Truth

I believed from a young age that the church’s teachings represented absolute, unequivocal truth. “I know the church is true,” I said (and heard) countless times, uttered with a fervent conviction that seemed to defy any possibility of doubt or questioning. This sentiment was often expressed through the sharing of testimonies—intimate spiritual experiences that were presented as irrefutable evidence of the divine origins of the church’s doctrines and practices.

However, as I’ve grown older and my understanding of the world has deepened, I’ve come to realize that the nature of truth is far more complex and elusive than the simple declarations of certainty that I once accepted without question.

Would You Want to Know?

I pose an question vital to the discovery of truth: If your belief system were wrong, would you want to know?

As I’ve grappled with the nature of truth in a religious context, I’ve come to realize that the path to understanding is paved not with unquestioning faith, but with a willingness to approach questions with an open and critical mind.

While personal spiritual experiences should not be dismissed, when these subjective experiences are elevated to the level of absolute, unquestionable truth, they can become a hindrance to genuine understanding and growth. Instead, I attempt to strike a balance – acknowledging the value of spiritual exploration, while also recognizing the limitations of personal revelation or the pronouncements of religious authorities.

By embracing a more holistic, multifaceted approach to the pursuit of truth, we open ourselves up to a richer, more nuanced understanding of the human condition and our place within the grand tapestry of existence. This means being willing to engage with diverse perspectives, to challenge our own preconceptions, and to follow the evidence wherever it may lead – even if that means confronting uncomfortable truths or letting go of cherished beliefs.

In my own journey, this realization has forced me to grapple with the uncertainty and ambiguity that often characterize the human experience, rather than clinging to the false comfort of absolute certainty. But it has also imbued my understanding of the world with a deeper sense of wonder, a greater appreciation for the complexity of existence, and a renewed commitment to the ongoing pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

Embracing the complex nature of truth is a celebration of the richness and complexity of the human experience. It is a call to approach the world with a spirit of curiosity, humility, and a willingness to engage in the ongoing dialogue that is the hallmark of true intellectual and spiritual growth.

The Burden of Proof

When confronted with claims of absolute, unquestionable truth, it is important to carefully examine the burden of proof that rests upon those making such assertions. In academia, for example, the peer-review process demands extensive evidence to support any hypothesis or theory. The more extraordinary the claim, the more robust the supporting evidence must be.

In the context of religious discussion, Hitchens’ Razor is a commonly-cited epistemological razor that distills this requirement into a simple phrase:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.¹

This principle of the burden of proof is a fundamental tenet of rational inquiry, rooted in the recognition that our individual perceptions and beliefs can be shaped by a wide range of cognitive biases, emotional attachments, and cultural conditioning. It is not enough to simply assert a truth claim and expect it to be accepted at face value; rather, the onus is on the claimant to demonstrate the validity of their position through verifiable, objective evidence.

If truth claims are to be taken seriously, one must be willing to subject those claims to the same rigorous standards of evidence and rational scrutiny that are applied to any other system of beliefs. Only then are the foundations of faith built on a solid, unshakable bedrock of truth, rather than the shifting sands of unsubstantiated assertions and appeals to authority.

“The Church is True”

I’ve always been confused by the claim that a church can be true. I have pondered this claim and asked church members what they meant by the saying. In general, the saying can be interpreted in the following ways:

1. The church’s doctrine and truth claims are true; or
2. The church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency.

Doctrinal Truth

The claim that the church’s doctrine and truth claims are true is simultaneously straightforward and complex to analyze. The church’s burden of proof is to demonstrate that its doctrine is logically consistent; by identifying even one example of logical inconsistency, it is possible to disprove the truth of doctrinal claims. The church has produced a finite set of claims, so it is possible to determine the logical soundness of church doctrine in a finite amount of time. However, as I explore in the following section on Reason, a combination of highly-effective logical fallacies scattered throughout the church’s teachings introduces a layer of complexity to this analysis.

When it comes to its doctrine, I’ve often found that the church does not uphold its burden of proof. Time and again, I’ve encountered faith-based teachings that rely heavily on appeals to authority, personal experiences, and the force of tradition, rather than rigorous, empirical validation.

Consider the church’s doctrine of prophetic infallibility—the belief that the church’s president and apostles are incapable of leading the faithful astray, as they are guided directly by God. This claim, at the heart of the church’s truth claims, is presented as an absolute, unquestionable tenet of the faith. Yet, prophets and apostles have made pronouncements and policy decisions that have later been abandoned or reinterpreted as mistakes or imperfections.

