Share this Episode

Comments 80

  1. Point 28 was difficult to understand. Gordon Hinkley doesn’t say that financial info is withheld from the members, but from the public. So the dialogue doesn’t support the claim made.

    1. Gordon B. Hinkley said in part: ‘Well, we simply think that that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes.’ Gordon B Hinkley is saying that the information regarding member contribution belongs to those who made the contributions and not to the public. President Hinkley is not being truthful because the Church also withholds the information from those who made the contributions.

    2. Yes but got to Church headquarters and show them your temple recommend and prove you’re a member and ask to see the books. No way they let you.

    3. GBH states that it (the church’s financials) is not public knowledge, because it’s only disclosed to those who make the contributions. That’s untrue, even those who contribute tithes (us members), don’t have any financials disclosed. Ever.

  2. Juanita Brooks was not excommunicated from the church. She was threatened, and the church stole historical documents from her, but not excommunicated.

  3. John – A formal book would be nice but this isn’t really new — google “Lying for the Lord” and you’ll see MormonThink and others have compiled even lengthier lists of clear examples.

    I think learning that we’ve been lied to is like the second red pill for some ex-Mormons (other takes this position right away but I resisted it for some time). I left 7 years ago and, like you, have only recently come around to the view that senior leaders have been dishonest from the beginning. Because I know some of the current leaders personally it was really hard for me to accept this because that makes good people seem not so good but the evidence is fairly overwhelming.

    1. You (I presume) and I may be familiar with this content, however as I’ve mentioned to John before, the post Mormon community is not static. We have hundreds, perhaps thousands that are Just coming to this information and need to hear, then discover and swim in these issues. I started my journey when John’s podcasts were about seven, and I’ve reveled in the likes of Coe, Metcalf, Nagel, Ehrman, and others, but realize that this content needs to be revisited and re-presented perhaps by similar scholars often for those that are just coming into this knowledge. Mormonthink is an excellent resource and was themselves just up and going when I first visited them. Yes, nothing new for you and I, but this may be new for a desperate member on a particular trajectory, and finding it may have the same electrifying effect it had on me when I first discovered it, that I was not alone, and that I was not crazy for thinking the things that I was.

    2. 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants 101 where it states: “ Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife”

  4. I don’t think that Bushman, Givens, and Fluhman belong on that list with the others. I’ve never seen them attack. And they’ve been pushing the church in the direction of greater transparency.

      1. I think John added them because their methodology is passive aggressive, which in many ways is more damaging and deceitful than all-out aggression.

        1. Agreed. In his interview with Shannon Montez he came right out and said that all the apologists material was “garbage”, which it is. Thank you John for having the courage to say the truth.

  5. This might go along with #17 but seems very significant to me. The church sent and funded certain members to settle in various areas from Juárez Mexico to Southern Utah and Canada with orders to continue polygamy only to later completely shun and disavow the groups.

    1. Yes. This absolutely belongs. The mormon church flat out lied about what Prop 8 was about, and its involvement in getting it passed.

      1. Yes, I was floored by your guest who stated that he was assigned to participate in the Prop 8 organization headed up by the church and was told by an apostle that they are not going out on behalf of the church, but just as concerned citizens who are exercising their rights. That struck me as very disingenuous.

  6. – November 2015 policy later revelation and then revelation/cessation of the policy three years later. The church was dishonest by claiming such a short lived revelation and the real reason(s) behind the policy/revelation.
    -Temple ordinances. They’ve been dishonest of the origin of these as they were clearly borrowed from freemasonry. They’re also not honest about previous blood oaths and how they’re able to change unalterable ordinances. If ordinances are directly from God, how have they changed? The lack of honesty of what these blood oaths and grips and ordinances really mean and their real purpose.
    -Lack of honest answers surrounding controversial historical incidents.
    -By withholding information regarding history, character of its current and past leaders, questionable business practices (City Creek), it leads people to devote time, money, land, resources, etc. when they may not have done so if they had full disclosure.

  7. 1. Only the faith-promoting facts are told about the Willie/Martin Handcart journey. We aren’t taught that there were plenty of warnings as to why this endeavor was not a wise and safe thing to do.
    2. Ronald Eugene Poelman (May 10, 1928 – November 19, 2011) was a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1978 until his death. In 1984, he delivered a controversial sermon in the LDS Church’s general conference which the church redacted before publishing.
    3. We’re never told about sections of the early Doctrine & Covenants that condemn polygamy and were later taken out during Brigham Young’s presidency. (Section 101 in the 1835 D&C and a Section 109 in the 1844 D&C called The Article on Marriage. Both these sections clearly condemn the practice of polygamy)
    4. We’re taught about having one’s calling and election made sure and led to believe that it’s an ordinance in the temple where you actually meet the Savior. We’re never told that it’s not Jesus but just one of the Q15 that does the ordinance.

