Broken Faith

About

Broken Faith

Preface

My faith broke because of the Church. If someone were to ask me how I feel about the Church, I would probably respond with something like: "Because of what I know about the Church, my beliefs have changed, and I love what I believe now." What do I believe? I believe that we are meant to live good. Life is beautiful - but the Church does not always facilitate that beauty.

I was raised in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I did everything: primary, baptism, young men's, seminary, mission, Temple stuff, and my kids were born into the church. I held callings, I participated, I taught, I served, I even worked for the church. I had questions and doubts, but I practice my faith by doing and putting in the effort - but it wasn't enough. As I interacted with the Church, I noticed things that were wrong, immoral, and troubling. I was deeply bothered by the issues I saw in the Church.

The Church focuses on membership, attendance, callings, worthiness, assignments - it emphasizes the minutia of life and how the minutia of life right now will affect our standing after death. It is misguided. Christ taught a pure, simple form of faith and how to live. The Church has bundled up Christ and faith into a program - a product - and focuses on participation, branding, marketing, and public relations. The Church has deep pockets and an army of lawyers; it is surrounded by scandal and lawsuits - some of which it filed. The Church does not behave like a Church should - it does not do as Christ would - and that bothers me.

One day, it all came crashing down and I realized I couldn't support the Church anymore. Something needed to change, and the only thing I could control was myself. I needed to figure out what about the Church bothered me. I needed to figure out my beliefs and my faith.

I began researching the hard questions and issues I had encountered over the years. I found the answers troubling and insufficient. I was angry with Church because I felt betrayed. It is ironic that my own studying and review of Church material - historical and recent - is what ultimately caused me to see that the Church does not act in a Christ-like way. The Church teaches of Christ, but it doesn't do as Christ would. The Church is not the source of truth nor peace that it claims to be.

For a time, I questioned if God existed. I was uncertain what I believed. I eventually settled on a belief that there is a God, but that we lack the ability to comprehend the scope of God's existence. Religions have tried to define and explain God, and have failed - but many have succeeded in monetizing the concept of God. I continued with a desire to believe in God, but knowing that I could not accept the Church, or any other Church, as an institution guided by God. I reviewed my faith in Christ's teachings, and recognized core values that I hold dear. Christ taught simply, but churches have complicated it. I settled on a concept of "Simple Faith". Simple faith is just faith that there is more - any teachings beyond "Simple faith" is just guessing and is neither useful nor accurate.

This process of research, contemplation, and realizations has helped me to heal. I have a new passion about my faith - and it is not anchored to the church, tithing, a temple recommend, a calling, etc.

A major problem is that people ‘believe in the Church’ - that is a flawed belief, one that I previously held to. One should never believe in ‘The Church’, but one can believe in God or Christ, or something more - but don’t ’believe’ in an institution.

Why does this matter to me? I could have chosen to ignore all the issues and questions I had about the Church, that is what a good Church member would have done - I suppose I'm not a good Church member anymore. But if the Church demands my attendance, my time, my money, and to hold me to higher standard, then I choose to hold the Church to the same standard it demands - a standard of honesty, morality, and integrity, which it has failed. There are better ways for me to live my faith than the ways outlined by the Church.

So here I am. I have faith. I don’t "believe in the Church," but I do believe Christ taught correct principles that can make our lives better. I believe in God. I am angry at the Church, but I've figured out why - and that resolution has helped. I am happy, and I feel a stronger spiritual relationship with God.

This is my faith journey - my journey as I researched and documented what I believe is wrong within the Church. The Church is not the source of truth that it claims to be - it is a creation of men. The answers provided by the Church for these issues are insufficient or deflections - and that is unacceptable for an organization that claims to be guided by God and have His authority to help you gain exaltation. What I provide here is not just ‘questions’; these are issues, contradictions, and actions that I believe deserve attention. I chose to share this document because I believe these findings are important.

The chapters that follow examine specific issues; you can read them in order or begin with a topic that matters to you. The appendix shares what I believe now about faith and Christ's teachings. You can read it after the chapters or turn to it first for a sense of where my journey led.

Chapter 1: Introduction

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that God guides it through modern prophets and continuing revelation. This document examines historical events, teachings, doctrines, and policies that have raised questions for me about that claim and about the Church's authority. Each chapter introduces an issue and draws on sources such as Church publications, scripture, historical records, and news reports. I offer my interpretation of that evidence; you may reach different conclusions.

Some background may help if you are new to the subject. Latter-day Saints believe that priesthood authority, temple ordinances, and prophetic guidance are important/required parts of God's plan. The chapters below return to those ideas as they examine particular questions. The issues are connected, but you can also read the chapters independently.

The Nature of Prophetic Authority

The Church teaches a clear doctrine regarding prophetic authority: "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38). This sets a clear standard within LDS theology: when prophets speak, their words carry divine authority. This principle, foundational to Latter-Day Saint theology, introduces problems when you review prophetic teachings and statements now ignored, corrected, or disavowed by the Church.

Prophetic Opinion

In the April 2022 General Conference, Elder Dale G. Renlund taught "Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated "of [their] own mind" or teach what has not been revealed." (Your Divine Nature and Eternal Destiny | Dale G. Renlund | April 2022) [31]. I have seen teachings of prophets discarded by other prophets and by members, claiming that the teaching was the opinion of that man. These teachings were taught in his role as a "prophet," but because time has passed, politics have changed, or church leadership has changed, they are now labeled mere "opinion." This practice is not consistent with what Elder Renlund clearly taught.

Doctrine vs Policy

Some people try to resolve these inconsistencies by separating "doctrine" from "policy," suggesting that certain teachings were merely policy and therefore subject to change. However, Dallin H. Oaks addressed this distinction directly in a 1988 interview: "I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet" (Interview with Oaks and Maxwell about Mormon Priesthood Ban - Newspapers.com). This makes it clear that in a church claiming continuing revelation, policies and doctrines can't be separated - both come from the same source of authority. To question a policy is to question the revelation behind it. If policies are not grounded in doctrine, they have no real authority. Looking at the pattern of changes to Church teachings shows that these modifications often line up with current social, cultural, and political trends rather than timeless divine truth.

Evolving Morality

When discussing polygamy, the priesthood and race, pioneer–native conflicts, young marriages, Word of Wisdom non‑compliance, and similar issues, people often reply, "It was a different time," as if that excuses those actions. I argue that we must evaluate historical people and actions by timeless moral standards: many past practices - slavery, polygamy, and priesthood restrictions based on race - were wrong then and are wrong now. Morality is not merely popular opinion or social acceptability, and it doesn't change with time; we have a moral obligation to acknowledge past wrongs and learn from them, otherwise we risk repeating them. Justifying that it was "okay back then" is morally delinquent.

The All-or-Nothing Standard

Gordon B. Hinckley established the standard through which the Church should be evaluated: "Each of us has to face the matter - either the Church is true, or it is a fraud. There is no middle ground. It is the church and kingdom of God, or it is nothing" (General Conference April 2003 - Loyalty). This binary statement leaves no room for middle ground. Do the leaders of the Church teach half-truths? Does the prophet teach their opinion 50% of the time? The Church would tell you no! So faithful members of the Church are expected to accept ALL teachings.

The following chapters examine specific issues that challenge the Church's claim to be led by continuing revelation from God. Each topic is supported by official Church sources, scriptures, and documented historical evidence.

Topics Covered:

  1. Introduction
  2. Book of Mormon
  3. Book of Abraham
  4. Race
  5. Baptism of Children of Same-Sex Couples
  6. Prophets
  7. Joseph Smith
  8. Polygamy
  9. Garments
  10. Temple
  11. Tithing
  12. 2023 SEC Violations and Fine
  13. Word of Wisdom
  14. Miscellaneous Topics
  15. Conclusions
  16. Appendix - Simple Faith

Chapter 2: The Book of Mormon

The Book of Mormon is the Church's primary source of scripture, but they also use the Bible. Church accounts describe Joseph Smith translating it from gold plates, and claims to be an ancient record of peoples in the Americas. This chapter looks at changes to the book's introductory material, chapter summaries, and wording about race, and asks what those changes mean for its history and authority. I interpret the changes as evidence of retreat from earlier claims by the Church; you can compare the cited editions and sources.



Changes to the Introduction Page

Previous: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians." Current: "After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indians."

Before After

The change in the Book of Mormon's introduction reflects a desire for greater caution in light of scientific findings, as explained in the Gospel Topics Essay - Book of Mormon and DNA Studies. The Church released this article and addresses the DNA research showing that Native Americans have Asian, not Hebrew, ancestry. The essay tries to reconcile the scientific evidence with scriptural claims by suggesting that Hebrew DNA markers were diluted and lost over time. This explanation doesn't hold up scientifically. Genetic markers from a population migrating to the Americas in 600 B.C. would still be detectable after only 1,500 years. Modern commercial DNA tests routinely trace ancestral origins much further back than this. If Lamanite DNA markers are completely absent, then by definition, they are not the ancestors of Native Americans. The change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" is a retreat from the Book of Mormon's strong historical claims when faced with hard evidence.



Changes to Chapter Descriptions

2 Nephi 5 Chapter Description - Changed 3 times:

1955 1981 Current

The historical modification of these chapter descriptions shows a clear pattern of covering things up. Each version removes more explicit references to skin color, until the current edition drops racial language entirely. This raises a straightforward question: If these descriptions accurately summarized the text in 1955 and 1981, what justifies changing them? The scripture itself hasn't changed - only the summary has. This doesn't address the racial topic, it tries to hide it. Rather than honestly confronting the topic, the Church has quietly revised its summaries, hoping future members won't know what the text originally emphasized.



Changes to Scripture Wording

2 Nephi 30:6 was changed. Earlier editions called the Nephite people "a white and a delightsome people"; the current edition reads "a pure and a delightsome people." This change is deeply problematic. The Church's approach wasn't to explain the racial meaning of "white" - it was to edit the scripture itself. In Latter-Day Saint tradition, individual words in scripture carry profound significance. The Church quietly swapped one word for another is dishonest and it disregards the original translation and process.