If sound reasoning methods were truly applied, one would expect the church to provide a robust, well-reasoned justification for why its leaders should be granted such a lofty, infallible status—one that can withstand rigorous scrutiny and critical analysis. Instead, the doctrine is often simply asserted as a matter of faith, with little attempt to demonstrate its validity through objective, verifiable means.

Further, doctrines and teachings evolve and change over time. What was once presented as an immutable, divinely-inspired truth can later be reframed, reinterpreted, or even outright abandoned as the understanding of the world and the human condition progresses.

The history of the church provides a prime example of this phenomenon. Teachings and policies that were once touted as eternal, God-given mandates—such as a racial ban on priesthood and temple ordinances or the practice of polygamy—have since been discarded or reinterpreted, challenging the notion of the church’s infallibility and the immutability of its core truths.

This pattern of doctrinal shifts and revisions requires us to confront a fundamental question: If the “truths” of a religion can change so dramatically over time, how can we be certain that the current teachings represent anything more than the fallible interpretations of human beings, rather than the immutable, divinely-inspired revelations they are often claimed to be? I cannot answer this question, but I assert that the burden of justification lies with church leaders, who—in my opinion—have yet to provide a satisfactory answer.

By failing to uphold their burden of proof, church leaders visibly attempt to insulate their doctrines from meaningful critique and challenge. This undermines the pursuit of truth and can foster an environment of unquestioning obedience, where adherents are discouraged from engaging in critical thinking or independent investigation of the faith’s core tenets.

Cultural Truth

The assertion that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency is one that deserves careful scrutiny. On the surface, this claim aligns with the church’s professed commitment to moral and spiritual principles. However, a closer examination of the church’s historical and contemporary practices reveals a more complex and, at times, contradictory reality.

One need look no further than the church’s long-standing tradition of obfuscation and secrecy surrounding its finances, institutional decision-making, and the personal lives of its leadership. Despite repeated calls for greater financial transparency, the church has steadfastly refused to provide externally-audited reports of its vast wealth and expenditures. This lack of openness stands in stark contrast to the church’s teachings on the importance of honesty and accountability.

Similarly, the church’s handling of sensitive issues, such as allegations of sexual abuse within its ranks, has often been characterized by a troubling pattern of cover-ups, victim-blaming, and a general unwillingness to confront uncomfortable truths. Time and again, the church has prioritized the protection of its reputation and institutional interests over the pursuit of justice and the wellbeing of its own members. It was discouraging to see the church spend tithing money in a legal battle defending the right of clergy members to withhold information about abuse. It was more discouraging to read the church’s reaction in (the church-owned publication) Deseret News:

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.”²

Moreover, the church’s historical narratives have been shown to contain numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and even outright falsehoods. From the whitewashing of its past treatment of marginalized groups to the selective presentation of historical evidence, the church has at times demonstrated a concerning disregard for the principles of truthfulness and transparency that it so ardently espouses.

One particularly thorny issue that arises when examining the nature of truth in a religious context is the possibility of a prophet or religious leader deliberately deceiving their followers. While many faiths hold their prophets and apostles in the highest regard, imbuing them with near-infallible status, history has shown that even the most revered religious figures are not immune to human flaws.

The discovery of past religious leaders engaging in unethical or even criminal behavior—from financial misdeeds to sexual abuse—have shaken the faith of many adherents, forcing them to confront the unsettling reality that even those entrusted with the divine mantle of leadership are capable of betraying the trust placed in them. This raises profound questions about the reliability of truth claims and the need for robust systems of accountability and transparency within faith communities.

Ultimately, the claim that the church values and exemplifies truth, honesty, and transparency must be viewed through a critical lens. While the church may pay lip service to these virtues, its actions and institutional practices often tell a very different story – one that raises troubling questions about the church’s commitment to the pursuit of truth and the wellbeing of its adherents. True transparency and accountability can only be achieved through a willingness to confront the church’s shortcomings and to hold its leaders and institutions to the same standards of honesty and integrity that they demand of their members.

Reason

Church teachings place a strong emphasis on faith, revelation, and spiritual experiences as the primary means of gaining knowledge about religious truth. However, it is also important to engage in logical reasoning and critical analysis when evaluating religious claims. Reason and faith need not be in conflict – in fact, they can and should work together to help us arrive at a more complete understanding of spiritual and religious matters.

