Pyreaux

In the Gospel according to me, the New Testament "Elders" refers to Elderhood which is the Christian Priesthood, Temple going Women are Priestesses or else they couldn't (safely in ancient thought) be in the Temple. The keys needed to get through the gates of death are priesthood keys. Through the oneness/unity of the priesthood/gospel there is no Jew or Gentile, male or female, though what that unity may look like, minimally, is there are post-mortem priestesses as promised, if not the sealed companion of every priest (as opposed to being genderless or even like a Kabbalah siamese-twin or hermaphrodite). The "elders" in the New Testament are not just older men, but members of the Royal Melchizedek Priesthood, called the Presbytery or Elderhood held by Jesus's apostles and early Church leaders, and was restored in the latter days through the Prophet Joseph Smith. "Royal Cult" of Israel had ancient non-Levite priestesses, like others of the ancient Near East, whose participation was essential to the temple's function. In Israel, they did things such as weave all the white priestly garments in the Temple. The queen wore them in the Temple at the Temple wedding in the upper chamber and anointed with the priests' oil, making her holy. In the LDS temple endowment, both men and women receive sacred ordinances and covenants that prepare them to become "kings and priests" and "queens and priestesses" unto God. While today in mortality, men are ordained to priesthood office, both men and women are endowed with priesthood power in the temple. Women in this, receive a form of authority and power that is essential for their eternal progression and for the work of salvation. The title of "priestess" is a promise of their eternal destiny. While in mortality, priesthood keys are held by male leaders to govern the Church and its ordinances on Earth, the concept of "oneness" in the gospel ("no Jew or Gentile, male or female") is the higher, eternal principle. In the temple, a man and a woman are sealed together, and this sealing is said to unite them in "one flesh," creating a single, exalted unit. It's in this eternal, married state that the man and the woman, as "king and priest" and "queen and priestess," exercise their joint divine authority in the afterlife President Joseph F. Smith, and others, have taught that women, particularly those who have been sealed in the temple, will have a full share in the eternal blessings and authority of the priesthood. This is the fulfillment of the promise made to them in the temple. The work in the spirit world, therefore, is not limited to ordained men but is a cooperative effort of both men and women who have been prepared in the temple. Doctrine and Covenants 138:57, by mentioning "elders," is not an exclusion of women but rather a specific reference to those who hold the priesthood office that directs the work in this mortal dispensation. However, the broader theological framework, rooted in ancient temple worship and the Latter-day eternal principles of the gospel, confirms that the work of salvation is a joint effort of men and women. LDS women who have died, especially those who have been endowed and sealed in the temple, have been promised the destiny of being "priestesses." This means they are fully authorized and empowered to participate in the work of saving the dead, which is the ultimate purpose of the gospel. The vision of Eve and her faithful daughters in D&C 138:39 is a perfect example of this truth.

I've also been wondering if perhaps this absurd idea is just a personal fantasy that has become common in ex-mormonism to believe the Church should take on the burden of their own departure by "purging" them from its rolls. A fantasy stemming from the difficult emotional, social, and familial consequences of leaving the faith. The Fantasy of a "Guilt-Free" Exit For many who leave The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a formal resignation is not just a simple administrative act; it's a painful process that can lead to rifts with family and friends. By fantasizing about a Church-initiated purge, these individuals wish to avoid the personal responsibility and emotional fallout of resigning. They want the Church to be the "bad guy" who severed the tie, thereby absolving them of the guilt and grief associated with their departure. The Fantasy of Validation Or the desire for a public purge could also be a fantasy of validation. It represents a longing for the Church to publicly acknowledge, "we agree, your issues are valid, you should no longer be a member." This would, in the mind of the individual, confirm their narrative and remove the personal responsibility of having to justify their choices to family and friends. From this perspective, the aggressive and passive-aggressive behavior is perhaps not for moral superiority, but a mask for their own lack of courage to fully break away and face the consequences on their own.