Before After


Changes to Come Follow Me Manual - Book of Mormon 2020

The "Come Follow Me - Book of Mormon 2020" manual, covering 2 Nephi 5, originally quoted Joseph Fielding Smith discussing the curse of the Lamanites. The quote addressed skin color as the sign of the curse (while in the 1955 edition of the Book of Mormon, according to the chapter summary, the curse itself was the dark skin) and identified being cut off from the Lord as the consequence. The manual's quotation, however, was selective - quoting several paragraphs but stringing together multiple segments - altering its context. When members studying the manual noticed the quotation and investigated, the Church responded by removing the quote and updating the digital version. The printed versions, however, had already been distributed and could not be recalled. This was very dishonest.

Quote Lesson Manual


Thoughts regarding the Book of Mormon

The Church needed to address the issues in the Book of Mormon. Instead of discussing and offering resolution, the Church simply modified the troubling content. This is academically and morally delinquent. These changes to introductions, chapter summaries, scripture wording, and teaching manuals - serve one purpose: to present the narrative the Church wants and potentially hide the historical record - eventually these changes will be forgotten. This prevents honest discussion. The Church does not trust members to come to the "correct" conclusions when presented with this material. Most importantly, it shows that the Church puts its reputation above historical honesty.

Chapter 3: Book of Abraham & Other Translations

The Book of Abraham is part of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Church's books of scripture. Its introduction describes it as a translation by Joseph Smith of ancient papyri, while Church essays discuss how the surviving papyri relate to the text. This chapter considers that question alongside two other cases involving claims about ancient documents: the Kinderhook Plates and the Hofmann forgeries. The sources below provide background for comparing those cases.

The Book of Abraham - is it a translation or revelation?

The introduction of the Book of Abraham claims it is a "translation" - it is a firm and clear statement. However, when reading the Gospel Topics essays, the essays address the issue that the book does not match the now-translatable fragments of papyri - the essays suggest that the papyri were simply a catalyst for inspired revelation that Joseph simply wrote. This argument feels like a huge stretch to protect the authenticity of the Book, especially considering the introduction specifically claims it is a translation. How can we be confident it isn't a fabrication - similar to other documented cases of fraudulent "ancient" documents that Joseph Smith or Church leaders accepted as real?

The Kinderhook Plates

Church History Topics | Kinderhook Plates - Joseph Smith declared the Kinderhook plates to be genuine ancient artifacts and claimed to translate characters from them. These plates were later proven to be 19th-century fakes. This raises a key question about Joseph Smith's gift of translation: Did he have genuine prophetic ability to discern authentic ancient records from fakes, or not? If he could be fooled by the Kinderhook plates, how much confidence can we place in his translation of other supposedly ancient texts?

The Hofmann Forgeries

Church History Topics | Hofmann Forgeries - The Hofmann forgeries are very troubling. In the 1980s, Mark Hofmann deceived the First Presidency and other senior Church leaders into buying supposedly ancient documents, which he had actually manufactured himself. These men - sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators - couldn't tell the documents were fake. The spirit of discernment, for the Prophet was apparently not active during these interactions. The Church, believing the documents were real, even published articles in the Ensign about the discoveries. After the fraud was discovered and the church was embarrassed by the announcement, they quietly removed those articles from the digital Gospel Library, trying to hide the embarrassment from history.

Ensign - Printed Gospel Library - Digital

Source: Church History Catalog. The June 1980 Ensign contains an article titled "Original Copy of Gold Plate Characters Discovered" in the "News of the Church" section. This article doesn't appear in the Gospel Library's digital edition of the Ensign. It's only accessible in printed copies or in PDF-scanned archives that lack text-search functionality, meaning searches for "Hofmann" won't find it. Deliberately removing this article from the official digital library while keeping it in an unsearchable archive is a calculated effort to rewrite the historical record. This shows that honest engagement with Church history requires going beyond official Church resources - precisely the kind of independent research that Church leaders have discouraged (President Oaks Counsels Young Couples Defending the Gospel on the Frontline - Newsroom - February 2019).

Thoughts regarding the Book of Abraham

The Church has rejected the Kinderhook Plates and acknowledged the Hofmann forgeries as fakes. Both show failures of prophetic discernment. Regarding the Book of Abraham, I would suggest that Joseph Smith, anxious to justify his purchase of the mummies and papyri, worked to deliver something/anything that would further support his position as prophet. The resulting Book of Abraham lacks authenticity: the official introduction claims translation, while the Gospel Topics Essays back away from that claim. The Kinderhook Plates and Hofmann forgeries are rejected as inauthentic, and the Book of Abraham lacks credability. I do not accept any of them as authentic.

Chapter 4: Race

Until 1978, Black members were excluded from priesthood ordination and temple ordinances in the Church. Because those ordinances are understood by Latter-day Saints as necessary for certain family and afterlife promises, the restriction had significant consequences for Black members and their families. This chapter examines the explanations Church leaders gave for the restriction, the Church's later disavowal of past theories, and what that history means for prophetic authority and accountability.

The Church's Current Position

The Church now tries to distance itself from these teachings through a single sentence in its Gospel Topics Essay: "The Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse" (Gospel Topics Essay | Race and the Priesthood). This raises questions: Did those leaders teach their opinions? Does this "disavowal" extend to scriptural passages like 2 Nephi 5:21, which explicitly describes dark skin as a curse from God? The Church also changed 2 Nephi 30:6 from "white and delightsome" to "pure and delightsome" - another example of revising the text rather than honestly addressing it.

Theories

The Church disavows the "theories" - a theory is just an idea, or an opinion, until it has been proven. Because the Church labels racial restrictions as "theory", it shows a historical pattern of the Church (leaders, doctrine, policy, etc.) teaching and endorsing opinion as doctrine for 150 years. However, Elder Renlund taught "Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated "of [their] own mind" or teach what has not been revealed." So who is lying? This statement by the Church is dishonest, and misleading.

The Church “Disavows” the Theories Taught by Prophets

The word "disavow" in the essay was deliberately chosen to minimize accountability. By calling these teachings "theories," the Church tries to suggest they were just speculative ideas rather than established doctrine taught by prophets in their official capacity. That's historically inaccurate. For over 150 years, prophets and apostles taught these racial doctrines as divine revelation. The priesthood restriction wasn't presented as a "theory" - it was enforced as binding Church policy with eternal consequences.

The priesthood ban meant more than being excluded from Church leadership. It prevented Black members from receiving temple endowments, from being sealed to their spouses, and from having their children sealed to them. According to Latter-Day Saint theology, these ordinances are essential for exaltation. The Church explicitly taught that Black members were denied these blessings because of a divine curse - a teaching the Church now dismisses as mere "theory" without acknowledging the real harm it caused.

Thoughts regarding Race and the Priesthood

If these teachings are wrong now, they were wrong then. Moral truth doesn't change based on cultural pressure or social movements. The Church's leadership either received revelation from God establishing these exclusionary policies, or they taught their own prejudices as divine doctrine. If the former, then God condemned generations and excluded them from the temple, simply because they were born black. If the latter, the prophets couldn't tell the difference between their personal opinions and God's will. Either conclusion is horrible.

The way the Church has managed this issue - through a quiet "disavowal" buried in an essay rather than a formal acknowledgment and real apology - shows a pattern of protecting institutional reputation at the cost of honesty. The word "disavow" isn't enough. What's needed is an acknowledgment that prophets taught their opinions as divine truth for over a century, causing lasting harm to Black members and their families. I do not accept their disavowal.

Chapter 5: Baptism of Children of Same-Sex Couples

In November 2015, the Church changed its policies concerning children living with a parent in a same-sex marriage, including restrictions on baptism; in 2019, it reversed those restrictions. Church leaders explained the original policy in terms of family conflict and later described the reversal as inspired. This chapter compares those explanations with the policy's effects and asks what the episode suggests about revelation, policy, and prophetic authority.

Sources

The Stated Justification

President Nelson explained the 2015 policy: "We wanted to facilitate harmony in the home and avoid pitting children and parents against each other." This justification doesn't hold up against existing Church policy. Children of non-member parents can be baptized with parental permission. Children of parents who actively oppose the Church can be baptized with parental permission. Children of parents living contrary to Church teachings can be baptized with parental permission. No policy restricts these children from baptism based on their parents' circumstances - only parental approval is required.

The concern about "pitting children against parents" applies equally to any situation where parents' beliefs differ from Church teachings. Yet no special policy was created for children of atheist parents, children of parents in polygamous relationships, or children of parents who openly criticize the Church. The policy singled out same-sex couples, suggesting the real motivation was different from what was stated.

The Scriptural Standard

Christ's teaching is unambiguous: "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:15-16). The 2015 policy directly contradicted this principle, forbidding children from coming to Christ through baptism based on their parents' relationship. There's no way to reconcile that with Christ's explicit instruction not to forbid children.

The Reversal

In 2019, the Church reversed the policy. If the original 2015 policy came through revelation, why reverse it only 4 years later? Does revelation from God need to be tested and then corrected? The pattern looks like this: a policy was introduced, proved problematic both practically and theologically, was criticized, and then reversed - which sounds a lot more like an institutional mistake than divine revelation.

Thoughts regarding this policy

This episode shows that Church leaders put policies in place - presenting them as inspired or revealed - and then reversed them after social pressure became to strong. The policy had no doctrinal foundation, directly contradicted Christ's teachings about children, and was eventually dropped. The four years this policy stayed in effect represent a real failure of prophetic leadership, with real consequences for the families and children it affected. This is disgusting and hurtful. The leadership of the Church should be ashamed for creating and supporting this policy. If anyone disregards this episode as "just a policy," then they are willfully ignoring Oaks teaching regarding policy vs doctrine.

Chapter 6: Prophets

Latter-day Saints believe that the Church is led by a living prophet, whose guidance can include continuing revelation. They are also taught to value the words of past Church presidents and apostles. This chapter considers what happens when teachings or guidance change over time.

Using the name “Mormon” is a victory for Satan

The evolution of Church teachings regarding its own name provides a clear example of prophetic contradiction spanning decades.

