Inconsistency

It came to my attention as I studied the gospel that the church’s policies and practices often contradict its doctrine. In this section, I address critical issues in which the church itself does not practice what is taught in its own canon.

Attitudes about Abuse

Many are familiar with a recent legal battle involving the church in Arizona. Church members are taught that God despises abuse and that the church wants to do everything it can to protect survivors. Many heard Russell Nelson say the following:

Abuse constitutes the influence of the adversary. It is a grievous sin. As President of the Church, I affirm the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ on this issue. Let me be perfectly clear: any kind of abuse of women, children, or anyone is an abomination to the Lord. He grieves and I grieve whenever anyone is harmed. He mourns and we all mourn for each person who has fallen victim to abuse of any kind. Those who perpetrate these hideous acts are not only accountable to the laws of man but will also face the wrath of Almighty God. For decades now, the Church has taken extensive measures to protect—in particular—children from abuse. There are many aids on the Church website. I invite you to study them. These guidelines are in place to protect the innocent. I urge each of us to be alert to anyone who might be in danger of being abused and to act promptly to protect them. The Savior will not tolerate abuse, and as His disciples, neither can we.¹

It is generally understood that mandatory reporting is an effective way to prevent abuse and protect survivors.² It is thus discouraging to see that the church is not doing everything it can to protect people from abuse, as it actively fights against mandatory reporting laws. It spends significant amounts of sacred tithing money in legal battles defending the right of clergy members to withhold information about abuse. I was disgusted to read the church’s reaction in Deseret News when an Arizona case resulted in reinforced clergy privilege.

Bill Maledon, the church’s attorney who handled the case, said in a statement to the Deseret News, “We are pleased with the Arizona Superior Court’s decision granting summary judgment for the Church and its clergy and dismissing the plantiffs’ claims.³

This quote was extremely concerning to me, as the president of the church recently gave the opposite impression. Certainly, a man who grieves whenever anyone is harmed would not be pleased at this dissapointing result of a grueling lawsuit for survivors of abuse and their families.

I am further concerned by the church’s lackluster efforts to protect children and youth. When I served as a primary teacher, I was asked to complete a short online training. This training encouraged me to avoid being alone with children and listed a few rules I was expected to follow. I did not undergo a background check. I had no experience working with children; I didn’t even have children of my own.

It is more concerning that with absolutely no training, bishops can (or could for many years) isolate young people behind a closed door to talk about their sexuality. When I was 12 years old, my bishop—a middle-aged man I had never formally met—talked to me about puberty, taught me what masturbation and pornography were, and told me to suppress any romantic feelings I started to experience.

It’s no wonder, although it is heartbreaking, that there are so many instances of sexual crimes within the church. For those curious, floodlit.org has compiled a significant volume of data about recent abuse within the church. I was shocked to see so many bishops, missionaries, stake presidents, and other prominent church figures had been convicted of sexual crimes.

The church clearly does not care about abuse, at least not as much as it cares about preserving its own reputation. By itself, I believe the church’s damnable nonchalance about abuse is sufficient reason to formally disassociate oneself the church and never look back.

Changing of Temple Ordinances

Joseph Smith, the person who originally claimed to receive revelation from God about the temple, taught that the temple ordinances cannot change:

The order of the house of God has been, and ever will be, the same, even after Christ comes; and after the termination of the thousand years it will be the same; and we shall finally enter into the celestial Kingdom of God, and enjoy it forever.”⁴

Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles.⁴

The power, glory and blessings of the Priesthood could not continue with those who received ordination only as their righteousness continued; for Cain also being authorized to offer sacrifice, but not offering it in righteousness, was cursed. It signifies, then, that the ordinances must be kept in the very way God has appointed; otherwise their Priesthood will prove a cursing instead of a blessing.⁴

It is confusing and concerning, then, that ordinances within the church change. Those who have been in the church for several years have observed major changes, but temple ordinances have changed greatly since their institution.

For example, around 1912, the Oath of Vengeance was removed from the ordinance, and in the 1930s, the wording of penalties was softened. The 1960s saw a change in the garment pattern worn in the temple. A series of notable modifications occurred in the 1990s, including the complete removal of penalties from the endowment ordinance, changes to the second sign of the Melchizedek priesthood, the elimination of the five points of fellowship, and a revision of the law of obedience for women. In 2005, the washing and anointing ceremony was altered to be performed symbolically, eliminating the practice of ordinance workers touching temple patrons while wearing only a large poncho. More recently, the temple ceremony and its wording have been significantly revised to better appeal to women, expedite the ordinance process, and accommodate COVID-19 restrictions.