The Role of Reason

Reason, or the use of logic, evidence, and critical thinking, is a valuable tool that can complement and enhance our spiritual experiences. Reason allows us to:

1. Examine religious claims objectively
2. Identify inconsistencies or contradictions
3. Evaluate the reliability of sources and evidence
4. Draw logical conclusions based on available information
5. Reconcile apparent conflicts between faith and empirical knowledge

Using reason to analyze your faith does not mean you are betraying or rejecting that faith. Many faithful church members have found that carefully examining their beliefs through the lens of reason has actually helped them develop a more nuanced, well-rounded understanding of their religion. If religious claims stand up to scrutiny, reasoning should be a means of refining and deepening your spiritual convictions, not undermining them.

In fact, church members have been encouraged throughout history to try to reason about their beliefs:

If [Joseph Smith’s] claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions, which would be easy to detect.¹

With this in mind, I spend the remainder of this chapter reasoning about church beliefs and teachings. I point out logical flaws in specific aspects of the church’s doctrine, and I discuss apologetic and antagonistic reactions to those flaws.

Reasoning Skills

Throughout this chapter, I refer to and utilize a number of reasoning techniques, which I describe in greater detail in this section. The key is to approach these logical analyses with an open and curious mindset. Engaging reasoning skills does not have to undermine your faith – in fact, it can actually help you develop a deeper, more nuanced understanding of your beliefs.

Building a Rational Argument

Building a rational argument is a systematic process that requires careful consideration of claims, evidence, and logical structure. Great care should be taken to avoid producing falsifiable claims.

Some people spend their entire careers evaluating the components of a rational argument. It is impossible for me to provide a comprehensive resource; however, this resource relies primarily on simple arguments that are straightforward to construct and analyze.

Considering Alternatives

Because religion can be an emotional topic, it is easy to show a bias toward a certain conclusion. For example, apologetic work often assumes a claim from religious leaders is true before building an argument around it. It is important to consider multiple possible explanations or interpretations, rather than immediately accepting the one presented. Exploring alternative viewpoints can lead to a more nuanced and well-rounded understanding of the issue.

There is little point in reasoning if the purpose is to justify a statement that you are unwilling to change your thoughts about. The human brain is capable of amazing reasoning feats, but there is no point burning sugar to reason about something if it does not have the potential to make a meaningful impact.

Logical Reasoning

Many of the church’s claims can be evaluated using the principles of (Boolean) logic – that is, breaking down ideas into simple statements that are either true or false. For example, the statement “There is a dog in the room” can be logically analyzed as either true or false based on the actual presence or absence of a dog.

Logical Proof Techniques

One powerful logical proof technique is proof by contradiction. Let’s say you want to prove the statement “There is a $100 bill on the table.” To do this using proof by contradiction, you would:

1. Assume the opposite is true – that there is no $100 bill on the table.
2. Then, look at the table. If you find a $100 bill there, you have contradicted the assumption.
3. Since it’s impossible for there to both be and not be a $100 bill on the table, the original claim is true.

Proof by contradiction allows the logical establishment of the truth of a claim by showing that the opposite cannot be true. This technique can be surprisingly useful when evaluating religious teachings and claims.

Deductive Reasoning

Deductive reasoning involves drawing specific conclusions from general premises. For example, if the premise is “All dogs have four legs” and the specific case is “Fido is a dog”, the deductive conclusion would be “Fido has four legs.” This type of logical inference can be a useful tool for evaluating religious claims, since it can be used to create a convincing proof of the truthfulness of a statement.

Inductive Reasoning

Inductive reasoning works in the opposite direction, drawing general conclusions from specific observations. For instance, you may notice that every church member you’ve met has been kind and charitable and inductively conclude that church members are generally kind and charitable people. Inductive reasoning can provide valuable insights, but it’s important to be cautious about making generalizations. Inductive reasoning has an important limitation: it cannot be used to craft a convincing proof.

Identifying Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases

Logical fallacies are common errors in reasoning that can undermine the validity of an argument. They are commonly introduced because of cognitive biases. Recognizing these fallacies can help you think more critically about religious teachings and claims. A well-constructed argument should be free of fallacy. An excellent resource to explore logical fallacies in-depth is RationalWiki, a community-driven resource that promotes rational thought.

I have identified a selection of fallacies that tend to arise in religious conversations, as well as examples and strategies to avoid each fallacy.

Confirmation Bias

Identification: Confirmation Bias (sometimes known as motivated reasoning) is the tendency to seek only information that conforms to their existing viewpoints, ignoring information that contradicts them. Everyone experiences confirmation bias, but it is crucial to consider diverse perspectives to construct the most complete argument possible.

Example: People tend to read news media that aligns with their existing political views rather than exploring diverse interpretations of events. Further, religious arguments sometimes rely heavily on confirmation bias to encourage members to stay in the faith. For example, leaders might encourage only seeking “church-approved” resources.