Correct, you avoided mentioning any churches. By using the phrase "every organization I've been a part of," you were clearly attempting to establish a universal, common-sense rule based on your personal experience, by extension, to all other "sensible" organizations you haven't been a part of. The unstated, but obvious, conclusion of this inductive reasoning is that this rule should also apply to the LDS Church because all churches are also organizations. The entire point of the statement is to use this "universal rule" to criticize the Church's policies as an exception to the norm. Because, if you didn't believe your rule applied to all sensible organizations, including ones you've not been a part of and churches, your argument would be baseless, a hasty generalization to make a case. My request stands. Semantic Evasion The specific tactic of hiding behind a literal interpretation of one's words to avoid an obvious implication is called semantic evasion. The individual knows what they implied, but they are trying to force a debate about the words themselves, rather than the substance of the argument. This behavior is a hallmark of a bad-faith argument. A good-faith arguer seeks truth and understanding; they would admit that their analogy was flawed or that they cannot provide a factual example. The poster, however, is not interested in a genuine exchange. Their goal is to "win" by any means necessary, which is why they resort to deflection when cornered. When he says, "You don't get to make up stuff I did not say," he is also using a form of gaslighting. He is trying to make me doubt my own understanding of the conversation and put me on the defensive. This is a common tactic when a person has no logical defense for their position.

You said, "Why not purge the rolls of those who are habitual criminals for example?" and "every org I have ever been a part of will purge you from the roles if you dont pay dues... why the church holds on to those who don’t tithe or otherwise participate at all is senseless" You implied it by questioning why the Church doesn't do what you say 'every org' you've been a part of does. You imply all organizations do this. The question still stands: what other church organization purges members for not tithing or for being a criminal? It's a simple question. Its a direct challenge to the premise of your entire argument, the premise being that other sensible organizations do what you suggested. Name me a church. Your inability to name another church, combined with your claim that 'every org' you've been a part of does this, suggests your premise is flawed. There is an easy out. Since you've been unable to name another church that operates this way, are you willing to admit your original argument was based on a flawed analogy to secular organizations, not on how other religions function?

Call for References: name me another church organization you know who purges their inactive members and who don't tithe [or one that doesn't have criminals as members.]

We absolutely called it. This quote is a textbook illustration of the very dynamic I described. The exact moment where the disingenuous pretext of "PR advice" crumbles entirely, revealing the underlying venomous motive. The final phrase, "oh there we go," that little fake epiphany shows the unguarded truth that confirms the entire thesis. It was always disingenuous to suggest anything you'd want was for the sake of the Church's "good name", this feigned desire to help the Church avoid a "PR problem" was a facade. The "advice" is merely a clever way to couch a hostile demand. The comparison of the Church to "every org" you've ever been a part of is a false equivalence. A church is not a club, using secular metric (dues and attendance) to undermine a spiritual institution, knowing full well the comparison is flawed. The true, venomous motive is revealed; the final sentence is a moment of pure, unfiltered glee. You have "found" the supposed secret. The only logical reason to keep inactive members is to "prove the truthfulness of the gospel by the growth of membership numbers." Yet, even the "inflated numbers" theory is also a fake motive, clearly, it's being taken for granted, so you can weaponize cherry-picked data; The most emotionally charged and extreme examples just to openly taint an entire group. This is not about a reasoned argument; it's about how many times you can associate the entire Church with the most heinous crimes imaginable. All of this is just a cry for personal vindication. Having rejected the faith, and for that decision to feel justified, the faith itself must be seen as a fraud or a failure. The old and tired "inflated numbers" theory provided a vehicle for this. Projection A psychological and moral defense mechanism where individuals unconsciously attribute their own unacceptable thoughts, feelings, or qualities to another person or group. In this case, the ex-Mormon poster is projecting their own qualities onto the Church. Lying: Notatbm's argument is disingenuous, as it is presented as helpful advice but is actually a hostile attack. He accuses the Church of being deceptive by inflating its numbers, yet he himself is being deceptive about his motives. He becomes