M. Temple Themes in the Book of Moses. Interpreter Foundation, 2014.
  • Hamblin, William J. “Vindicating Josiah.” Interpreter, Vol. 4, 2013.
  • Nibley, Hugh. Temple and Cosmos. Deseret Book, 1992.
  • Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Codex II,3), trans. Wesley Isenberg.
  • Hebrews 9–10; Exodus 28–30; 2 Kings 23; 1 Corinthians 15:29.
  • Interpreter Foundation, FAIR, Encyclopedia of Mormonism (Prayer Circle), LDS General Handbook (2020–present).

 

DID JOSEPH SMITH PRACTICE POLYGAMY?

DID JOSEPH SMITH PRACTICE POLYGAMY?

by | Aug 9, 2025 | Doctrine, Doctrines Policy Practice, Joseph Smith

Executive Brief: Did Joseph Smith Practice Polygamy?

Core question: Did Joseph Smith
begin the practice of plural marriage, or did Brigham Young introduce it after
Joseph’s death?

⏳
Timeline Overview

  • 1830–1835: Public monogamy;
    possible sealing to Fanny Alger.
  • 1841–1844: Joseph secretly seals
    to 30+ women in Nauvoo. D&C 132 dictated in 1843.
  • June 1844: Nauvoo Expositor
    exposes polygamy. Joseph and Hyrum killed.
  • 1852: Brigham Young announces
    polygamy and publishes D&C 132.
  • 1860: RLDS founded under Joseph
    Smith III, denying Joseph practiced polygamy.

📚
Evidence That Joseph Smith Originated Polygamy

  • D&C 132: Dictated July 12, 1843 by Joseph Smith; scribed by William Clayton. Validated
    by Clayton, Hyrum Smith, and Kingsbury.
  • Plural Wives: Sealed to 29–33
    women including Eliza R. Snow, Emily Partridge, Helen Mar Kimball. (Compton, Hales)
  • Sexual Relations: Emily Partridge
    and Melissa Lott testified under oath to conjugal relations with Joseph.
  • Church Acknowledgment: The LDS
    Church confirmed Joseph practiced polygamy in the 2014 Gospel Topics essay.
  • Scholarly Consensus: Confirmed by
    Bushman, Compton, Hales, and even modern RLDS historians.

🔍
The Case That Brigham Young Originated or Exaggerated Polygamy

  • Public Denials: Joseph publicly
    said he had only one wife, even weeks before his death.
  • Emma Smith: Denied Joseph ever
    practiced or taught polygamy.
  • RLDS Tradition: Joseph Smith III
    gathered affidavits supporting his father’s innocence.
  • D&C 132 Skepticism: Not
    published until 1852. Survives only in copies. Edits by Willard Richards raise
    timeline questions.
  • Scriptural Conflicts: Book of
    Mormon (Jacob 2:24) and Joseph’s JST edits condemn David & Solomon’s plural
    marriages.

📊
Comparative Analysis

Category Joseph Started It Brigham Invented It
Historical Evidence Dozens of journals, affidavits, and sealing records No
contemporary documents from Joseph; D&C 132 published
posthumously
Witness Testimony Emily Partridge, Malissa Lott, Eliza Snow, William
Clayton		 Emma
Smith, Joseph Smith III, William Marks, RLDS statements
Church Position LDS
acknowledges Joseph introduced it		 RLDS
originally denied it, now acknowledges it historically
Conspiracy Burden No
whistleblowers from 70+ alleged participants		 Requires massive, silent conspiracy by Brigham and all Utah
leaders
Scriptural Support D&C 132, patriarchal precedents Jacob 2, JST changes, 1835 D&C monogamy clause

Conclusion: What We Know and What Remains Uncertain

We know:

  • Joseph
    Smith secretly practiced polygamy in Nauvoo.
  • Brigham
    Young openly continued and expanded it in Utah.
  • The LDS
    Church affirms Joseph’s involvement; RLDS once denied it but later conceded to
    the evidence.

Uncertain:

  • Joseph’s
    private feelings and motivations
  • Whether
    all sealings were consummated
  • Emma’s
    true level of knowledge and emotional coping
  • Why no
    children resulted from plural unions

“Joseph Smith did
practice plural marriage—even if he kept it secret. Brigham Young didn’t invent
it; he exposed it. That’s what the evidence shows.”

Want more?