Defense: When you notice yourself avoiding an opinion that differs from your own, it might be worth exploring the other party’s perspective.

Appeal to Emotion

Identification: An appeal to emotion (argumentum ad passiones) occurs when a speaker seeks an emotional response rather than reason. It often includes loaded terms that invoke feelings of fear, guilt, shame, excitement, or other intense emotions. It appeals to a listener’s prejudice rather than offering a sober assessment. Appealing to emotion is not inherently harmful, but it does not produce a rational argument. Appeals to emotion are extremely common in religious settings.

Example: If we didn’t have the church, imagine how many people would be murderers and rapists.

Defense: When you notice yourself experiencing an emotional response to something, consider if that emotional response forms the basis for your conclusion.

Lying

Identification: Lying is the most obvious logical fallacy. If a statement is a lie, it is false.

Example: There are no lakes in Idaho.

Defense: To avoid lies, it is important to consult a number of sources, preferably with varied interests (i.e., opinions from many people in support of vs. in opposition to an issue).

The Fallacy Fallacy

Identification: The fallacy fallacy (argumentum ad logicam) occurs when one assumes that because an argument contains a fallacy, it is false. Because true statements can be made using faulty logic, it is important not to dismiss a claim solely on the basis of a bad argument.

Example: The statement “God exists because good people believe in God” is a fallacy, so God must not exist.

Defense: If you find a fallacy in an argument, it is important to evaluate the claim without considering the fallacious argument. If the claim still holds water after the fallacy is removed, the fallacy did not matter. If the argument relies on the fallacy, however, it is important to pursue a better argument for or against the claim.

Argumentum Ad Hominem

Identification: An argument against a person rather than a claim (argumentum ad hominem) is one of the most egregious fallacies I encounter from any side of a religious debate. It involves an attack on one’s character rather than their claim. It serves to distract from the original argument by switching the focus to character, not truth.

Example: You shouldn’t trust an exmormon, they’re just angry at the church.

Defense: Watch out for Ad Hominem anytime the stakes are high and parties seem desperate to make their point, as it is often someone’s last resort. If in doubt, consider whether an argument is focused on the claim or the speaker.

Appeal to Hypocrisy

Identification: An appeal to hypocrisy (argumentum ad hominem tu quoque) is the ugly cousin of Argumentum Ad Hominem. It involves arguing against a claim because the speaker has acted in a manner inconsistent with it.

Example: You can’t criticize someone’s dishonesty when you’ve been caught lying yourself.

Defense: Watch out for Tu Quoque if someone is calling someone a hypocrite, and evaluate if the claim of hypocrisy renders the original argument false.

Special Pleading

Identification: Special Pleading involves claiming that something is an overwhelming exception to a rule, without justification for the exemption. While special cases do exist, Special Pleading specifically involves moving the goalposts because a claim was shown to be false.

Example: The church never misled members about their finances. Except for the SEC scandal, but that doesn’t count. They are still as transparent as they can be.

Defense: In religious settings, Special Pleading arises especially frequently in apologetic work. Because the goal of apologetic work is to attempt to resolve problems with religious claims, the argument often needs to be molded to fit the claim. This can increase the attractiveness of insisting on exceptions to the rules.

Truth vs. Counsel

In religious settings, truth and action are often conflated. James 2:20, after all, teaches that “faith without good deeds is useless”². There is a tendency to draw a conclusion like “the Book of Mormon is true” and interpret that statement as an imperative to act.

In this chapter, I evaluate only truth. That is, I do not have any idea what you should do with the information I present. I advocate for empathy, respect, and nonviolence, but beyond that, I don’t really care what action you take. What I do care about is giving you the information you need to choose a course that aligns with your own values.

For example, if you find my argument convincing that the church’s claims regarding The Book of Abraham are not true, there are myriad possible resulting actions: you may decide to leave the church, you could continue believing in the church’s other claims, you might disregard truth entirely and emphasize the symbolic message of the book.

Canon

The church is distinguished by its unique canon, which includes the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. As a church member, I was taught that these texts are divinely inspired and foundational to faith. However, a critical examination of these scriptures raises important questions about their historical authenticity, theological consistency, and overall truthfulness.

In this section, I systematically deconstruct the claims of truthfulness associated with these unique scriptures. By analyzing the historical context, textual integrity, and the evidence—or lack thereof—for their narratives, I challenge the assertions made by church leaders. This exploration highlights critical issues with the texts themselves and considers the broader implications of accepting these scriptures as authoritative. Through this critical lens, I seek to foster a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the church’s scriptural claims and encourage thoughtful dialogue on the nature of religious truth.