    1. good catch Garth. That 1984 re-talk was pretty outrageous and audacious. Maybe it’s the fake cough track that puts it over the top for me

  8. Honestly as an ex-Mormon, I think a lot of these are weak and easy fodder for apologetic criticism and desperately need sources and more specifics.

    For example, You can’t prove Joseph didn’t think he was translating ancient texts by the gift and power of God. That is your claim but to claim to know Joseph’s intent is dishonest. You can disprove the texts but can’t claim to know what was in Joseph’s head. The Kirtland Safety Society debacle was terribly misguided in hindsight, but these “anti-banks” were not uncommon and widespread runs on banks led to more than just the KSS failure – you can’t assert that JS was “intentionally defrauding members.” That’s intellectually dishonest as you cannot prove someone’s intent.

    #13 is too vague to be a real claim – needs to be much more specific and sourced. #23 would need sourcing on “overt attempt to hide the potentially controversial documents.” #24 is an incredibly vague accusation, as is #33.

    1. I couldn’t agree more with this statement. If you hope for a list or even book such as this to penetrate the ex-Mormon echo-chamber (assuming the audience would also include believing members which I think it should), it needs a lot more nuance and context than found here — or even in a lot of other works such as CES Letter. It also might be more productive to focus on specific individuals behind the cover-ups rather than pointing to the church as a whole, especially given the range of disagreement and dissent that occurs among the top leaders?

  9. Making us believe that you had to be sealed in the temple first….and that this was doctrine…But come to find out that other countries (except United States and Canada) allow a civil marriage to be done first and a temple sealing that very same day, or the next….or a week/month later. We were told that it was the Lords commandment/doctrine to have to wait a year before getting sealed if you were married in the Married civilly. There are other varying and different doctrines in other countries as well…so for example in the Phillipines people are able to be baptized even if they are living in “sin” with another person that they are not married to. Any most other countries the prospective members have to get married before being baptized….and many missionaries have used their monthly food allowances and go with out food so they can help the prospective members get married so they can baptize them.

  10. Very selective quoting about tithing in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow Chapter 12 where the words “who has means” were removed from the quote.

  11. This may be trivial compared to some
    ..but I was so irritated when I went through the Beehive House in the late 90’s to find that the tourguide were only talking about ONE wife of Brigham Young…when I distinctly remembered the many times I went through in the years before; and was shoes the other wive’s bedrooms and the guides were open about the fact that several wives lived in the house.

    1. This!
      Keep pestering the tour guides about the other wives. They will pull you aside and try to guilt you for asking about it. After all, there just may be people in the tour group that need a dose of deception.

  12. When the early missionaries proselytizing over seas were confronted with the question about plural marriages being practiced by the church they denied its being practiced. I found this info on another sight so can verify its accuracy.

    During a
    debate in France while on his mission to England, he concocted the
    following blatant lie where he condemns polygamy, by quoting D&C 101:4
    which at that time also condemned polygamy:

    “We are accused here of polygamy,… and actions the most indelicate,

    If true, this is institutionalized lying. I think I read somewhere “I God cannot lie” and that if he did lie he would cease to be God. Then I remember reading somewhere else “whether by my voice or the voice of my servants, it is the same,” Something doesn’t add up here.
    obscene, and disgusting, such that none but a corrupt and depraved
    heart could have contrived. These things are too outrageous to admit
    of belief;… I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity
    and marriage, from a work published by us containing some of the
    articles of our Faith. ‘Doctrine and Covenants,’ page 330… Inasmuch
    as this Church of Jesus Christ has been reproached with the crime of
    fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man
    should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in the
    case of death,…”‘ (A tract published by John Taylor in 1850, page 8;
    found in Orson Pratt’s Works, 1851 edition)

    In 1850, John Taylor had married twelve polygamous wives. The
    following is a list of those wives and children they eventually bore
    him:

    Leonora Cannon, md 1833, 4 children
    Elizabeth Kaighin, md 1843, 3 children
    Jane Ballantyne, md 1844, 3 children
    Anna Ballantyne (Allen), md 1844, separated 1845, divorced 1852
    Mary A. Oakley, md 1845, 5 children
    Mary A. Utley, md 1846
    Mary Ramsbottom, md 1846
    Sarah Thornton (Coleman) md 1846, div 1852
    Lydia Dible (Granger Smith), md 1846
    Ann Hughlings (Pitchforth), md 1846
    Sophia Whittaker, md 1847, 8 children
    Harriet Whittaker, md 1847, 3 children

  13. Claiming to be a legitimate tax exempt organization while not supporting a single charitable cause from a 100 billion stash.