Those curious about recent changes to the temple ceremony may be interested in comparing their current temple experience to the experience from the mid 2010s. I was shocked to learn how much had changed even within the last decade, especially considering the ordinance was supposed to be eternal and unchanging.

Revelations Changing

I addressed this in a previous section, but consider again the following quote from Joseph Smith:

Many true things were spoken by this personage, and many things that were false. How, it may be asked, was this known to be a bad angel? By the color of his hair; that is one of the signs that he can be known by, and by his contradicting a former revelation.⁵

It is thus abundantly clear that a revelation that contradicts an earlier revelation is false, or is from a bad angel. Interestingly, nearly every modern church leader has produced contradictory revelations. For example, the church’s early teachings on polygamy were initially presented as a divine commandment, yet in 1890, under pressure from the U.S. government, church leaders officially renounced the practice, declaring it no longer a requirement for salvation. This shift created a contradiction between earlier revelations that endorsed polygamy and the later stance that prohibited it. Additionally, the church’s evolving position on race and the priesthood serves as another example; for decades, Black members were denied the priesthood based on revelations that were later deemed incorrect, culminating in a 1978 revelation that lifted the ban.

Further, in 2015, church leaders implemented a controversial policy that classified same-sex couples as “apostates” and prohibited their children from being baptized until they reached the age of 18 and disavowed their parents’ relationship. Church communications insisted that this policy was produced through divine revelation. This policy sparked significant backlash both within and outside the church, leading to protests and calls for greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals. In April 2019, the church announced a reversal of this policy, stating that children of same-sex couples would no longer be barred from baptism. This change was seen by many as a step toward greater inclusivity and a recognition of the evolving societal attitudes toward LGBTQ+ issues. However, it significantly damages church leaders’ claims to a representation of Diety.

Because a thorough analysis of contradictory revelations is both simple to conduct and dull to describe, I suggest that a curious reader may begin their research at Richard Packham’s list of Brigham Young’s teachings.

Obedience to Civil Law

Articles of Faith 1:12 states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.” This principle is echoed in Doctrine and Covenants 58:21, which teaches, “Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.” Given these clear directives, it is perplexing to observe that the history of the church is marked by instances of disobedience to the laws of the land.

For example, Joseph Smith performed marriages without the necessary civil authority, engaging in practices that were not legally sanctioned. Early church members, including Smith himself, entered into illegal polygamous and polyandrous marriages, defying the legal framework of the time. Additionally, Smith established an illegal bank in Ohio, which ultimately contributed to financial instability and controversy. His actions led to his imprisonment for destroying the printing press of a rival newspaper, an act that was viewed as a violation of the law. Furthermore, the church’s stance on polygamy is encapsulated in Official Declaration 1, which asserts that the church was willing to disobey the law of the land to continue the practice of polygamy. These historical contradictions raise important questions about the relationship between religious conviction and legal compliance within the context of the church’s teachings.

In more recent years, the church has faced criticism for its perceived disregard for local laws and regulations, particularly in relation to zoning and land use. A notable example occurred in Fairview, Texas, where the church sought to build a massive temple in a location that was inappropriate due to zoning restrictions and community planning. The church’s decision to move forward with the project despite local opposition raised concerns about its commitment to honoring the laws of the land and respecting the voices of community members. This situation reflects a broader pattern in which the church has prioritized its own interests over legal and community considerations, leading to tensions between church leadership and local authorities.

Such actions can be seen as contradictory to the teachings found in the Articles of Faith and Doctrine and Covenants, further complicating the church’s relationship with the law and its members’ understanding of obedience and respect for civil authority.

Worship of Jesus

One of the most confusing inconsistencies in the church is its position on worshipping Jesus (rather than restricting worship to God the Father). The scriptures clearly teach that we should worship Jesus. Take Exodus 20:3 (KJV), spoken by Jehovah of the Old Testament, believed to be Jesus of the New Testament:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Jesus’ followers also worshipped him throughout the New Testament with no sign of correction from Jesus.

Matthew 28:16-17 (KJV). Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

While this leaves room for interpretation, The Book of Mormon also commands us to worship Jesus.

3 Nephi 17:10. And they did all, both they who had been healed and they who were whole, bow down at his feet, and did worship him; and as many as could come for the multitude did kiss his feet, insomuch that they did bathe his feet with their tears.