History

Faithful and secular sources alike understand that the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints raises serious concerns about the church’s legitimacy. I am not a historian; presenting church history is not the objective of this project. In my opinion, while church history is a valuable tool to help one assess their belief system, evidence in the modern church is sufficient to make an informed decision regarding membership therein. Thus, I wish to explore only a small selection of events throughout the history of the church at surface level in this section. I encourage curious individuals to read both faithful and secular histories and draw their own conclusions.

Romantic Relationships

Romantic relationships within the context of early Mormonism reveal a complex tapestry of beliefs, practices, and societal norms. From the controversial practice of polygamy to the dynamics of marriage and family life, these relationships were often influenced by theological doctrines, cultural expectations, and the personal experiences of key figures in the church.

Polygamy and Polyandry

Polygamy is one of the most contentious aspects of early Latter-day Saint history, significantly impacting the lives of its leaders and members. It has been discussed heavily from both faithful and secular perspectives. While I provide a brief summary, resources like https://josephsmithspolygamy.org provide extensive information about polygamy in the early church.

Emma Smith, the wife of Joseph Smith, is a central figure in the church’s narrative, yet she was not the first woman sealed to Joseph. Historical accounts suggest that Joseph was first sealed to Fanny Alger in the early 1830s, around 1835 or 1836, while the Smiths were living in Kirtland, Ohio. Alger, a young woman living with the Smith family, is often considered the first instance of plural marriage in the Latter-day Saint movement.¹ This relationship was kept relatively private and not widely known during Joseph’s lifetime.

The practice of plural marriage was later formalized and publicly acknowledged in the 1850s, but it created significant tension within Joseph’s marriage to Emma, who reportedly opposed the practice and struggled with the idea of her husband taking additional wives². This tension is reflected in various historical accounts and letters where Emma expressed her feelings about polygamy and its implications for their family.³

Early church leaders also played a crucial role in establishing and promoting the practice of polygamy. Following Joseph Smith’s initial sealing to Fanny Alger, prominent leaders such as Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, and Orson Pratt entered into plural marriages, further institutionalizing the practice. Brigham Young, who succeeded Joseph Smith as the leader of the church, publicly advocated for polygamy, famously stating, “I am going to be a God, and I will have a plurality of wives”⁴. This endorsement created a culture in which polygamy was not only accepted but encouraged, leading to significant demographic and social changes within the church.

The eventual public acknowledgment of polygamy in the 1850s, alongside the establishment of a hierarchical structure that supported plural marriages, complicated the dynamics of family and leadership within the early church⁵. The multifaceted history of polygamy highlights the challenges faced by early church leaders as they navigated the theological and social implications of their practices. In summary, while Emma Smith is a prominent figure in Joseph Smith’s life and the early church, her opposition to polygamy and the sealing to Fanny Alger underscore the complexities and tumultuous nature of relationships within early Mormonism and the evolving understanding of marriage and family during that period.

In addition to the practice of polygamy, which involved men taking multiple wives, early Latter-day Saint history also includes instances of polyandry, where women were sealed to multiple husbands. Joseph Smith himself was sealed to several women who were already married to other men, a practice that has raised significant ethical and theological questions. For example, one of the most notable cases of polyandry involved Joseph’s sealing to Zina Huntington, who was married to another man at the time. This practice of polyandry was not widely acknowledged or accepted within the early church and has been a point of contention among historians and scholars⁶. Furthermore, the broader concept of polyamory, which encompasses consensual relationships involving multiple partners regardless of marital status, is not explicitly addressed in early Mormon doctrine but has gained attention in contemporary discussions about relationships and family structures. The complexities of these practices reflect the evolving understanding of marriage and relationships within the Latter-day Saint community and highlight the challenges faced by early church leaders in reconciling their beliefs with the realities of human relationships.

Pedophilia

The early history of the church is also marked by troubling instances that raise serious ethical concerns, particularly regarding the age of some individuals involved in plural marriages. Historical records indicate that some of Joseph Smith’s plural wives were very young, with some estimates suggesting that he married girls as young as 14. For example, one of his wives, Helen Mar Kimball, was sealed to him when she was just 14 years old¹. This practice has led to significant criticism and accusations of pedophilia, as the marriages often occurred in a context where the young brides had little agency or choice in the matter.

Additionally, the church’s early leaders, including Brigham Young, also engaged in similar practices, marrying young women and sometimes widows of deceased church leaders. The normalization of such relationships within the context of plural marriage raises questions about the power dynamics at play and the implications for the young women involved. Critics argue that these practices reflect a broader pattern of exploitation and manipulation, particularly given the societal norms of the time that often placed women in subordinate positions⁶.