  14. The Sweetwater Rescue of 1856: clearly extended over decades from it’s printing in 1914 by Solomon Kimball, then included in Sunday School manuals.
    https://www.brycox.com/lds/BryCox-SweetwaterRescue.pdf

    False story summary : The 3 young men who died in carrying 500 people across a frozen river. Brigham Y said they would receive exaltation for that act alone.
    There’s a 1981 Priesthood session where Hinckley says “… and I quote from the record…” After 20 years of being an apostle, he clearly repeated what he thought was true.
    Took until 2006 before being corrected.
    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2006/12/go-and-bring-them-in?lang=eng

    Reality summary: none died from exposure ; 1 was in and out of prison for years; some died after Brigham Young. BY never said anything about exaltation

    Result: decades of ‘inspired’ people following a myth.

  15. What about the secret $120 billion investment fund and then Roger Clarke admitting they didn’t tell members about it because they didn’t want members to stop paying tithing.

    Using said account for two for- profit expenses.

  16. I would be interested to see any evidence that Richard Bushman or Terryl & Fiona Givens “FOR DECADES … publicly attack[ed] the character of honest truth-tellers of Mormon history, and … misl[ed] and gaslight[ed] its membership regarding problematic church history”.

  17. I would also say Holland reporting double digit stake creation “every week of our lives” and also the story that was told to mission presidents about a young man that served a mission and “converted” his hell’s angels older brother that he didn’t know about, both of which have been proven false.

    Also, my wife said the story about Nelson when he and his wife were in Africa and were robbed and the inflation of that situation.

  18. Kinderhook Plates
    Second Anointing
    Several changes to the Temple ordinances
    J.Smith tarred and feathered and almost castrated for messing with a young girl ( Johnson’ girl if Iam not mistaken)
    Prominent women were married to J.Smith and then B.Young- ie Eliza Snow
    Rebaptizing in UT to show obedience to B.Young
    Blood atonement
    Danonites
    Council of 50
    Doctrinal. Changes in 1835 edition of the Book of Mormon ( not just grammatical)- modulism
    Dispute over polygamy with S.Rigdon and William Law
    Witnesses of Book of Mormon- visionary eyes and what did they really see

  19. I wasn’t aware of 31:

    The Mormon explicitly forbidding current Mormon apostles and prophets from keeping journals, so as to prevent any future sensitive church information from coming to light.

    Can anyone shed more light on this for me?

  20. While there are valid points of enquiry here for those associated with the church, you might consider the following in the writing and presentation of the list/book:
    1) Tone. This reads like it’s written by someone who’s angry with the church and is actively seeking to bring it down. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t truth in what’s been written, but there seems to be a lack of balance in what’s been presented and how.
    2) Sources. Some links are provided to outside sources but these are the exception rather than the rule. Mormon history is notoriously polemical and somehow has to straddle the dichotomies of scandal and hagiography, so it’s important to see more detail on the sources supporting these points. Hacking around on google isn’t good research technique, but that is what readers are left to do in the absence of source citations.
    3) Representation of intentions. Good historians are particularly careful not to be so forward in stating the intentions of their subjects unless they can be *absolutely certain* with minimal need for conjecture. As I see the list, there’s too much conjecture about Joseph Smith’s intentions. Trusted, tenured historians have written in favour of JS’s belief that he was a prophet of God. A counter-narrative re his intentions needs strong evidence.
    Hope that’s useful.

    1. Perhaps you could give us the balance. As to tone, that is in the eye of the beholder is it not? Your comment rather seems like a somewhat disingenuous attempt to discredit the issues by implying the hate motivation defense.

    2. Sorry Saul but you, along with a few others here, seem to be confusing John’s thumbnail sketch for a possible book idea with a finished product. What John is doing here is called brainstorming in my part of the world. You a familiar with the difference between an outline and a finished product, aren’t you?