However, Bruce McConkie (a man who claimed to speak on behalf of God) made it clear we are not to worship Jesus, and this is believed by many church members today.

We do not worship the Son, and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense—the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God the first, the Creator.⁶

Despite McConkie’s revelation, the church recently seems to have changed its message again. I was presented with this ad the other day.

This leaves me uncertain about the church’s teachings, as the scriptures teach us the importance of worshipping Jesus, but modern church leaders indicate it is a sin. However, the church is currently advertising that church members worship Jesus in their meetings and with missionaries.

Sex and Sexuality

The church has, especially since coming under fire for prejudice against the LGBT+ community combined with a great volume of abuse scandals, apparently changed its stance on critical issues.

First, many members are familiar with recent policy changes and reversal of those changes regarding children of gay couples. These changes are concerning to me, as such a fast policy change after a PR disaster seems fishy, indicating God likely did not actually inspire at least one of the changes.

Second, anyone over 20 who grew up in the church was likely presented, at one point or another, with the conference talk (converted into a pamphlet) titled “To Young Men Only”. When I was 12 years old, my church leaders used this packet to teach me what masturbation was. This was produced and supported by a long line of prophets and apostles. It now seems to be absent from the church’s website, and I can find no mention of it. Thankfully, it has been uploaded to Internet Archive. I find it bizarre that the church seems to be hiding what was considered a crucial, sacred text only a few years ago.

Third, many are familiar with the church-published book The Miracle of Forgiveness. I do not feel the need to discuss its contents in much depth, but it is interesting to me that many of the core principles taught by the book. In the preface, Spencer Kimball absolves the church from errors in the book’s contents, but the church nonetheless published, printed, distributed, and continued to promote the book for decades. The book and its contents are now largely taboo discussion points in the church.

Finally, the church’s policy on chastity has changed greatly over time. It is concerning to me that historical church figures are well-known to have married multiple people, including already-married women. It is disappointing to see the church cover up a great volume of abuse scandals and promote an authoritarian culture that protects abusers while encouraging young people to feel guilty about their natural feelings and experiences.

Mormon?

Church members and leaders alike long embraced the term Mormon to describe the church and its members. The church poured huge amounts of sacred tithing funds into recent campaigns like Meet the Mormons. Members were taught through official communication from church leaders to create an “I’m a Mormon” profile on the church’s missionary website. So the following recent quote has long been deeply concerning to me:

What’s in a name or, in this case, a nickname? When it comes to nicknames of the Church, such as the “LDS Church,” the “Mormon Church,” or the “Church of the Latter-day Saints,” the most important thing in those names is the absence of the Savior’s name. To remove the Lord’s name from the Lord’s Church is a major victory for Satan. When we discard the Savior’s name, we are subtly disregarding all that Jesus Christ did for us—even His Atonement. ⁷

Were generations of prophets misled by Satan? Certainly not, or it is impossible to tell where else the church may have strayed from being God’s one true church. But if former prophets were not misled by Satan, then this statement from Russell Nelson is not accurate, and God’s supposed prophet has lied. In either case, based on this single counterexample, I believe there is sufficient damning evidence that the church is not what it claims to be.

Discussion

I have previously discussed the logical fallacy argumentum ad hominem to quoque, or an Appeal to Hypocrisy. To avoid relying on this fallacy to build my argument, I clarify the claim made throughout this section:

The church, which has canonized a volume of text alleged to be revelation from God, does not operate exactly as its canon indicates.

I am not suggesting that because church leaders exhibit hypocrisy, the church is not true. Instead, I expect God’s one true church to hold itself to its own (allegedly divinely-inspired) standards. It was disappointing to learn that despite claiming to have a direct connection to God, prophets often make significant mistakes as they direct the operations of the church, and these mistakes genuinely hurt people.

I am further confused by the argument that prophets only speak for God when they are speaking “as a prophet”. Not only does this statement feel like a disgusting weasel out of any responsibility or accountability; it cannot be used to defend inconsistencies like these. I believe it is reasonable to assume that church leaders are indeed speaking as prophets and apostles when they address the entire church, establish curricula, and approve advertising materials. If one cannot make this assumption, then it would be impossible to know when to trust a prophet. In this case, I find these inconsistencies much more damning. The church’s inconsistency convinces me that the church is not truly directed by a perfect, all-knowing God.