The church has since distanced itself from these practices and has publicly condemned any form of child marriage or exploitation. However, the historical reality of these relationships continues to be a source of contention and debate among scholars, historians, and church members. The legacy of these practices serves as a reminder of the complexities and moral challenges faced by early church leaders and the need for ongoing reflection on the ethical implications of their actions. I assert that they are evidence that church leaders were not inspired by a loving God, as they consistently did not display the character of people such a God would choose as leaders.

Racial Issues and Priesthood Restrictions

The historical ban on Black men receiving the priesthood is a significant and painful chapter in church history. Instituted in the mid-1800s, this policy was often justified by church leaders through a combination of cultural beliefs and selective interpretations of scripture. Prominent figures, including Brigham Young, cited the “curse of Cain” and other theological rationales to support the exclusion of Black individuals from priesthood ordination. This ban not only marginalized Black members but also perpetuated systemic racism within the church, leading to feelings of unworthiness and disconnection from the faith community.

The impact of this policy was profound, as Black members were denied access to the same spiritual privileges and responsibilities as their white counterparts. Many faced discrimination and were often relegated to the periphery of church life. The emotional and spiritual toll of this exclusion cannot be overstated, as it created a barrier to full participation in the church’s spiritual and communal life. By preventing Black church members from receiving what the church considered to be necessary ordinances for exaltation, church leaders (who claimed to speak on behalf of God) made it clear that they believed Black members were less-than in God’s eyes.

In 1978, the church announced a revelation that lifted the ban, a decision that was met with mixed reactions. While many celebrated this change as a long-overdue step toward equality, it also raised questions about the nature of divine revelation and the church’s previous teachings. The church’s subsequent efforts to address its past, including the establishment of programs aimed at fostering inclusivity and understanding, reflect an ongoing struggle to reconcile its history with its present. The church’s failure to apologize for the policy or take steps toward restitution leave gaping wounds and prevent reconciliation and healing within the faith community.

Historical Revisionism and Transparency

The church’s approach to its own history has often been characterized by a tendency to downplay or omit controversial aspects in official narratives. This practice of historical revisionism has significant implications for members’ understanding of their faith. Many members have felt blindsided when confronted with historical facts that contradict the sanitized versions they were taught. For instance, the church’s early history includes instances of violence, polygamy, and conflicts with the U.S. government, yet these topics are frequently glossed over in official teachings.

The challenges faced by historians and scholars in presenting an accurate account of church history are critical to this discussion. Many have sought to uncover the complexities of the church’s past, only to encounter resistance from church leadership and members who prefer a more favorable narrative. This reluctance to fully embrace transparency has led to a growing demand for open dialogue about the church’s history, including the complexities of its founding, early controversies, and the actions of its leaders.

As members increasingly seek a more nuanced understanding of their faith, the church’s historical narratives are being scrutinized. This section will highlight the importance of historical accuracy in fostering a more informed and engaged membership, as well as the potential for healing and growth that comes from confronting uncomfortable truths.

Gender Roles and Women’s Rights

From the early days of the church, women have often been relegated to supportive roles, with virtually no opportunities for leadership or decision-making. While some women have found empowerment in their roles as wives and mothers, others experience feelings of confinement and inequality.

The lack of female leadership positions within the church has been a point of contention for many members. Despite the church’s emphasis on the importance of women in the family and community, leadership roles remain predominantly male. This has led to ongoing discussions about gender equality and the need for greater inclusion of women in leadership positions.

Violence and Conflict

Church history includes several instances of violence and conflict, with the Mountain Meadows Massacre being one of the most notorious. In 1857, a group of emigrants traveling through Utah was ambushed and killed by a contingent of Mormon settlers, along with some Native American allies. This tragic event raises profound questions about the moral and ethical implications of the church’s actions during a time of heightened tension and fear of persecution.

The church’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre has evolved over the years. Initially, the church leadership downplayed the incident, attributing it to rogue individuals rather than a systemic failure.

The implications of such events are significant for members navigating faith transitions. Violence in the church’s history can lead to questions about the nature of prophetic authority and the ethical foundations of church teachings.

Doctrinal Changes and Revelations

The church and its doctrine have undergone significant evolution since its founding in the early 19th century. Key changes include shifts in teachings about the nature of God, the afterlife, and the practice of polygamy. For instance, early church leaders taught a concept of God that included the potential for humans to become divine, a belief that has been refined over time. Additionally, the church’s stance on polygamy, once a central tenet, was officially renounced in 1890, leading to a redefinition of family structures within the faith.