In April 1990, then-Apostle Russell M. Nelson taught that members should not use nicknames such as "Mormon" for the name of the Church (Thus Shall My Church Be Called | Russell M. Nelson | April 1990). Six months later, President Gordon B. Hinckley (then First Counselor in the First Presidency) taught that calling ourselves "Mormon" was acceptable because it was simply a nickname, and suggested that "Mormon" meant "more good" (Mormon Should Mean 'More Good' | Gordon B. Hinckley | October 1990).

President Thomas S. Monson continued this theme in October 2011, declaring "Dare to be a Mormon; Dare to stand alone" (Dare to Stand Alone | Thomas S. Monson | October 2011). Under Presidents Hinckley and Monson, the Church invested millions of dollars in the "I'm a Mormon" marketing campaign, producing videos, websites, and promotional materials emphasizing and encouraging the Mormon identity.

In October 2018, President Russell M. Nelson - serving as President of the Church - declared that using the name "Mormon" to identify the Church represents "a major victory for Satan" (The Correct Name of the Church | Russell M. Nelson | October 2018). This change directly contradicts the teachings of Presidents Hinckley and Monson. If using "Mormon" constitutes a victory for Satan, then the previous prophets' teachings and the Church's multi-million dollar "I'm a Mormon" campaign were advancing Satan's purposes. If Presidents Hinckley and Monson were correct, then President Nelson's characterization is an overreaction.

This condemnation forced an aggressive, expensive overnight rebranding of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, Mormon.org, and auxiliary assets. The lingering discomfort with this shift remains evident; as recently as the October 2025 General Conference, Elder Valeri V. Cuvelier of the Seventy lightheartedly noted an old Church pamphlet titled What do you know about the Mormons? before quickly adding the defensive disclaimer, "I'm certain that title has changed" (The Name by Which Ye Are Called | Valeri V. Cuvelier | October 2025).

The question is unavoidable: Which prophets were telling the truth? The answer can't be "all of them," because their teachings directly contradict each other. For thirty years, Church leaders promoted, defended, and celebrated the Mormon identity. Then, suddenly, that same identity became Satanic. This isn't consistent prophetic guidance - it's changing institutional preferences being presented as divine truth.

The Adam-God Doctrine

Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the Father (Adam-God Doctrine | Wikipedia). He declared that God descended to earth with one of his wives, Eve, to begin the human race. This teaching was significant enough that elements of it were incorporated into the temple endowment ceremony during Brigham Young's tenure.

After Brigham Young's death, subsequent Church leaders disavowed this doctrine, characterizing it as Brigham Young's personal opinion rather than official doctrine (Our Own Liahona | Spencer W. Kimball | October 1976) (also see Adam–God Theory in the Temple | FAIR). The teaching was removed from the temple ceremony.

This raises real questions. Did Brigham Young teach this doctrine in his capacity as prophet, or as a private individual? If as prophet, then God revealed false doctrine through His chosen prophet. If as a private individual, why was it incorporated into sacred temple ceremonies? How are members supposed to tell the difference between prophetic teaching and personal opinion when both come from the same pulpit with the same authority?

Opinion vs. Doctrine

In the April 2022 General Conference, Elder Dale G. Renlund taught "Ever since God appointed prophets, they have been authorized to speak on His behalf. But they do not pronounce doctrines fabricated "of [their] own mind" or teach what has not been revealed." (Your Divine Nature and Eternal Destiny | Dale G. Renlund | April 2022). This statement is demonstrably false and directly contradicts the Church's own explanation for discontinued teachings and policies (Yes, policies - President Oaks said that in a Church guided by a prophet, policy and doctrine are the same). The Church has labeled various past prophetic teachings as "opinion" or "theory" once those teachings became unsustainable:

If prophets don't teach their own opinions, then all these teachings were divine revelation and should still be binding today. If they do teach their own opinions, then Elder Renlund's statement is false, and members have no reliable way to tell inspired teaching from personal speculation.

The temple ceremony formerly warned against the "philosophies of men, mingled with scripture." This phrase has since been removed from the endowment. Yet this phrase accurately describes the pattern of prophetic teaching when doctrines are later dismissed as opinion: human philosophy, supported by selective use of scripture, presented as divine truth.

When the Prophet speaks the debate is over

A widely taught principle states: "When the prophet speaks, the debate is over" (If We Want to Go Up, We Have to Get On | Elaine Cannon | October 1978). Yet prophets regularly restart debates by contradicting their predecessors. President Nelson's reversal on the "Mormon" identity reopened a debate President Hinckley had closed. Official Declaration 2 (1978) reversed the priesthood ban that previous prophets had defended as divinely mandated. The 2019 policy reversal on children of same-sex couples undid the 2015 policy.

If debate ends when the prophet speaks, which prophet ends it? The pattern shows that prophets frequently reverse, modify, or disavow their predecessors' teachings. This makes "when the prophet speaks, the debate is over" practically meaningless. The debate may pause, but it reopens with the next prophet.

Examples of Wrong Teachings

The list of teachings once presented as divine truth but later abandoned includes:

Each of these examples shows that prophetic teaching and authority are fallible. Some might say that prophets are human and make mistakes. That is true, but it fundamentally undermines the Church's claims about prophetic authority and continuing revelation.

Prophetic Compensation and Merchandising

Ancient apostles and prophets were not salaried employees. Christ sent His disciples forth with specific instructions: "Freely ye have received, freely give" (Matthew 10:8). Yet General Authorities receive what the Church describes as a "modest living allowance" (FAQ | lds.org | Do General Authorities Get Paid).

Additionally, General Authorities write and publish religious books for profit. Members often buy these books because they're written by prophets and apostles. Selling spiritual authority for a price is inconsistent with Christ's instruction to His apostles. The inspired words of prophets are now available for $19.95 at Deseret Book! #sarcasm

Criticizing Church Leaders

Dallin H. Oaks taught that members should not criticize Church leaders, even if the criticism is true (Criticism | Dallin H. Oaks | Ensign February 1987). This teaching puts prophets and apostles above accountability. Yet accountability is essential in any leadership structure. When leaders can't be criticized - even when the criticism is factually accurate - errors and abuses go uncorrected. This teaching protects institutional power, not truth.

Thoughts regarding Prophets

Despite prophets teaching that prophets don't teach their opinions, they have clearly taught their opinion and instituted policies that are wrong. They are inconsistent and contradictory. Prophets teach their opinions, present them as divine truth, and then later prophets contradict or disavow those teachings. There is nothing special about the prophets and other leadership of the Church - they teach, speak, and do the same as everyone else. If they had a special conduit to God, then teachings would never need to be corrected or disavowed.

Chapter 7: Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith founded the Latter-day Saint movement and is regarded by the Church as the prophet who restored it, directed by God. This chapter looks at two episodes that have shaped my view of his character and prophetic authority: a discourse about accusation and sin, and a letter concerning one of his plural marriages. I present the historical sources and explain why I find these episodes troubling.

Accountability and Accusation

In a discourse delivered November 7, 1841, Joseph Smith taught: "If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours - for charity covereth a multitude of sins. What many people call sin is not sin" (Joseph Smith Papers | Nov 7 1841).

This teaching fundamentally contradicts the idea of personal accountability. According to Joseph Smith, punishment for sin depends on whether someone accuses and reports you - not on the sin itself. This conflicts with basic Latter-Day Saint theology that sin is sin regardless of whether anyone knows about it. The real-world implications of this teaching became clear. Do something sexual, keep it secret, you'll be fine. Commit a crime, keep it a secret, you'll be fine.

Latter-Day Saint women later testified about how certain men twisted Joseph Smith's words to justify sexual misconduct. The Joseph Smith Papers note: "Aside from John C. Bennett, the accused men included Chauncey L. Higbee, Lyman O. Littlefield, Joel S. Miles, and Gustavus Hills; Catherine Fuller Warren also testified that William Smith, brother of JS, 'proposed unlawful connexion but I refused him.' Some of these men may have twisted words from JS's 7 November 1841 discourse, which reportedly stated that 'if we did not accuse one another God would not accuse us & if we had no accuser we should enter heaven.' Some of the women who later testified before the Nauvoo high council indicated that these men told them that there was no sin in what they were doing if the relationship was kept secret, because there could be no accuser" (Joseph Smith Papers | March 31 1842 | Letter to Emma Smith & Relief Society | Footnote 8)).

Joseph Smith taught this principle in his capacity as prophet. The teaching is clear: if no one accuses you, God will not accuse you. That's not how morality works. Wrong is wrong whether or not you're caught. Joseph Smith's teaching here was fundamentally flawed.

The Letter to the Whitneys

In August 1842, while in hiding, Joseph Smith wrote a letter to Newel K. Whitney, Elizabeth Ann Whitney, and their daughter Sarah Ann Whitney (Joseph Smith Papers | Letter to the Whitneys | August 18 1842). Sarah Ann was one of Joseph Smith's plural wives. In this letter, Joseph requested that Sarah Ann visit him secretly. He explicitly instructed them not to visit if Emma was present, asked them to burn the letter, and emphasized that the visit must be kept secret.

Several questions arise from this correspondence:

The secrecy contradicts the claim that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were conducted under divine commandment. God's commandments don't require deceiving your spouse. The letter shows Joseph Smith was deliberately hiding his plural marriage activities from Emma - suggesting he knew she would object and that he knew his behavior was wrong.

Fanny Alger

Joseph Smith's first plural wife was Fanny Alger, whom he married in the mid-1830s (Church History Topics | Fanny Alger). This and other relationships predate the 1843 revelation on plural marriage recorded in D&C 132. Oliver Cowdery accused Joseph Smith of adultery concerning Fanny Alger. This accusation led to Oliver Cowdery's excommunication - not for making false accusations, but for refusing to recant what he knew to be true.

If plural marriage was commanded by God, why did Joseph Smith begin practicing it years before the revelation was recorded? Why was it done in secret? Why was Oliver Cowdery punished for calling it adultery? The sequence of events suggests that Joseph Smith was having an extra marital affair with Fanny Alger, got accused of adultery, and then developed theological justifications for plural marriage to retroactively legitimize what he'd done.