  21. I think there are several other things.
    The constant changes to the Temple and claiming that it is from Solomon.
    The statements of Nelson – God is Offended! Mormon is a victory for Satan!
    The downplaying of the bishop molestation and Kirton McConkie.
    The enacting of the Nov 2015 policy and removal 3 years later.

    John, You are doing great work!

  22. I did not see any mention of how tithing has evolved. President Snow said “I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child WHO HAS MEANS shall pay one-tenth of their income as tithing. Newer handbooks and the church website removes the words “WHO HAS MEANS.” Church leaders say to pay tithing before basic necessities.

  23. In my opinion the first item on the list should be the Book of Mormon itself. The book for which the name they bear whether they like it or not. The church is nothing without the book and the book is nothing without the church. The book claims to be actual history of ancient American peoples and only recently was reduced from all native Americans to some of them. The Mormon church has converted over 5 million people in South America and told them they were descendants of righteous white people who came to America and became dark and loathsome through wickedness. These were ideas common to early 19th century Americans who still accepted slavery and were more on the side of genocide than racism. Parley P Pratt described it as either the most important book in history, or the greatest hoax known to man. Definitely closer to the latter and should be at the top of your list. Just ask any Native American that has converted to Mormonism and then later realized the truth.

  24. Teaching those good people that if the Mormon church isn’t true then nothing is, causing so many fall into atheism or agnosticism. One day Joseph Smith will have to stand before God and answer for that.

  25. Must include something about their flip flop on blacks and the priesthood . ….ie, current leadership saying it wasn’t doctrine just policy. They taught it forever as doctrine and then when they finally were forced to comply or lose tax free status, it was suddenly a policy that could be changed…oops I mean God revealed it was time to lift the ban!!!!

  26. You would come up with a shorter list if you asked for the most honest acts in Mormon church history. They seem to be dishonest at every turn.

  27. Purposely hiding for decades the Seer Stone’s role in the creation of the Book of Mormon, teaching a false narrative of direct translation from gold plates.

  28. Another is telling young men and women going to serve a mission that it is about service and love and being like christ….when reality it is about numbers getting yelled at, and learning how to be a mormon for life.

  29. “Intentionally dishonest” is very difficult to definitively demonstrate. You need to establish who knew what and when, and *being aware* of something is not enough to establish dishonesty.

    For instance, the leaders knew about BH Roberts list of issues in ~1922, but they weren’t necessarily *convinced* that those were major issues (as evidenced by *how* they responded in testimony)? Unless active steps are taken to suppress something, then it can be the case that they simply did not *emphasize* or make public certain issues. But suppression and failing to make transparent are slightly different.

    Here’s an example where I carefully walk through the handling of the 1832 First Vision account to establish a precise and definitive statement on its suppression:

    https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/1832-first-vision-account-suppressed/

    I’m just urging that great caution and circumspection be used in how these issues are discussed, especially as it relates to motivation (I do care about treating others fairly and compassionately, even LDS leadership, but more important than that is building a case that is unassailable because it was constructed with care).

  30. I would argue that “not doing something about Book of Mormon problems” that BH Roberts pointed out to the church Leadership is the same as suppression.

  31. You forgot to mention the Mormon pioneers’ land theft. The version of Mormon pioneer history I learned in church included the story of Brother Brigham spreading his hand over a valley devoid of human habitation. My pioneer ancestors settled eastern Utah. Many of my family members still live on the Ute Indian reservation for crying out loud. Somehow I was able to hold in my mind the contradiction I saw with my own eyes: my grandpa’s neighbor was a Native American man living on his ancestral lands surrounded by the grandchildren of Mormon pioneers. Somehow I thought that the grandparents I visited every few years were living on pristine land that God had set aside for HIS people. (It’s such a mass of confusion I can hardly write this.) Furthermore, the Lamanites would someday be made ‘white and delightsome.’ Talk about cognitive dissonance! So… Please include the theft of Indian lands, the murders, the massacres, the slave tradeing, the destruction of families and culture, and the continual gas lighting of modern Native Americans.

  32. “Milk and strippings” story
    On April 6, 1856, George A. Smith claimed that Thomas B. Marsh had left the church because of a dispute between his wife and another female church member over a milk cow, which had escalated all the way up to the First Presidency. LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley has repeated the story.

    https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1984/05/small-acts-lead-to-great-consequences?lang=eng
    https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/54505-restoring-thomas-b-marshs-good-name/

  33. Hi John,

    It strikes me as inherently dishonest that the church labors to project the image that racism was just a common feature of American culture and that, as President Hinckley told Larry King, “That’s all behind us.’