the very thing claimed to hate or criticize, is a powerful and destructive psychological cycle. It often stems from deep-seated resentment and a need to externalize one's own perceived flaws. Intolerance Notatbm seems to be a typical secular ex-Mormon that was made by "deconstruction". To see flaws results in a new, impossible standard for any Church to live up to because it often involves the rejection of the core principles of mercy, forgiveness, and grace that are fundamental to any church. When a former member deconstructs their faith, they may replace this theological framework with a new, secular-based moral absolutism that has no room for human imperfection or redemption. The critic reduces every moral issue to a simple black-and-white binary. They cannot tolerate a system that offers mercy and a path to repentance, because it violates their new, rigid sense of justice they used to separate from their church. In a faith-based worldview, a church is a "hospital for sinners" where flawed people can find forgiveness and a path to repentance. This is inherently messy and imperfect. In the deconstructed secular worldview, there is no atonement to cover imperfections, there are only human actions and their fixed consequences. The person leaving the faith may develop a totalitarian intolerance toward anyone they deem a "sinner" or a "criminal". Their new standard becomes an authenticity test of absolute purity and moral consistency, a test that no church or community of flawed humans can ever pass. This new, unforgiving standard allows the individual to feel morally superior to the church they left. They see the church's merciful approach, keeping "sinners" on the rolls, offering second chances, not as a virtue, but as a sign of institutional weakness, hypocrisy, or even corruption. By being "intolerant" of these individuals, they can claim the moral high ground and say, "My moral code is tougher, more consistent, and therefore better than the church's." This is a core part of the deconstruction narrative: the hero of the old faith is recast as a flawed or evil character, thus justifying the individual's new moral superiority even in nihilism.

The Ethics of Counting Inactive Members Ah, the oft' repeated ex-mo suggestion that the LDS Church's membership numbers are artificially inflated because they include a large number of inactive members who haven't attended in years. It is a valid observation, but it lacks understanding how large religious organizations count members. Firstly, Baptism as the basis for LDS membership, as with many Christian denominations. Once a person is baptized and their name is entered on the membership rolls, they remain a member until they formally resign, are excommunicated, or pass away. This is a common practice in many faith traditions. It's a vital ordinance, and cruel to arbitrarily take away. The logic of "purging" the rolls of inactive members is an overly drastic measure. While it might lead to a more "accurate" representation of active participants, it would also go against the fundamental theological principle of many churches that baptism is a binding covenant that cannot be easily undone. For the LDS Church, membership is not just a club membership that can be revoked for non-attendance. Many members who are currently inactive still consider themselves to be faithful, many hope to return to activity one day, and many who leave do ultimately come back later in life. The Church, by keeping them on the rolls, maintains a connection to them. Secondly, the ex-mos seem to just assume other religions have so much higher rates of active participation. Catholicism: A Pew Research Center study found that about 29% of U.S. Catholics say they attend Mass weekly or more often. This means a significant majority of people who identify as Catholic do not attend services every week. The Catholic Church, however, still counts all baptized individuals as members. Protestantism: Similarly, a Gallup poll found that only about 32% of U.S. adults reported attending religious services in the past seven days, a number that has been in decline for years. The definition of "Protestant" is also broad, encompassing many denominations, some do have very high attendance. Criminals and Membership This is a classic example of confusing the actions of individuals with the character of an institution. While members of the Church have committed crimes, becoming a source of embarrassment and criticism for the institution; Every major religion and organization in the world has members who are criminals. The actions of one or a few individuals do not define the entire group. The LDS Church does, like many religious organizations, have a formal process for dealing with serious transgressions, including criminal behavior. This process is called church discipline or a church court. Depending on the nature of the crime, the individual may be disfellowshipped or excommunicated. Excommunication is usually a private and confidential matter, and the church would not publicly announce the excommunication of every member who commits a crime. The purpose of these disciplinary actions is not to "look good" to the public, but to help the individual repent, to protect