Thoughts regarding Joseph Smith

Joseph Smith said and did a lot of things that were wrong and immoral. He didn’t follow his revelations, and he lied and was secretive. Defenders of the Church and Joseph will claim he was just a man and therefore imperfect. I agree - he was imperfect, but that doesn’t excuse his actions. Joseph Smith's teaching that accountability depends on accusation rather than action is morally indefensible. His secret letter about Sarah Ann Whitney shows deliberate deception. His relationship with Fanny Alger predates any claimed revelation authorizing plural marriage. These things raise serious questions about Joseph Smith's prophetic calling and integrity. A prophet of God should model moral clarity and honesty, not teach principles that undermine accountability and engage in deception. His actions are not the actions of a prophet.

Chapter 8: Polygamy

Plural marriage, often called polygamy, was practiced by Joseph Smith and other early Latter-day Saints and was later ended as an official Church practice. The Church's scriptural account of the practice is in Doctrine and Covenants 132, which describes conditions and justifications for plural marriage. This chapter compares those teachings with historical accounts of how plural marriage was practiced, and asks whether the practice followed the standards it set out.

Using biographical and timeline data from History.ChurchOfJesusChrist.org, I have compiled a table of the wives of Joseph Smith. It is helpful when discussing Joseph Smith and Polygamy. It is included at the end of this chapter.

The Stated Purpose

D&C 132:63 identifies the primary purpose of plural marriage: to "multiply and replenish the earth" and "bear the souls of men." The entire section provides the framework for understanding why plural marriage was commanded amd how to implement it. The preceding verse (D&C 132:61) explicitly discuss criteria for taking "another wife." Therefore, verse 63 serves as justification for polygamy as a means to produce children.

Any argument suggesting that Joseph Smith's plural marriages didn't include a sexual component contradicts the stated purpose of the revelation. If plural marriage was commanded for procreation, and Joseph Smith's plural marriages didn't serve that purpose, then Joseph Smith wasn't following the divine mandate he claimed to have received.

In the Church's Gospel Topics essay on plural marriage, the authors attempt to justify Joseph Smith's marriage to Helen Mar Kimball by asserting there was no sexual relationship - implying the relationship did not follow the mandate of polygamy found in D&C 132. The essay's phrasing that the marriage occurred "...several months before her 15th birthday" is notable for avoiding the more direct statement that "she was only 14." That word choice was clearly meant to soften a troubling part of the historical record.

The Law of Sarah

D&C 132:61 lays out requirements for taking a plural wife: the woman must be a virgin, and the first wife must consent. But D&C 132:65 provides an exception: if the first wife doesn't accept polygamy, her husband is exempt from the Law of Sarah and free to take additional wives without her consent. This "exception" cancels the requirement entirely. It's not consent when refusal is overridden. This provision serves one purpose: to provide theological cover for proceeding with plural marriage regardless of the first wife's objections.

Joseph Smith violated these requirements. He took wives who were not virgins, they were already married. He took wives without Emma's knowledge or consent. Many of his plural marriages occurred in secret, directly contradicting the "divine" mandate.

Scriptural Contradictions

D&C 132:1 justifies plural marriage by citing Old Testament prophets: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon were justified in taking multiple wives. Yet the Book of Mormon - written before the Doctrine and Covenants - explicitly contradicts this claim: "Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord" (Jacob 2:24).

The Book of Mormon condemns David and Solomon for polygamy. The Doctrine and Covenants justifies their polygamy. Both can't be right. This isn't a minor inconsistency - it's God condemning an act in one scripture and justifying the same act in another scripture about the same people.

Jacob 2:27 states that a man should have only one wife, but Jacob 2:30 adds that God may command plural marriage if He chooses. The critical question remains: Did God ever actually command Old Testament prophets to practice polygamy? The biblical record shows men having multiple wives but gives no record of God commanding this practice. Concerning Abraham, Genesis shows that Sarah (not God) instructed Abraham to take her handmaid Hagar (Genesis 16:1-2). The polygamy of Old Testament figures appears to be permitted or tolerated, not commanded - making the justification in D&C 132 historically unfounded.

The Timeline

Joseph Smith married Emma in 1827. Their marriage was "for time only" because the sealing power had not been restored. Eventually they were sealed on May 28, 1843. This timeline reveals that Joseph Smith was married and sealed to over twenty other women before him and Emma were sealed. Emma should have been first. Many of these women were sealed to Joseph without Emma's knowledge or approval, violating the "Law of Sarah" outlined in D&C 132:61. Taking multiple wives, without following this law, was adultery (D&C 132:62) - Emma was unaware of and did not accept polygamy at first; this implies that some of Joseph's marriages constituted adultery?

The Joseph Smith Papers document one particularly egregious example: "Emma Smith struggled with JS's new marriages in the months leading up to July 1843. Since the beginning of 1843, JS was sealed to at least thirteen additional wives, most of whom were married to him without Emma's knowledge. Although details regarding Emma's reactions to JS's practice of plural marriage prior to 1843 are scarce, she evidently came to accept the doctrine, albeit temporarily, by May of that year, on the condition that she could choose the women to whom JS would be sealed. That month, she selected Eliza and Emily Partridge, who were then ages twenty-three and nineteen and living in the Smith household, as potential marriage partners to JS. In fact, JS had already been sealed to the sisters two months earlier. JS and the Partridge sisters sought to avoid confrontation by repeating the marriages, with Emma's blessing, as if for the first time. Likely during the same month, Emma suggested JS marry Maria and Sarah Lawrence, ages nineteen and sixteen or seventeen, another pair of sisters who were living in the Smith household. However, Emily Partridge later testified that Emma became embittered "soon after" the Partridge sisters' second wedding ceremony. By the end of June, JS's scribe William Clayton noted, Emma was treating JS "coldly & badly" and "was disposed to be revenged on him," saying "she thought that if he would indulge himself she would too." (Joseph Smith Papers - Revelation, 12 July 1843 and JS Sealed Again to Emily and Eliza Partridge).

Joseph Smith was married to the Partridge sisters in secret. When Emma later selected them as plural wives, Joseph and the sisters went through a second ceremony to create the appearance of consent. That level of deception cannot be reconciled with integrity. This was dishonest and wrong.

Lying for the Lord

Secretly, Joseph Smith began practicing polygamy many years before the 1843 revelation. His first plural wife was Fanny Alger in the mid-1830s (Gospel Topics Essays | Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo and Church History Topics | Joseph Smith Wife: Fanny Alger). Oliver Cowdery accused Joseph of adultery, leading to Oliver's excommunication.

In 1844, Joseph Smith publicly stated: "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery and having seven wives when I can only find one" (Joseph Smith Papers | 1844). At the time of this statement, Joseph had over thirty wives. This was a deliberate lie. Defenders try to justify this as "lying for the Lord" - lying to protect sacred truths from those not ready to receive them. But if polygamy was right and commanded by God, why lie about it? If it was truly commanded, Joseph should have proclaimed it openly and accepted the consequences.

Brigham Young and Celestial Requirements

Brigham Young taught that plural marriage was required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom: "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, Pages 268-269, Brigham Young - August 19 1866).

If Brigham Young spoke as a prophet - and the Church teaches that prophets speak for God - then this teaching represents divine truth. Yet the Church now practices monogamy and excommunicates members who practice polygamy. If Brigham Young was right, then every monogamous Latter-Day Saint is excluded from the highest degree of celestial glory. If he was wrong, then he taught false doctrine as prophetic truth for decades.

Thoughts regarding Polygamy

Polygamy in early Mormonism can't be reconciled with the stated requirements in D&C 132. Joseph Smith violated the "Law of Sarah," married women without Emma's knowledge, and lied publicly about his marriages. The scriptural justifications contradict the Book of Mormon. Brigham Young taught that polygamy was required for exaltation, a doctrine the modern Church has abandoned. Polygamy was not practiced according to divine mandate but according to human desire, justified through selective theology and deception. I find the entire affair disgusting and wrong.

Polygamy Data for Joseph Smith

Based on the analysis of the Church History Biographical Database page for Joseph Smith Jr. and its associated profiles, here is a detailed table of the women he married.

The table includes the 30 women listed on the provided timeline, ordered by their marriage date to Joseph Smith as presented in the source. Ages are calculated based on the marriage date and birth date provided in the associated biographical profiles. Blank spaces in the table represent either no-data from the official church biographical database or not-applicable to that woman.

No. Her Name Date of Marriage to Joseph His Age Her Age Name of Existing or Previous Husband Marriage Date to Previous Husband
1 Emma Hale Smith 1827 January 18 21 22
2 Fanny Alger 1835 – 1836 29 17
3 Louisa Beman* 1841 April 5 35 26
4 Zina D. H. Young* 1841 October 27 35 20 Henry Bailey Jacobs 1841 March 7
5 Presendia Lathrop Huntington 1841 December 11 35 31 Norman Oliver Buell 1827 January 8
6 Agnes Moulton Coolbrith 1842 January 6 36 30 Don Carlos Smith 1835 July 30
7 Mary Elizabeth Rollins* 1842 February 36 23 Adam Lightner, Jr. 1835 August 11
8 Sylvia Porter Sessions 1842 February 8 36 23 Windsor Palmer Lyon 1838 March
9 Patty Bartlett 1842 March 9 36 47 David Sessions III 1812 June 29
10 Marinda Nancy Johnson 1842 – 1843 36 26 Orson Hyde 1834 September 4
11 Eliza R. Snow* 1842 June 29 36 38
12 Delcena Didamia Johnson 1842 July 36 35 Lyman Sherman 1829 January 16
13 Sarah Ann Whitney 1842 July 27 36 17
14 Martha McBride 1842 August 36 37 Vinson Knight, Sr. 1826 July 6
15 Ruth Dagget Vose 1843 February 37 34 Edward Sayers 1841 January 23
16 Flora Ann Woodward 1843 Spring 37
17 Emily Dow Partridge* 1843 March 4 37 19
18 Eliza Maria Partridge 1843 March 8 37 22
19 Almera Woodward Johnson 1843 April – May 37
20 Lucy Walker 1843 May 1 37 17
21 Sarah Lawrence 1843 May 37
22 Maria Lawrence 1843 May 37
23 Helen Mar Kimball 1843 May 37 14
-- Emma Hale Sealed to Joseph 1843 May 28 37 38
24 Elvira Annie Cowles 1843 June 1 37 29 Jonathan Harriman Holmes 1842 December 1
25 Rhoda Richards* 1843 June 12 37 58
-- D&C 132 - Revelation on Polygamy Revealed 1843 July 12 37
26 Desdemona Wadsworth Fullmer 1843 July 37
27 Olive Grey Frost* 1843 Summer 37
28 Melissa Lott 1843 September 20 37
29 Hannah Ells 1843 – 1844 37
30 Fanny Young 1843 November 2 37 55 Roswell Murray 1832

* Women who later married Brigham Young - implying that Brigham also violated the Law of Sarah by marrying a "non-virgin" in a polygamous marriage.