    As the church’s last prophet/apologist with the courage to speak directly to the press, he also said in another interview, “I don’t hear any complaint from our black brethren and sisters. I hear only appreciation and gratitude wherever I go,” he said. “But I don’t see anything further that we need to do.”

    How about an apology!

    During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, when men and women of goodwill in this country were marching with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. seeking equal human rights for ALL of God’s children. When we saw Catholics, Protestants, Jews, even human secularists display the courage to speak up, we did not hear from Mormons. Rather, they bowed to their prophet and his apostles who continued to preach discriminatory racist doctrines and policies harming persons of color. 

    Ezra Taft Benson, later to become the president of the LDS church, was one of the Mormon hierarchy’s most strident voices against the national crusade for African American civil rights. 

    In 1965 and 1967, Benson stated in televised sermons from Temple Square that the ‘so-called’ civil rights movement, as he referred to it, was a Communist program for revolution in America. Benson’s rhetoric intensified after, despite his best efforts, the federal Civil Rights Act was ratified.

    It troubles me that someone claiming to speak for God would choose to write the forward for a race hate book, The Black Hammer: A Study of Black Power, Red Influence, and White Alternatives as Benson did. The cover of this vile little book shows a thick-lipped, low-browed, decapitated, bleeding head of an African American man superimposed upon the symbol of Communism – the hammer and sickle.

    In 1966, the NAACP issued a statement criticizing the LDS church, saying the church maintained a rigid and continuous segregation stand “and that the church had made “no effort to counteract [its] widespread discriminatory practices in education, in housing, in employment, and other areas of life.”

    In the 1970s the Mormon church banned any Black boy from becoming a boy scout troop leader. These leadership positions were reserved exclusively for White priesthood-holding Mormon boys. It took the NAACP to file a federal lawsuit against the church in 1974, to force the church to reverse this hurtful and discriminatory policy.

    As we are all aware in 1978 president Spencer W. Kimball announced he had received a ‘revelation’ reversing the priesthood ban on African Americans? 

    The nature of this change, like the ban on polygamy, and more recently the reversal of the unpopular ban on the membership of the children of gay parents can lead one to question if these changes were in truth a direct response to American political pressure. 

    On the question of Blacks in the priesthood, some of the church’s apologists deny that president Carter’s meeting with Kimball had anything to do with this timely, ‘revelation.’ Some even claiming that the president never even broached the subject.

    This is not true.

    You can view a note President Carter wrote to me at:

    https://wordpress.com/page/lettertoanapostle.org/2825

    But one must ask why the Lord’s true church would not have led the charge for greater equality, integration, and acceptance rather than lagging decades behind? 

    The problem the church still has to deal with is the unbridled racism forming an integral part of the Book of Mormon itself.

    The Book of Mormon paints a very narrow viewpoint regarding the concept of beauty. That white is good and black is bad. It teaches that those whose skin pigmentation is darker is also “filthy”, “loathsome” or at the least “not enticing.”

    Is the condemnation of another human being, solely because of the color of their skin, something the Lord would give such prominence to in ‘another testament to Him?’

    I think the discounting of its racist past and its attempts at gaslighting is hugely dishonest.

  34. John, this is a very worthy start. Here are my two bits.

    I don’t know about other generations, but for those of us raised in the church in the 80’s and 90’s, we were saturated with the idea that Christ is at the helm. There was a palpable, implicit understanding that the Apostles have seen Jesus. I and many others around me firmly believed that church leaders were somehow meeting with Christ, or at least meeting with someone like Moroni as an angelic messenger directly from Heaven. That is what made us the one and only true church of God on the earth–we were the only one that actually had contact with Jesus. This is the biggest deception of them all for me. I held all my items on the shelf under the assumption that the presidents of the church have a literal direct line of verbal, plenary communication with Jesus. Any doubt versus that fact must come from Satan, I thought. For example, I ignored my doubts about the Book of Abraham translation fraud because (I thought) Gordon Hinckley knows all about that situation and he isn’t shaken–how could he be shaken when he meets with Christ?