These doctrinal changes have profound implications for members’ faith journeys. For many, the evolution of teachings can create a sense of instability or uncertainty regarding prophetic authority. If doctrines can change, what does that mean for the reliability of current teachings? This question can be particularly challenging for those who have built their faith on the belief in unchanging truths.

Moreover, the church’s ongoing revelations and adjustments to doctrine can lead to a sense of disillusionment among members who feel that their understanding of faith has been compromised. For those in transition, grappling with these changes can be a pivotal part of their journey, prompting them to reevaluate their beliefs and the foundations upon which they were built.

Treatment of LGBTQ+ Individuals

The church’s historical and contemporary stance on LGBTQ+ issues has been a source of significant tension and conflict, both within the church and in broader society. The church has consistently opposed same-sex marriage and has upheld policies that promote heterosexual marriage as the only option. This position has led to feelings of exclusion and marginalization among LGBTQ+ members and their families.

The church’s stance has often been framed in terms of doctrine and morality, which can create a painful dichotomy for members who identify as LGBTQ+ and wish to remain part of the faith community. The impact of these positions on LGBTQ+ members can be profound, leading to struggles with identity, mental health, and familial relationships.

In recent years, the church has made minimal efforts to address LGBTQ+ concerns. However, many LGBTQ+ individuals and allies feel that these efforts fall short of true acceptance and inclusion. Further, the changing nature of these policies raises questions about church leaders’ legitimacy and authority as prophets.

Conclusion

The church’s troubling history raises important questions about its role in society, its cultural practices, and the importance of inclusivity. This dialogue can foster a deeper understanding of the complexities of faith and identity, encouraging members to embrace a more nuanced perspective on their beliefs and the church’s place in the world.

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.

Testable Claims

Church leaders have produced testable claims during the history of the church, and many of those claims have fallen apart as time has passed. In my opinion, leaders’ failure to pass their own tests is convincing evidence that the church is a man-made organization and not inspired by God.

Kinderhook Plates

Fewer topics are more detrimental to the truth claims of the church than the Kinderhook Plates. Consider this oft-quoted line from Rough Stone Rolling:

Church historians continued to insist on the authenticity of the Kinderhook Plates until 1980 when an examination conducted by the Chicago Historical Society, possessor of one plate, proved it was a nineteenth-century creation.¹

The plates, if you are unfamiliar with them, were a set of bell-shaped brass plates, pictured below.

Joseph Smith insisted he translated a portion of the plates. He taught they contained the history of the person they were buried with, who was a descendant of Ham. Unfortunately for Joseph, the plates were a forgery.

I am stumped by Joseph’s inability to discern the forgery. I do not understand how he was able to translate (apparently using his translation gift from God) these plates that contained no meaningful information.

The church itself appears to be grasping at straws to find an explanation for this. I propose a simple explanation: Joseph failed to demonstrate any prophetic or divine translation ability and was not truly a prophet of God.

The Book of Abraham

I discuss the Book of Abraham in the section about the Pearl of Great Price. In summary, the Book of Abraham demonstrates that Joseph Smith was not inspired by God when he dishonestly claimed to translate the book.

Prophetic Revelation

Throughout the scriptures, God has revealed many significant and destructive events through His prophets, including the destruction of cities, wars, famines, droughts, and plagues. Given this historical precedent, it is perplexing that the church has often seemed surprised by a multitude of similar events in modern times.

For instance, despite many church buildings being located in arid regions such as Idaho, Utah, and Arizona, the church frequently maintains large lawns and appears to be careless about water usage. It is surprising that church members have not been counseled to limit their water consumption and conserve resources to mitigate the worsening drought conditions in these areas. Additionally, while some efforts were made to reduce reliance on in-person church meetings, the church seemed unprepared for the onset of COVID-19. Despite the critical importance placed on temple ceremonies, baptisms, and the sacrament for one’s exaltation, the church had to make retroactive adjustments to temple ceremonies, meeting procedures, and other activities to accommodate the pandemic’s restrictions.

Moreover, the church does little to proactively prepare its members for potential crises, apart from encouraging those with the means to stockpile food, water, and other essentials. This practice appears inconsistent with the character of the God described throughout the scriptures, who often provides guidance and warnings to His people. Additionally, wars and protests have disrupted the lives of many Latter-day Saints around the world, seemingly without any forewarning or counsel from God. In another instance, a prophet once revealed that the Book of Mormon was a record of the primary ancestors of indigenous peoples, yet the text had to be altered retroactively in light of advancements in genetic research.