Chapter 9: Garments

In Latter-day Saint practice, temple garments are worn by members who have received the temple endowment, as a reminder of sacred covenants. The Church describes them as an "outward expression of your inner commitment" to follow Christ (Church Handbook 38.5.5 | Wearing the garment). This chapter reviews changes to garment design and guidance, and asks how those changes fit with the idea of an unchanging standard.

The Pattern of Change

During temple recommend interviews, members are instructed not to modify the garment. The implication is clear: the garment's design reflects sacred and unchanging principles. Yet the Church itself has made numerous changes to garment design and usage over time. The often-taught principle - that when the world changes their standards, you can be sure the Lord's standards will never change - is directly contradicted by the actual history of garment modifications:

The Implications

For decades, clothing choices were shaped by the need to "cover the garment." Sleeveless clothing was considered immodest because it exposed garment-covered shoulders. Temple covenants about garment wearing were presented as unchanging divine requirements. As garments have become smaller - including the addition of sleeveless options - clothing styles that were once considered immodest are now acceptable, simply because the standard was adjusted.

This pattern shows that garment standards aren't anchored in eternal principles but are adjusted to match social and cultural trends. If the original full-length garments reflected divine requirements, what justifies abandoning them? If the modified, shorter, sleeveless garments are acceptable, then the original restrictive designs imposed unnecessary clothing standards on members.

Thoughts regarding Garments

Garments have always influenced clothing choices for Church members. Garments used to be wrist and ankle length, but then they shortened them - this pattern of modification has been repeated several times. We were taught our clothing should be modest, and cover our garments; example: no sleeveless clothing. With the introduction of sleeveless garments, members can now wear something that was previously “immodest”. That changing standard is troubling. So-called eternal morality standards should not be variable or fluid.

Chapter 10: Temple

These comments and questions reflect my personal observations and experiences.

Temples are sacred buildings where Latter-day Saints perform ordinances they believe are essential to their relationship with God and their eternal family. Entry requires a temple recommend, which members receive after an interview about their beliefs and conduct. This chapter considers the recommend interview, the history of temple worship, and changes to temple ceremonies, and explains why these practices raise questions for me.

Temple Recommend Interview

The temple recommend interview (General Handbook) is the Church's standard of worthiness. If you can honestly answer these questions, you are judged worthy to enter the temple. The questions trouble me: they don't assess whether you're living a Christ-like life; they measure commitment to the Church and conformity to the organization.

The interview, in my view, should assess whether someone is a committed follower of Christ:

Worthiness isn't just following these guidelines; it's living a life Christ would approve of - love, service, and compassion - not just church attendance, wearing specific underwear, or making monthly payments.

The Hebrew Temple and Christian Fulfillment

The Hebrew temple centered on animal sacrifice, which symbolized Christ's future atonement. These sacrifices pointed forward to the ultimate sacrifice that would render them obsolete. When Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses through His atonement, the need for animal sacrifice ended.

Christ's atonement fulfilled the Law of Moses and ended the necessity of temple sacrifice - but did it also end the necessity of the temple itself? Early Christians didn't build temples or perform temple ordinances. They met in homes and public spaces. The Book of Acts describes temple rituals, but those are the original Jewish rituals - continued to be practiced by the early Christians, which continued in the Jerusalem temple until its destruction in 70 AD (see Acts 2:46–47, Acts 3:1, Acts 21:26). There is no evidence that early Christians practiced anything resembling modern Latter-Day Saint temple ordinances. Additionally, when Christ was crucified, the veil of the temple was rent - signifying the removal of the barrier between God and man, so was the temple necessary anymore? (Matt 27:51)

Signs and tokens - central to the modern LDS temple endowment - were not part of Hebrew temple worship. Ancient Hebrews and primitive Christians worshiped in the temple through sacrifice and did not receive the same "saving ordinances" performed in modern LDS temples. This raises a genuine question: Should modern temple work be performed for ancient Hebrews who participated in the original temple but never received endowments or sealings? If these ordinances are essential for salvation, then ancient covenant people, who had access to the temple, were excluded from them.

The Pattern of Modification

Temple ceremonies and covenants aren't firm and eternal - they've been modified repeatedly throughout Church history. Each modification raises questions about the nature and authority of these supposedly sacred and unchanging ordinances:

The Questions These Changes Raise

If these elements were part of the temple endowment as revealed by God, what justifies removing them? Were the original elements wrong or unnecessary? If they were unnecessary, why were they included in the first place? If they were necessary, why were they removed?

The removal of the "wife harkening" covenant - where women covenanted to follow their husbands as their husbands followed God - seems to align with modern views on gender equality. Yet temple covenants are presented as eternal, not subject to social trends. This change suggests the covenant was a product of nineteenth-century gender norms rather than eternal divine truth.

The removal of penalties for revealing the endowment - originally dramatic physical gestures symbolizing death - also appears to be a response to modern sensibilities rather than revelatory instruction. If these penalties were necessary parts of sacred covenants, removing them fundamentally alters the covenant. If they were not necessary, their inclusion for over a century raises questions about where temple ceremonies actually came from.

The Problem of Inconsistent Covenants

Do people who receive their endowment at different times make different covenants? Yes. Someone endowed in 1970 made covenants that someone endowed in 2025 does not make. If temple covenants are essential for exaltation, and these covenants have been modified, then either:

  1. Earlier members made unnecessary covenants, or
  2. Current members are not making all necessary covenants, or
  3. The covenants are not as fixed and eternal as represented.

None of these options supports the Church's claim that temple ordinances represent divine requirements.

Thoughts regarding the Temple

The temple serves as a symbol of Latter-Day Saint identity and commitment. But the historical record shows aspects of the temple have been repeatedly modified to match changing cultural norms and other preferences. The absence of comparable ordinances in early Christianity, the repeated changes to ceremonies presented as revealed truth, and the inconsistency of covenants over time all undermine the claim that temple ordinances represent unchanging divine requirements essential for salvation. The evidence suggests that temple practices are evolving institutional traditions rather than eternal divine mandates. I value the temple because it is where I was married - it represents a special beginning - but besides that it has no additional significance.

Chapter 11: Tithing

In the Church, tithing generally means donating one-tenth of one's income, and it is connected to eligibility for a temple recommend. This chapter examines the history and scriptural basis of tithing, how the Church uses the funds, and whether making tithing a condition of temple participation is consistent with voluntary giving. I argue that the Church requiring tithing is ethically wrong.

History

Tithing is not unique to the LDS Church. Many other Christian churches collect tithing. Let's review the timeline of tithing in Christianity:

Tithing was not in the primitive church. It was an addition by the Catholics, and the same pattern and reasoning was duplicated by other Churches. Some Churches went as far as to formalize tithing as a requirement in order to be worthy to be granted access to additional blessings - clearly a very wrong practice.

What Christ Taught About Tithing

Tithing was part of the Law of Moses, which Christ fulfilled. The New Testament has no evidence that tithing was practiced in the early Christian Church. The Book of Acts references the Law of Consecration, where some communities held property in common, but this is fundamentally different from tithing. The Law of Consecration supported all members of the community; tithing supports institutional infrastructure and leadership.

When the rich ruler asked Christ how to enter the Kingdom of God, Christ told him to sell all he had and follow Him (Matthew 19:21). Christ did not tell the man to donate his wealth to the apostles for distribution or for building the Church. He called for direct, personal action. This story isn't about money - it is about recognizing and forsaking those things that keep us from progressing spiritually.

The story of the widow's mite is not about tithing - it is about the intent and the sacrifice behind giving (Mark 12:41-44). This teaching emphasizes internal motivation over external compliance - precisely the opposite of how the Church enforces tithing. Again - this story isn't about money or tithing, it is about the measure of intent and personal commitment to doing good - having pure intent.

The Problem of Compulsion

The Church calls tithing a "donation," implying it's voluntary. Yet the Church requires tithing for temple worthiness, which is necessary for the highest degree of celestial glory. This is not a donation - it's a requirement with eternal consequences. Pay, or be excluded from exaltation. This directly contradicts Paul's teaching: "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Corinthians 9:7). (Note: this scripture isn't even about money or donation, it is about ministry and missionary service) Paul explicitly says giving should not be "of necessity." The Church has made tithing a necessity. Members who don't pay are denied temple recommends and therefore excluded from essential ordinances and exaltation. This is coercion, not voluntary giving. Under the Church's current practice of tithing, exaltation is limited to those who pay a full tithe. When financial payment is directly tied to spiritual worthiness and eternal salvation, it is extortion, not a charitable contribution: "Pay your tithing, if you don't then you don't get to be with your family for eternity.

Troubling Facts and Statements about Tithing

Church leaders have made revealing statements about tithing that expose its true function:

The Blessing Disclaimer

In a footnote to President Nelson's "Think Celestial" talk, a disclaimer was added as a footnote: "This is not to imply a cause-and-effect relationship. Some who never pay tithing attain professional opportunities, while some who pay tithing do not. The promise is that the windows of heaven will be opened to the tithe payer. The nature of the blessings will vary." (2023 General Conference | Russell M. Nelson | Think Celestial).

If there's no cause-and-effect relationship between tithing and blessings, then the promise of blessings for paying tithing is meaningless. Yet members are still required to pay for temple worthiness. The Church simultaneously promises blessings for tithing while saying there's no guarantee blessings will actually come. The Church is basically teaching "Pay and you might be blessed."