the integrity of the Church, and to protect others from harm. The process is also a way for the Church to maintain accountability within its own community. The Ex-Mo Logical Fallacies Cherry-Picking Do you even know whether LDS members are more or less criminally inclined than the general population? General sociological data suggests that having a religious affiliation is often correlated with lower crime rates, but it's not a direct cause and effect. It would be a huge overstatement to say that all religious groups have no criminals or that any one group, like the LDS church, somehow has a disproportionate number of them. The argument that if we had only ex-ed them, we'd have saved face is a prime example of this fallacy. This line of reasoning assumes that the Church's primary motivation for its disciplinary process is public relations. It's a spiritual process, not a PR strategy. The idea of "saving face" by preemptively excommunicating anyone who might commit a crime is not only impractical but also deeply un-Christian. The Church's role, from a theological perspective, is to minister to all, even those who have committed serious errors. The Kirk Shooter Example: If the shooter was actually a rebellious LGBT activist or even an apostate-Mormon, where his actions thus far were motivated by his animosity toward the Church, not his membership in it. Should this isolated incident be twisted to start purging 'apostates' who are LGBT or who support LGBT policies? Motivation and Bias The OP claims to be acting out of concern for the Church's reputation, but everything they've ever said reveals a different motive: a desire to see the Church discredited and diminished. This is a classic example of a false front or pretext. Feigning concern to make an argument seem more credible, when the true goal is to harm the institution they once belonged to. The "Membership Numbers are Inflated" Trope: This is a common talking point in ex-Mormon circles. It's not just a debate about numbers; it's an attack on the Church's integrity and its public image. The idea that the Church is "lying" about its numbers is a core belief for many critics. The "purge" of inactive members is presented as the solution to this supposed lie, its only suggested because it would, in turn, reduce the Church's influence and make it appear less successful. The "All-in" Argument The idea that a smaller, "all-in" membership is better for us is a common trope and is perhaps the most insidious because it takes a grain of truth and blows it up into a misguided demand. A highly committed core of members is, indeed, essential for any religious organization. It's what keeps the lights on, the programs running, and the missionary work going. The flaw is it also ignores the pastoral role of a church to minister to all, including those who are struggling, inactive, or fallen away. The call for a "purge" is based on a biased premise. It's a delusion that the only reason not to do as suggested is to inflate numbers. The practice of counting all baptized individuals as members (which is not unique to the LDS Church) and the reasons for it are rooted in theological and pastoral principles rather than a desire to inflate numbers. A church is a body of believers, not an exclusive club. The Church, by its nature, is not meant to minister to those "all-in." The vast majority of inactive members are not criminals or public relations liabilities; they are simply people who have drifted away for a variety of reasons, some temporary, some permanent. To sever that tie would be a betrayal of the Church's core mission. The Church maintains these records because it views these individuals as part of the "family" of God. It's not a scheme to look good, critics only say and think that because they are biased against the church. The True Heart of the Matter For many who actively oppose the Church, the "church growth" is not a positive outcome, it's a problem. Their logic goes like this: The Church is a lie or a harmful institution. The Church is growing, or at least claims to be, and its global influence is significant. This growth must be an illusion or based on deception, because a "false" church such as this should be in decline. Therefore, the practice of keeping inactive members on the rolls is interpreted as a deliberate scheme to manufacture a narrative of success. It's the only logical explanation that fits their pre-existing premise. This is a classic case of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. The critics have already decided that the Church is "bad" and should be failing. When the publicly reported numbers don't align with that expectation, they don't question their premise; instead, they attack the numbers themselves. For a bitter ex-Mormon, see a large decline in membership would validate their decision to leave and confirms their belief that the institution is a fraud. The Church's continued public growth, at least the very perception of it, is a constant source of frustration for them because it contradicts their preferred narrative. They want to believe that the Church is losing its influence, and a massive "purge" of the rolls would provide the empirical evidence they so desperately desire.