Furthermore, despite generations of prophets teaching that professional opportunities and other blessings are directly tied to tithing, a disclaimer in Footnote 20 of Russell Nelson’s recent General Conference talk left me confused.

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.²

This statement raises questions about the reliability of the church’s teachings on tithing and blessings.

Ultimately, I have seen no convincing evidence to suggest that Russell Nelson or any prophet throughout the church’s history possesses prophetic abilities that surpass those of individuals who are simply skilled at research. In recent years, I have been more impressed by scientifically based forecasts than by the accuracy of any prophetic declarations. This disparity further complicates my understanding of the church’s claims regarding divine guidance and the role of its leaders.

Patriarchal Blessings

I would encourage a thorough exploration of the Patriarchal Blessing Revelator produced by Fuller Consideration. This resource provides a fascinating look at the promises made in patriarchal blessings, many of which have not come to fruition. For instance, numerous individuals, including many who were born well over 110 years ago, were promised they would be alive for the Second Coming of Christ. This claim raises significant questions about the reliability of such prophetic assurances. Additionally, many people, including those who are still single or have never married, were promised marriage, which has not materialized for them. Furthermore, a considerable number of individuals were assured financial stability and other temporal blessings that ultimately did not come to pass. These examples highlight a pattern of unfulfilled promises that can be disheartening for those who have placed their faith in these blessings.

It is important to note that patriarchal blessings are often filled with vague language and contingencies that can make it easy to interpret them in various ways. As I have revisited my own patriarchal blessing, I have come to realize that the promises contained within it are general enough to apply to nearly any church member. Their counsel often consists of broad guidance that could be applicable to anyone, such as the instruction to devote time to preparing for service in the church. This realization has led me to draw parallels between the general statements found in my patriarchal blessing and the kinds of predictions one might hear from a fortune teller at a carnival.

Ultimately, this experience has prompted me to reflect on the nature of patriarchal blessings and their role within the church. While they are intended to provide comfort and guidance, the lack of specificity and the prevalence of unfulfilled promises can lead to disillusionment for many members. It raises important questions about the nature of divine revelation and the expectations placed on individuals who seek spiritual direction through these blessings. As we navigate our faith journeys, it is essential to critically examine the teachings and practices of the church, including the significance and implications of patriarchal blessings in our lives.

Word of Wisdom

In my opinion, the Word of Wisdom serves as compelling evidence against Joseph Smith’s abilities as a revelator. It seems unlikely that a divine being would provide guidance that reflects generic health advice from the 1800s, especially when God is believed to possess the ultimate understanding of the human body. This raises questions about the modern interpretation of the Word of Wisdom, particularly regarding its prohibitions and allowances. For instance, the current stance against consuming coffee and tea overlooks the significant health benefits these beverages can offer³. Conversely, the acceptance of sugar and artificial sweeteners, both of which have been linked to serious health issues, seems contradictory to the intent of promoting health.⁴ Additionally, the original text of the Word of Wisdom indicated that beer was acceptable, yet it is now deemed inappropriate.⁵ Furthermore, the guidance regarding water—suggesting that it need not be filtered or boiled—could have potentially prevented illness and death among early church members.

The text of the Word of Wisdom states the following:

And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones; And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures; And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.⁶

This promise of specific blessings for all saints who obey the commandments is particularly intriguing. The use of universal quantifiers implies that every faithful individual should experience these benefits. However, a single counterexample can invalidate such a sweeping claim.

I present such a counterexample: many faithful saints, including several members of my own family, live with chronic health conditions despite their diligent adherence to the Word of Wisdom and other commandments. These individuals often struggle with fatigue and cannot run without becoming weary. Additionally, many suffer from bone diseases, and missionaries—who are typically very strict in their obedience—frequently encounter serious health complications.

Given these observations, I argue that the Word of Wisdom was not inspired by God. The lack of promised blessings for many faithful members suggests that there was no divine influence in the creation of this commandment or its associated promises. This raises important questions about the nature of revelation and the expectations placed on church members regarding their adherence to the Word of Wisdom. As we reflect on these issues, it becomes essential to critically evaluate the teachings and practices of the church, particularly those that claim divine origin.

Conclusion

I propose that these simple examples are sufficient to demonstrate that the church’s testable claims do not withstand scrutiny. Certainly, I argue, an omniscient, omnipotent God would fulfill the promises His prophets make, and certainly He would inspire leaders as accurately and helpfully as possible. The failure of so many testable claims calls the legitimacy of the entire church organization into question.