Tithing: A standing law forever

The Church teaches that the Law of Tithing is "a standing Law unto them forever" (D&C 119:4). However, the implementation of tithing has been modified repeatedly. If the law is eternal and unchanging, what justifies these modifications?

Joseph F. Smith also taught that "one day tithing will not be necessary" (Teachings of Joseph F. Smith | Ch 31 | Obedience to the Law of Tithing). This directly contradicts the claim that tithing is a "standing law forever." When will the Church decide it has enough wealth? And how would stopping tithing be justified against the "standing law forever" doctrine?

Thoughts regarding Tithing

Tithing as practiced by the Church is coercive and morally wrong. Financial payment is directly tied to spiritual worthiness and access to essential ordinances. Those who don't pay are labeled unworthy and denied temple blessings. The idea that God requires payment for blessings and that eternal salvation depends on financial contributions to the Church, is ethically indefensible. Christ taught love, service, and discipleship. The Church has made worthiness depend on payment. The Church has taught that tithing is needed as insurance against bad things. Tithing requirements in the LDS Church are manipulative and wrong. It makes me angry.

Chapter 12: 2023 SEC Violations and Fine

In 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced a settlement related to investment disclosures by Ensign Peak Advisors, the investment manager for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the Church. The SEC order described the use of shell companies and filings that obscured who controlled certain securities; the Church and Ensign Peak paid a combined $5 million in penalties. This chapter summarizes the SEC's findings, the Church's response, and the questions the case raises for me about institutional transparency and integrity.

The Violation

The Church deliberately structured its investments through shell companies to hide the size of its wealth from the public. This was not an accounting error or administrative mistake - it was a systematic, multi-decade effort to hide assets. The SEC found these practices violated federal securities law. The Church paid $5 million to settle the matter.

In the Press Release from the SEC, it explained the following: "According to the order, the Church was concerned that disclosure of its portfolio, which by 2018 grew to approximately $32 billion, would lead to negative consequences. To obscure the amount of the Church's portfolio, and with the Church's knowledge and approval, Ensign Peak created thirteen shell LLCs, ostensibly with locations throughout the U.S., and filed Forms 13F in the names of these LLCs rather than in Ensign Peak's name. The order finds that Ensign Peak maintained investment discretion over all relevant securities, that it controlled the shell companies, and that it directed nominee "business managers," most of whom were employed by the Church, to sign the Commission filings. The shell LLCs' Forms 13F misstated, among other things, that the LLCs had sole investment and voting discretion over the securities. In reality, the SEC's order finds, Ensign Peak retained control over all investment and voting decisions. "We allege that the LDS Church's investment manager, with the Church's knowledge, went to great lengths to avoid disclosing the Church's investments, depriving the Commission and the investing public of accurate market information," said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC's Division of Enforcement."

For context: if an individual member did something similar - deliberately hiding assets through shell companies and misreporting financial information - that member would face criminal prosecution, potential prison time, and certainly Church disciplinary action. Yet when the institutional Church does the same thing on a vastly larger scale, the consequence is a fine that represents a tiny fraction of the hidden wealth. The Church made no admission of wrongdoing and quickly declared the matter closed.

Why Conceal?

In the Sixty Minutes episode regarding the issue, they explained that the money was hidden to prevent the true extent of the wealth from becoming public knowledge, so that people wouldn't tell them how to spend the money.

Transparency about institutional finances would raise uncomfortable questions about the necessity of tithing, about how money is spent, and about the contrast between the Church's accumulated wealth and Christ's teachings about riches. The website Mormon Billions provides helpful visualization of the Church's known financial assets. The scale of wealth is staggering - particularly when contrasted with the Church's insistence that destitute families should pay tithing before buying food.

The Integrity Question

During temple recommend interviews, members are asked: "Do you strive to be honest in all that you do?" (Ensign January 2020 | Temple Recommend Interview Questions). For an individual member, financial fraud would be considered serious dishonesty and could result in a membership council. The Church handbook identifies "fraudulent acts" as grounds for Church discipline:

If the Church had been a person, it should have faced a church discipline council. However, membership councils apply only to individuals, not the Church. The Church can't discipline itself. Members are held to strict honesty requirements while the institutional Church operates under different rules.

Did the Prophet and members of the Quorum of the Twelve recognize that these actions were morally and legally wrong? These men are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators - special witnesses of Christ with divine guidance. Yet for twenty years, across multiple Church Presidencies, these leaders authorized and oversaw practices that violated federal law.

Elder David A. Bednar taught that Latter-Day Saints should be known for integrity (LDS Newsroom | Bednar | Be Known for Integrity - 29 Aug 2024). The Church's institutional behavior in concealing wealth through shell companies directly contradicts this principle. When prophetic leaders authorize practices that violate both legal and moral standards, confidence in prophetic guidance is undermined. Bednar should be ashamed for teaching about integrity when he was an active participant in this fraud.

Integrity is not just following the rules - it is doing what is right (Even when no one is watching - see Joseph Smith: Accountability & Accusation). One can follow the policies, check all the boxes, fill out all the forms, or conform to the societal standard AND still violate principles of integrity. Even if the Church had correctly followed the law (which it didn't), the usage of these shell companies was secretive and dishonest - The Church (Christ's supposed organization and guided by him) did not act with integrity.

Thoughts regarding the SEC Violation and Fine

The SEC violations and fine show that the Church puts its institutional interests - particularly protecting the perception of its wealth - over transparency and honesty. Dishonest practices were authorized by Church leadership for decades. The Church's response was not repentance or acknowledgment of wrongdoing but a settlement payment and a declaration that the matter was simply closed. When this event happened, I already had issues with the Church, and this was the final episode that destroyed any remaining confidence I had that the Church operated under divine guidance. The Church behaves like a corporation protecting its interests, not like a church led by prophets who speak with God, a God that demands integrity and honesty.

Chapter 13: Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom is a section of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 89) that gives guidance about food and drink. Today, the Church treats abstaining from alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea as part of its temple-worthiness standards, while other counsel in the section is not enforced in the same way. This chapter compares the text with current practice and asks what that difference means for the way the revelation is interpreted.

Selective Enforcement

The Interpretation Problem

These inconsistencies show that the Word of Wisdom as enforced by the Church isn't a straightforward application of revelation - it's a selective interpretation. If members followed the letter of the law, drinking wine and beer would be acceptable (or even encouraged for "mild drinks"), while hot beverages of any kind, meat consumption except in winter, and out-of-season produce would all be problems. If members instead follow the spirit of the law - treating it as general health guidance - then any unhealthy choice should affect temple worthiness. Should excessive sugar, processed foods, or lack of exercise be considered worthiness violations? The Church doesn't enforce those standards, revealing that "health" isn't actually the basis for worthiness. The Word of Wisdom is about obedience.

Thoughts regarding the Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom has logical inconsistencies that can't be resolved with an honest review. The Church enforces prohibitions against coffee and tea while ignoring equally clear instructions about meat consumption, seasonal produce, and "mild drinks" made from barley. It doesn’t make any sense.

Chapter 14: Miscellaneous Topics

This chapter gathers several questions that do not fit the earlier topic-specific chapters, including eternal marriage, the relationship between the Church and Christ, prophetic counsel, and beliefs about the afterlife. Each section can be read on its own.

Eternal Marriage and In-Active Husband

In Sunday School, ask the question: "What will happen to my family if my spouse is 'inactive' when they die?" You will get the answer: "We don't know, but it will all work out." This answer is vague, unhelpful, and false - it has been answered.

Joseph Fielding Smith taught that if a husband is not faithful to the Church, his wife will "be given to another husband in eternity" (Answers to Gospel Questions, Volume 3, Chapter 5, Joseph Fielding Smith).

Most "hard" questions do have answers, but because they're controversial, they have been forgotten or ignored. Is this actually doctrine, or simply his opinion? Prophets don't teach opinion, so it must be doctrine. #sarcasm

The Church as Christ's Representative

Kevin S. Hamilton taught: "Could I suggest an alternative approach? Substitute the word Savior or Lord or Jesus Christ in place of 'the Church' - as in 'I don't support the Savior's policy on (again, you fill in the blank)' or 'I don't agree with the way Jesus Christ does (this or that)'" (Why a Church? | Kevin S. Hamilton | BYU).

Kevin teaches that we should say "I disagree with Christ's policy." But he fails to take the examples to completion - I'll do so:

These examples don't help the Church's image. In fact, they show how much the church is not guided by Christ. To add some balance, here is a nice one:

This teaching suggests that the Church represents Christ in all matters - that disagreeing with Church policy means disagreeing with Christ Himself. This is theologically problematic. It leaves no room for institutional error or human fallibility in Church leadership. If the Church and Christ are effectively the same, then every policy, decision, legal action, and teaching represents Christ's direct will. This claim can't be sustained given the documented pattern of policy reversals, doctrinal changes, and ethical failures within the institution.

Selective Obedience to Prophetic Counsel

Can members choose to follow some prophetic teachings while rejecting other teachings? Are prophetic instructions merely suggestions, or are they binding? Do instructions have an expiration date - who decides when something no longer applies? How does picking and choosing affect worthiness? Examples include:

I have heard some people say: “Well that was only applicable at that time”, or “that was a different time”, or “That doesn’t apply any more”.

Can I decide that other instructions no longer apply to me?

The Church teaches that members have agency and can choose whether to follow prophetic counsel. Yet temple recommend interviews include questions about sustaining Church leaders and following their guidance. Members who openly disagree with prophetic teachings risk being denied temple recommends. This creates a requirement to go along with all prophetic counsel, even when you disagree.

The Afterlife and "Getting Your Own Planet"

For generations, Church members were taught in Primary, youth classes, and seminary that faithful members would "create worlds" or "get their own planet" in the afterlife, having "spirit children and making new worlds for them to live on" (Gospel Fundamentals | Book | Chapter 36, Page 201).