    This deception goes right up to the present day, with the yellow notebook. Kicking Wendy out of bed and coming out some time later proudly waving a yellow notebook, and (paraphrasing) isn’t it wonderful, Wendy, here we have a bunch of new instructions from Jesus in this notebook. This is a sickening overstating of the definiteness of communication between heaven and earth. That it is overstated is made obvious when you look at a clear and present example. The infamous November 2015 policy, and its roll back in April 2019 make it clear that the brethren are no better at sussing out the truth by wrestling with God than I am.

    The deliberate avoidance of answering the question “Have you ever seen Jesus?” is a furtherance of a related major deception. My understanding is (and I believe you can effortlessly find this yourself using Google) that Boyd K. Packer publicly scolded someone for asking him that question, rather than politely answer the question “Yes” or “No.”

    The doctrine and covenants distinguishes those destined for the Celestial Kingdom as those who are valiant in the testimony of Christ. Those who aren’t valiant in their testimony of Christ are going to a lesser kingdom.

    What good then is an Apostle who has seen Christ, but refuses to tell anyone about it? The new testament apostles did not hide the fact that they had seen Him, shaken his hand, etc. Why would it now become super-secret whether or not an apostle has seen Him?

    But even worse is this: what is the point of an Apostle who has NOT seen Christ, but who benefits from the ambiguity of never admitting that fact? All the while he knows there are people out there who believe he has seen Christ…

    By either type of apostle, the members are deceived.

    1. Your comment reminded me that I once believed that, as well. I grew up in the church, and it wasn’t until I was a missionary listening to M. Russell Ballard in a stake center state what I understood to clearly be that he had not seen Christ, nor literally speak with Christ, while he spoke about being a “special witness for Christ”. I remember wondering at that time how he could be any more a special witness than I was, since we were both just leaning on our “spiritual experiences” with Christ. I, like you, had never considered that they weren’t actually interacting personally and literally with Christ. In fact, I believe I had been taught that the upper room of the temple was where the prophet would go to meet with Christ. I remember some story about how President Kimball, I think it was, had been in the temple when Christ appeared to him. It has been so long, though, that I couldn’t tell you the source of it… probably my mom.

      1. Sam, I appreciate you and your comment. I think this is a pretty common phenomenon, so common that I believe all 15 of the apostles know all about it. As far as a story of Kimball seeing Christ in the temple, I am not sure about that–there could be a story about that. I have heard stories about strange lights in the temples after hours. There is a fairly well known story about Lorenzo Snow seeing Christ in the Salt Lake temple, not in the upper room, but in one of the lower hallways. His granddaughter wrote about it in her journal. I believe she was a child going there to see her grandfather, so they were in a part of the temple where you do not need a recommend. I believe the story goes, President Snow stopped at a point in the hallway and told her this is where the Savior appeared to me. It is not clear to me whether he believes he saw Christ in the flesh, whether he was telling her about a dream he had, or what.

  35. Faithful exaggeration of “Miracle Of The Gulls”.
    https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=file&item=34706
    (Utah Historical Quarterly Vol. 38 No. 3, 1970, start at pg. 224)

    Current research alters the traditional sea gull-cricket story in many respects while substantiating its basic facts. As a result the following information should be taken into account in credible versions of the dramatic struggle:

    (1) The gulls were not strangers to the Valley. Records before and since show that various types of gulls, including the California gull involved in 1848, regularly inhabit the Great Salt Lake area. These birds are natural enemies of various insects, including crickets.
    (2) Gulls habitually regurgitate the indigestible parts of insects they have swallowed. This action was unusual to the pioneers but standard eating procedure for gulls.
    (3) Gulls did not arrive until after severe cricket damage had occurred. Even after the gulls had been “feasting” on crickets for two weeks, the insects still were “quite numerous and busy eating.”
    (4) In 1848 the Mormon crops were seriously damaged by three ruthless enemies — frost, crickets, and drought — and the gulls dealt with only one of these.
    (5) The “miraculousness” of the event was not clearly recognized by contemporaries. The Mormon church’s First Presidency was notably silent concerning any “Miracle of the Gulls” in its letters. Likewise, the Millennial Star never told the English Saints about such a miracle. Diarists who detailed the cricket advance did not mention the gulls.
    (6) Since 1848 gulls frequently have been on the wing to feast on crickets and other insects, making the 1848 encounter hardly unique.