Then your definition is a modern invention. The word "eternity" in the modern sense of having "always been" is often imported into the Bible from later pagan Greek philosophical traditions, not directly from the original Hebrew. The Hebrew word olam is the root of many Protestant interpretations. Olam (עוֹלָם) is better understood as "long duration," "age," or "indefinite time." Therefore, biblical phrases like "from olam to olam" (Psalm 90:2) signify an enduring, continuous existence that extends beyond human memory, but not necessarily a being without a beginning or prior state. You're reading a foreign Greek definition of God into the text. A Semitic understanding to Psalm 90:2 ("Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from olam to olam you are God"), is not a metaphysical statement about YHWH's atemporal existence outside of time, but a powerful declaration of his enduring reign. A king's power is demonstrated by his ability to maintain his reign. Psalm 90:2 is a majestic statement about YHWH's enduring kingship. Furthermore, the Bible itself contains concepts that can be interpreted as there being "gods" that have "become". Psalm 82:6: "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." This verse, cited by Jesus in John 10:34, suggests that other beings, identified as "gods," were "born" as children of the Most High. This introduces the idea of a hierarchy of divine beings who are not the one God, but are still called "gods" who "became" the "sons of God". The Bible is explicit that the Christians are adopted as the new sons of God, fated to become everything Christ is. The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic traditions have a concept of theosis or deification, which is surprisingly close to the LDS idea of human potential. Theosis is the belief that humans can become like God or "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This shows that the concept of divine progression is not a unique LDS invention but has historical roots in Christianity that predate Protestantism by millennia. This suggests that your argument against "becoming god" is an isolated Protestant interpretation, not a universal Christian one. If Jesus is God, he experienced real change and "becoming." His was explicitly transformed and exalted. Then promised us the same, to sit on the throne of God. This challenges the notion that gods are inherently static, never changes, or "always been". Therefore, the assertion that "God has always been God" is not a universally accepted biblical truth but a specific theological interpretation. It relies on a specific reading of biblical words and a selective focus on certain verses while overlooking others that suggest divine progression and a plurality of "gods." Secondly, LDS theology agrees that God the Father has always been God in the sense that he is an eternal, divine being who presided over all things. The King Follett sermon's teaching that "God himself was once as we are now" is not interpreted to mean that God the Father was ever a mortal human of a fallen world. Instead, it refers to a stage of his eternal progression, not that that he wasn't God, only He became the embodied being He that has come to define what God is to Joseph. As Joseph is portrayed as saying, it was similar to the process that Jesus Christ experienced. If that is the cases, then He was always God, but not always in his current state of being, that is what Joseph defines as a god, via an exalted body. Thirdly, in LDS theology, the worship of future exalted beings is not a tenet. The central point of worship is always God the Eternal Father, in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Ghost. Future exalted individuals, or "gods," will not be worshipped by their spirit children or any others. We were never told otherwise. They will become like God in attributes, power, and glory, but they will not supplant God the Father as the object of worship. This is analogous to how Jesus Christ, who is also a God, directs all worship back to the Father. The interpretation of Joseph Smith's discourse is still a subject of ongoing discussion. The quote you provided does challenge the traditional idea of the Greek static God who existed unchanged, but not the Christian God that did change into a man. However not every word the prophet speaks is considered a revelation or a formal statement of doctrine. The King Follett sermon was given at a specific time and place (the funeral of King Follett) and recorded second hand in by four people in four parts. It was not a formal, written proclamation or canonized scripture. It was a sermon not submitted to the general membership of the Church, nor was it published as an official declaration signed by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, which prevents a single leader from unilaterally changing core beliefs. The sermon, no matter how powerful, or revolutionary, did not undergo this process. Hence, Gordon B. Hinckley's Statement in 1997, "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it." LDS members "jump through hoops" to reinterpret Joseph Smith can also be called the act of discerning the inspired from the personal. Joseph gave impromptu sermons, but he also instituted a process of canonization and the principle of unanimous consent are designed to ensure that the core, saving doctrines are clear and consistent, while allowing for personal and historical contexts of individual teachings.