The Church's recent FAQ addresses this teaching: "Do Latter-Day Saints believe that they will 'get their own planet?' No. This idea is not taught in Latter-Day Saint scripture, nor is it a doctrine of the Church. This misunderstanding stems from speculative comments unreflective of scriptural doctrine. Latter-Day Saints believe that we are all sons and daughters of God and that all of us have the potential to grow during and after this life to become like our Heavenly Father (see Romans 8:16-17). The Church does not and has never purported to fully understand the specifics of Christ's statement that 'in my Father's house are many mansions' (John 14:2)" (FAQ | LDS Newsroom).

Quotes that confirm "we do get a planet!!!"

Of course, defenders of the Church will explain that these sources were just opinions of those giving the teachings.

Why would the Church publish that FAQ? Because the public and members had questions! "The Mormons believe that if they are righteous then they get a planet after they die - weirdos!", "Do we really get our own planet? That sounds weird." These revisions make it seem like the Church is attempting to be less weird and more mainstream. For decades, this idea was not presented as speculation but as established doctrine taught in official Church settings and materials. Members were not told that the Church lacked understanding of the afterlife; they were given hopeful descriptions of the afterlife; of creating worlds and having spirit children. The current FAQ dismisses those teachings as speculative comments and says the Church has never claimed to fully understand the details. That directly conflicts with how earlier generations were taught. This is so wrong! The Church knows what was taught and said by prophets - who are supposed to speak for God.

Chapter 15: Conclusions

In exploring these topics, I've encountered these non-answer responses that don't actually address the underlying questions:

My current conclusions are:

The inconsistency and institutional immorality have demonstrated to me that the Church is simply a creation of men who have their own agenda. Sometimes the Church does good, and sometimes it does harm - just like any other man-made thing. It is just another corporation - and Christ is not the CEO.

I expected more from the Church. I expected better. Each of these issues has contributed to breaking my faith, little by little. It was painful. But I’m better now - I've replaced my broken faith with a stronger desire to live a good life.

So what now? With all this research and discovery, how do I move forward with my faith? The answer: not with the Church nor any other church - similar issues are found in all Christian denominations, and across all religions. So what do I do? Here is what I believe:

I choose to follow the simple teachings of Christ, which are to love God and love others, and have empathy. No bureaucracy, handbooks, callings, or minutia dictated by the Church. I will try to do better each day, and will fail. That is the best I can do, and it is enough. I feel at peace and I am happy.

Appendix: Simple Faith

Preface: The moral teachings of Jesus are good in their own right. A person can value and practice compassion, honesty, forgiveness, humility, and care for others regardless of whether they believe in God or believe Jesus was divine. These teachings can be judged by the kind of life they encourage and the effect they have on the people around us.

Jesus was a reformer. He challenged the religious interpretations and practices of His time when they placed rules, status, or public displays of piety above mercy, justice, and care for people. He called people toward a purer and better way, not simply more outward observance but a life shaped from within by compassion and integrity (Matthew 23:23; Mark 7:8–13).

He did not formalize a new church as an institution. His teachings were a personal, inward way of living: a call to become compassionate, honest, forgiving, and humble, and to express those qualities in how we treat others. People may gather and encourage one another, but the heart of this teaching does not depend on institutional membership or authority.

Was Jesus divine? Was He the literal Son of God? Were His story and teachings mythologized? Do these questions matter? No. What matters is that we live a good life. As I have reviewed my beliefs, I have found that they still align with Jesus's core teachings. But I believe all churches, including the Church, have it wrong. These are my thoughts on a simpler form of faith, the faith that I believe Jesus taught. This is a critical analysis of how modern Christianity has perverted Jesus's core teachings and how we should return to what Jesus taught.

But none of it matters; none of it changes anything. My faith, my adherence to the/a Church, and my belief in God change nothing. Each day, I get up and go about my day. Consider these reflections:

Belief or unbelief doesn’t change anything. Life continues.

Each day, I live my life. I choose to live a good life. I will choose to be a good person. I choose to utilize the time and life that I have; worrying about what happens after won't change anything. I love my family. I love my life. I live. I'm good. Life is beautiful. Find joy in the journey and live in the moment. I am happy, and that is enough.

This appendix came about as I thought about how many of the Church's teachings are wrong, incomplete, mythologized, or based on assumptions. As I thought about that, I realized how much of Christianity is misunderstood.

Christianity teaches that Jesus's mission was to fulfill the Law of Moses, provide the higher law, and atone. He didn't intend on merely adjusting the Law of Moses or adding a few new commandments on top of it. He came to fulfill it completely and replace the old pattern of external religious compliance with an inward, spiritual/higher way of living. That shift from outward to inward, from physical to spiritual, is the key to understanding both Jesus's teachings and common misunderstandings.

Within modern Christianity, specifically in LDS theology, consider teachings around "The Kingdom of God" and "The Second Coming"

We hear people say they are building the Kingdom - that Missionaries are building the Kingdom. We hear people say the "Second Coming will happen soon." They are wrong in their assumptions about both of these concepts. The same mistake is made over and over in religious history: people take what is symbolic and make it literal, take what is inward and make it institutional, take what is spiritual and reduce it to physical expectations. The Jews expected a political Messiah and missed the one that actually came. Christians, for 2000 years, have awaited a political or apocalyptic Second Coming and miss what Jesus taught plainly about His kingdom: "The kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21).

To understand the Kingdom of God and the Second Coming, as they SHOULD BE understood, we must first look at the Law of Moses, and then consider the "Higher Law" that Jesus taught.

The Law of Moses: The Lesser Law

The Law of Moses was a set of commandments given to the Israelites to help prepare them for something greater. It was not a final destination but a scaffold, a guide, and a teacher, designed to shape a people, build discipline, and point them toward something greater. The Law governed every aspect of life: diet, cleanliness, sacrifice, property, worship, and social conduct.

The implementation of the Old Law was primarily external. Obedience was measured by visible action. You either sacrificed the correct animal or you did not. You either observed the Sabbath or you did not. The Law drew clear, visible lines between the clean and the unclean, the worthy and the unworthy, the insider and the outsider. The priests and Levites acted as gatekeepers, determining who met the requirements and who did not.

This system served a purpose. It built identity, community, and moral habit. But it was always meant to be preparatory, not permanent.

Jesus Taught the Higher Law

Jesus was critical of those people who physically did all they should, but lacked internal commitment. He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, completing it and showing what it had been pointing toward all along. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matthew 5:17). The Lesser Law was always meant to end. In fulfilling the Law of Moses, the Law came to an end, and He replaced it with a higher form of faith and living. His fulfillment was total. He did not fulfill part of the law; every aspect and detail of the Law of Moses was completed. No part of the minutiae of the Law of Moses was intended to remain as part of Christianity. Jesus's teaching represented a new, higher, and simpler way of living.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus repeatedly contrasted the letter of the Law with the spirit behind it:

He taught the pattern of internal commitment and asked us to apply it to all aspects of life, not only the examples He outlined. The pattern is clear: the Law of Moses was about outward actions, but the Higher Law is about inward commitment that governs our outward actions. You could follow Moses for show. You cannot follow Jesus for show; it only works when it is real, based on who you actually are, not from what you are required to do. Following Jesus is personal and internal.

This is the Higher Law: love God, love your neighbor (Matthew 22:37-39). Any additions, fine print, footnotes, minutiae, policies, or institutional requirements are a return to something that looks like the Law of Moses: a "Neo-Mosaic Law."

The First Coming: A Mortal and Physical Foundation

The first coming of Jesus was a mortal event. He was born of a woman in Bethlehem. He grew up in Nazareth. He walked the roads of Galilee and Judea. He lived, worked, taught, and died.

In the "First Coming," Jesus took physical actions and performed physical rituals, completing them and ushering in new spiritual realities. He lived the physical law while teaching its successor, the spiritual, internal law. His resurrection showed that while physical reality has value, its ultimate fulfillment is deeper, more transformative, and internal.

Patterns are a recurring theme, and must be emphasized as a way that God works: He begins with the physical and literal as an external shadow, then fulfills and transforms the physical into the spiritual and internal. Jesus elevated physical rituals into inward principles, and that is the exact framework we must apply to our understanding of His return:

Law (Physical Foundation / Shadow) Spirit (Spiritual Fulfillment / Transformation)
External rules and rituals (Exodus, Leviticus) Inward righteousness and love (Matthew 5)
Water immersion as ritual purification Spiritual rebirth and inner cleansing
Animal sacrifice Personal sacrifice of broken heart / spirit
"Thou shalt not kill" Anger and contempt are judged (Matthew 5:21-22)
"Thou shalt not commit adultery" Lust is adultery in the heart (Matthew 5:27-28)
Oaths permitted Say "Yes" or "No" only (Matthew 5:37)
"Eye for eye" Turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:38-42)
"Love thy neighbour" Love your enemies (Matthew 5:43-48)
Ritual purity laws Inner purity matters (Mark 7:14-23)
Jesus's mortal arrival Jesus's internal, spiritual arrival in the soul

Jesus's first coming introduced these principles in a physical world. Following this established pattern of fulfillment, the second "coming" is spiritual. The second coming is brought about by living the Higher Law that Jesus taught.

Jesus came and fulfilled His mission. The lesser physical law was complete, and the higher spiritual law took its place. This spiritual law is not written down in institutional handbooks or governed by administrative minutiae. It is internal and personal.

How to Live the Higher Law (The Spiritual Law)

Living the Spiritual Law that Jesus taught, sometimes referred to as the "Higher Law," is not complicated to describe, but it is demanding in practice. It requires no checklist, no ritual, and no Church approval. It asks that your heart, your thoughts, your motives, and your compassion be genuine.

In practical terms, living the Higher Law means:

There is no reporting, no checklist to complete, no box to tick, no leadership, and no assignment. The Higher Law is lived privately, moment by moment. Jesus's standard is not "Did you attend?" but "Did you love?"

The Modern Church Has Instituted a Neo-Mosaic Law

The irony of Christian history is that the churches built in Jesus's name have, in many ways, rebuilt the very system He came to replace. The modern institutional church rebuilt, piece by piece, what Jesus tore down: a system that used outward behavior as the measure of worthiness. This is the Neo-Mosaic Law, a set of rituals, requirements, and gatekeepers dressed in the language of the Higher Law but functioning by the logic of the old one.