    “Miracle Of The Gulls and Other Utah Legends”
    (Radio West July 2020)
    https://radiowest.kuer.org/post/miracle-gulls-and-other-utah-legends

  36. “What happens when the LDS Prophet Becomes Mentally Incapacitated?”

    https://www.mrm.org/lds-prophet-incapacitated

    Pres. Benson:
    Steve Benson’s son (great-grand son of President Benson) asked Steve the following, “Dad, why do they call him prophet when he can’t do anything?”

    Steve’s reply:
    “I believe the church strives mightily to perpetuate the myth, the fable, the fantasy that President Benson, if not operating on all cylinders, at least is functioning effectively enough . . . to be regarded by the Saints as a living, functioning prophet (Salt Lake Tribune, October 12, 1993, D-1).”

    Pres. Monson:
    “His two talks at the April 2016 conference were scaled down to an average of 4 minutes each, as his handlers knelt behind and beside him as he spoke from the conference pulpit. When he was finished, the lights were dimmed and he was helped back to his seat.”

    Pres. McKay
    “McKay had a short-term memory loss and “would forget within minutes after a decision was made.””

    Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith
    “In 1970, Joseph Fielding Smith became the LDS president at 93, suffering from confusion and memory loss until he died in 1972.”

    Pres. Kimball
    “Spencer Kimball became the twelfth president in 1973 at the age of 78, later becoming incapacitated mentally after suffering a subdural hematoma in 1982. He remained in this state until his death in 1985.”

  37. Church film “Ancient America Speaks” is wrong on many counts. But more specifically Quetzalcoatl, the Maya Maize God and Jesus are the same. I taught this concept and used the film on my mission with confidence many times. It was taught up though 2002 or longer.

    “Ancient America Speaks (Archaeological evidence of the Book of Mormon) 1972”

  38. Lying about lying…. a cover up in 2017….?

    “There has been no attempt, on the part, in any way, of the church leaders, trying to hide anything from anybody”.

    (Elder Ballard, “Apostles Answer Questions about Standards, Doubts during YSA Face to Face”, Nov. 19, 2017)
    Radio Free Mormon: https://radiofreemormon.org/2017/11/radio-free-mormon-021-elder-ballard-blows-church/

    and…

    “I think we’d also have to be honest, there maybe some of these questions [from young members] there is no answer to. Those are going to be the ones we are going to avoid.”

    (Elder Ballard, Advertisement for “Apostles Answer Questions about Standards, Doubts during YSA Face to Face”, few days before Nov. 19, 2017)
    Radio Free Mormon: https://mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2017/11/radio-free-mormon-019-table-scraps-train-wrecks-information-avoidance/

    1. It was also amazing in that same announcement to hear Elder Oaks state his blatant preference for those who do not ask questions, suggesting the ones without questions are confident or secure or whatever, while the ones with questions are not….

  39. One that I would have at least given an honorable mention is in the Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young there is a sermon included about us all being spiritual children of our Heavenly Father. It cuts right off at where Brigham Young teaches that Adam who is Michael the Ancient of Days is our Father and our God and the only God with whom we have to do (in other words were are LITERALLY offspring of God). Radio Free Mormon mentioned this clear withholding of information by the Church when he was doing his podcasts every week down during the quarantine period of the COVID-19 pandemic. I thought that was an important one because it showed that several people in the Church including those of authority to approve Church manuals for publication literally have no problem re-editing information in a misleading way to suggest early Church Presidents taught things the LDS Church teaches today even though that is not true at all.

  40. As far as gaslighting in the essays, an example off the top of my head is in the two essays where they mention Helen Mar Kimball, they never state outright that she was 14. In one essay they mention her as 9 years old in a certain year, and then in the next paragraph they say she became a polygamous wife in a certain year, meaning I would have to do the math to know she was 14. Obviously I can do the math, but when writing an informative essay, this is manipulation, especially when assuming the need for this essay is in fact issues with her age. The other essay speaks further to this, when they describe her age as “…several months before her 15th birthday.” It is misleading and manipulative and honestly juvenile, it is worded very carefully to at once tell the truth, with out telling the truth. If you aren’t critically thinking, you may not notice what is being said. Another example of gaslighting in the essays is the first paragraph in the Race and the Priesthood essay, it immediately primes your mind to assume the best. If I was unaware of how the teachings that have been disavowed in that essay were taught, I may come away feeling up-lifted and validated, when in fact they are glossing over the horrific things that were said and taught in conjunction with their “well-thought-out theories.” (< this wording itself is another example of gaslighting.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.