You could argue that all organizations need structure and rules, and that is true. But the Higher Law that Jesus taught was not a Church or an organization. It was personal and internal. Jesus did not want us to join 'His Church'; He wanted us to follow His example and live, love, and serve purely.

Note on Scripture, History, and the Word "CHURCH":

Critics will point out that we rely on the New Testament, a book preserved by the very Church being criticized, to understand Jesus. But we work with the Bible we have, sifting the core ethics of Jesus from the institutional framing surrounding it.

There was never a pure "golden age" of Christianity. From the very beginning, the Apostles brought their own Hebrew biases, cultural expectations, and desire for physical administration to the movement. In the New Testament, the source word translated as "church" is the Greek term "ekklesia" (translated as "called out" or "gathering"), which historically designated a simple gathering of people called together for a purpose. It was not a corporate organization, physical building, or institutional hierarchy.

Almost immediately, the Apostles began institutionalizing this simple concept, introducing offices, financial management, and gatekeeping. The modern English word "church" derives from a separate Greek root (kyriakon, meaning "belonging to the Lord"), which over centuries fully shifted to prioritize physical structures and organizations instead of a simple gathering of people with shared values.

Anyone who tells you that Jesus said "Join my Church" is reading centuries of institutional evolution back into the text. Jesus taught that we should gather and support one another in our faith. Simple as that.

Consider the following Neo-Mosaic examples from the LDS Church:

None of it is necessary to live the Higher Law. It is all Neo-Mosaic.

The Higher Law has one requirement: that you love. The institutional requirements listed above (and many others), including the handbook, the white shirt, the tithing recommend, the callings, the assignments, the ordinances, and the temple, are Neo-Mosaic additions. These Neo-Mosaic guides are, by nature, preparatory and may be useful to some people in some circumstances. Confusing them with the Higher Law would repeat the same error the Pharisees made. If the Church is helpful to you, then lean on it; use it. But do so knowing that it is preparatory; eventually, God wants you to own your spirituality and seek a relationship with Him, without the crutch of the organization.

What Should the Church Be Doing?

Nothing.

That is not a cynical answer. It is a theological one. There should be no Church. The church should not be defining worthiness, assigning ministry, gatekeeping ordinances, or legislating compliance. If the Church were to take Jesus's teachings seriously, it would dissolve itself, abandon its policies and bureaucratic apparatus, and simply enable people to gather together and encourage one another to love others and live good lives. There would be no records, no membership, no recommends, no excommunication, no compliance, and no assignments. We would all follow Jesus's example to love and serve. Would any church do that? Would any church shut itself down? Not likely.

It is true that human beings do not naturally default to Christlike love and altruism. Left on their own, people fall back into selfishness, tribalism, and ego. But that is the entire point. The Higher Law calls us to overcome that human default through intentional, personal commitment, not because an institution forced us to but because we choose to. Institutions try to force altruism through rules and social pressure, but external compliance is not true moral growth. The goal is for individuals to choose goodness willingly.

The earliest Christian gatherings were burdened almost immediately by administrative drift, as the Apostles, carrying their Hebrew cultural biases, tried to manage communities through external hierarchy. But at its core, the movement was meant to consist of communities of people who had accepted Jesus's ethics and were trying to live accordingly. They shared resources. They cared for each other. They did not need handbooks or reporting structures.

The church, if it wishes to be faithful to the Christianity that Jesus taught, should get out of the way.

The Second Coming

Matthew 24 is referenced when discussing the Second Coming. The chapter explains the state of the world, false Christs, deception, lightning, and so on. Read through a symbolic lens, it makes sense. Read literally, it is terrifying. I don’t believe the Second Coming will be terrifying. It will be a beautiful event. Why? Because the Second Coming brings about the Kingdom of God on earth, but not in the way people believe.

The Second Coming is a common theme in Christianity. Christians expect the Second Coming to go roughly like this: at some future point in history, Jesus will physically return to earth. He will come in glory. The dead will be raised. The wicked will be destroyed. A thousand-year reign of Jesus on earth will begin. The Church will be the government. The righteous will be gathered. The world as we know it will end, and a new world will begin. Christians scan current events for signs, such as wars, earthquakes, and political drama, that indicate the return is near. The question "Is He coming soon?" is asked with genuine urgency, as if the answer changes how one should live today.

It is all wrong.

It is wrong for the same reason the Jewish expectation of the Messiah was wrong. The Jews were taught by their culture and traditions that the Messiah would come and free them by becoming a military king who would restore Israel's physical, political sovereignty. These teachings gave them false expectations. They got the nature of the Messiah wrong. They looked forward to a political conqueror, and they failed to recognize the spiritual mission and purpose of Jesus.

Christians today make the same error. Teachers speak of His physical return and His physical reign, and the physical punishment of the wicked. They look for Jesus and want to be included in His political kingdom and reign. They ignore what Jesus said clearly about the Kingdom of God:

The Kingdom of God is not physical; it never was and never will be. The Kingdom of God is internal. It is in the individual hearts of those who live well and love others.

The original Apostles themselves struggled with this. Bound by their own traditional Hebrew expectations, even after the resurrection they asked: "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6). These men had walked with Jesus, yet their writings and administrative actions often reflected an incomplete transition away from physical, Old Testament framework thinking. The physical Second Coming expectation that dominates Christian thinking today traces directly back to this early apostolic struggle to let go of physical, political messianism in favor of Jesus's purely spiritual vision.

So What Is the Kingdom of God and the Second Coming?

The Kingdom of God is internal, as Jesus taught. It means being at peace with ourselves and living a good life guided by Jesus's example.

The Second Coming is an internal awakening that invites us to live like Jesus. It is internal, personal, and beautiful.

When we look clearly at the pattern of physical actions and rituals giving way to the spiritual, we can see that the Second Coming has been taught incorrectly. It is not a future apocalyptic event. It is a beautiful, personal, spiritual, and ongoing event.

Jesus taught this plainly. When asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He did not describe an apocalyptic future event. He said: "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21). We will not see the Kingdom of God physically organized; it cannot be tracked on a timeline or predicted with geopolitical signs. It is within. It is in the heart.

“If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23): The Second Coming and the Kingdom of God, understood correctly, represent Jesus's spiritual arrival and reign in each of us, beginning in the heart of a person who accepts Him. This can happen every time a person genuinely opens their life to Jesus's values and teachings. It can happen over and over again as a person deepens their application of Jesus's teachings. It can happen today.

It is personal, internal, and spiritual.

I think this is a beautiful and fulfilling way to live.

Live Good Now

The world is genuinely turbulent. War, injustice, poverty, cruelty, betrayal, and loss are common. The world could destroy itself tomorrow. The urge to say, "I hope He comes soon," is understandable. But it passes the work of change off to a future physical event that by Jesus's own description will never happen in the way people expect.

The alternative is this: live the Higher Law now. Live well now. Live what Jesus taught now! In doing so, you are living the spiritual law, building the Kingdom of God, and experiencing the Second Coming as a lived reality in your heart and in your corner of the world, not as a geopolitical event.

When someone chooses love over anger, they are manifesting the Kingdom of God. When someone forgives a wrong, they are making the world better. When someone serves a neighbor out of genuine care, speaks honestly, or extends kindness, they are living as Jesus would. They are making the world better; they are building the Kingdom of God.

This is what Jesus meant by "the kingdom of God is within you." The kingdom does not wait for external conditions to be right. It begins inside a person and manifests outward. A community of people genuinely living the Higher Law through loving, serving, and forgiving becomes a city on a hill (Matthew 5:14). Not a perfect city. Not an institution with laws, a handbook, and a leadership hierarchy, but a community where Jesus's presence is felt because His values are genuinely lived. Imagine such a community.

In a turbulent world, this is the only true solution. Not political action. Not apocalyptic waiting. Not membership in the Church. Living the Higher Law in ordinary daily choices is how we experience the Second Coming and build the Kingdom of God.

Do you want to experience the Second Coming? Follow Jesus and live as He would.

Simple Faith

At its core, Jesus's teachings simplified everything. He taught "Simple Faith." The complexity of the Law of Moses was fulfilled, and He taught us to simplify our faith: love God and love others. Focus more on the heart and the internal rather than on external compliance. Anything beyond love and empathy is a return to the old law format. To practice simple faith, one must have empathy and live and love as Jesus would.

What does all this mean? It means that churches were created by men. Well-meaning men, maybe? Manipulative men, maybe? Jesus? No. Jesus didn't form a Church; He replaced the institutional law with a simple, internal, self-governed faith. It means that Jesus taught simply, and people have corrupted and perverted His simple teachings by adding institutions, membership, hierarchy, worthiness, and so on. Do you find value in the Church? Does church help you feel closer to God? If so, go and participate. If not, don't go; your spirituality is personal and internal, and you can nurture it in other ways. It means that you should live your best life. Do or don't participate in church; just live well.

I choose to live well and love others. I do this because I want to, not because the Church tells me to. I am "good" without the Church. I choose to live outside the labels and stigma of the Church. I don't need the Church to label me worthy. I do not need to pay a tenth of my income every month to be worthy. I do not need a temple recommend to be worthy. I do not need to fulfill a Church calling to be worthy. What do I need? I need to live well, love my family and others, and focus on being authentic, with an inward commitment to the goodness that Jesus taught. I choose to live well and love others. I choose to be compassionate and serve when I can because I want to, not because it was assigned. I want to be honest, patient, and kind in my daily life because those are the values I want to cultivate, the values that Jesus taught, not to maintain a temple recommend. I want to follow His example.

The Kingdom of God is in the heart. The Second Coming is a personal event. Live Good. Love Others. Do as Jesus would do. Each day I live like this, maybe I can make my corner of the world a little better. I will fall short, and I will keep trying. That is human. That is what it means to live the Higher Law: not a perfect score on a checklist, but a sincere, daily, imperfect effort to love and live as Jesus loved and lived. That is Christianity. That is what Jesus taught. Simple Faith. Faith is meant to be simple. Belief in more? Belief in yourself? Belief in the goodness of God or the goodness of Man? Faith is personal, not institutional.

Live Good.