I'm sure they can, but their target is misleading. When one uses the word 'corruption,' they're not speaking in a legal or even a consistent ethical sense. They're using it as a catch-all term for any institutional behavior they dislike. The fact that you feel personally wronged by the Church's financial management even though you were not legally or financially harmed suggests that your perception is driven by something other than the objective facts of the case. The outrage over a financial fine is disproportionate to the actual harm done, but it is a perfect outlet for the bottled-up pain and passive aggression stemming from more profound, personal wounds. Displacement is a defense mechanism where a person redirects a strong emotion, like anger, from the source of the emotion to a less threatening person or object. For many who leave the Church, particularly those who have experienced family or spousal estrangement, the pain is deeply personal and multifaceted. They may have been "pushed out" of their community, shunned by their parents, or left by a spouse who chose the Church over them. Confronting the Church or their family directly about these issues can be incredibly difficult and emotionally fraught. The Ensign Peak story provides a convenient and emotionally "safe" outlet for this anger. It's an impersonal, institutional issue that allows for public moral outrage without requiring a painful personal confrontation. The anger over a financial report, a topic that has little direct impact on their daily lives, is an easier emotion to express than the raw pain of a broken family. Passive Aggression is another relevant concept. It's the indirect expression of negative feelings. Instead of saying, "I'm angry that my parents won't talk to me," the former member might use the Ensign Peak issue as a vehicle to indirectly communicate their hostility. It allows them to express their anger in a way that can be easily denied ("I'm not angry at my parents, I'm just 100% concerned about financial ethics!") while still protecting their feelings of resentment. It isn't that they don't feel upset, it's the source of that upset is complex and, in specific contexts, appears to be an overhyped, and in some cases, a disingenuous moral outcry. The continued outrage and re-litigation of the issue, long after the legal and financial matter is settled, suggests the outrage isn't about the problem itself. It's about a need to maintain a narrative of being wronged. This outrage can be a form of cognitive dissonance reduction. The belief that the church is fundamentally flawed creates a conflict with the fact that many of its practices, even the Ensign Peak fund, are actually not illegal or fraudulent. In the context of government or corporate *corruption", the term implies specific, illegal activities which the church hasn't actually participated in. By inflating a transparency issue into "corruption", the ex-LDS person resolves this conflict, making their decision to leave seem more justified.

I, like some people, objectively believe some problems are not really their nor your problems, or they have been resolved or have a resolution. While, "other" people are not being objective, overhyping or are a little disingenuous, because it will always be a perpetual problem no matter what. Members of the Church, have considered the Ensign Peak events and found that the problems are either already resolved, were never as significant as portrayed, or don't affect them at all. The SEC's action was not for embezzlement or fraud, thus is not "corruption". The fine was a settlement, not a criminal conviction, that concluded "no wrongdoing". For some, it's the Church's admission of a "mistake" and its change in reporting procedures is enough to close the book on the issue. They see a problem that was addressed and corrected. This is where "cognitive dissonance" cuts in the direction of critics. For many who leave the Church, a central part of their new narrative is that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." When a news story like Ensign Peak breaks, it serves as powerful confirmation bias for their existing beliefs. They've already concluded the Church is corrupt, so this story is simply more evidence of that, even if the legal and financial details don't support the most extreme claims. In contrast, active members who can honestly reconcile their faith with a history of institutional privacy may not experience the same dissonance. A genuine criticism: This is the person who looks at the facts and says, "The Church should have been more transparent. The SEC fine shows a lack of institutional foresight." This is a valid, objective critique. A disingenuous outcry: This is the person who takes the same set of facts and uses them to reinforce a personal narrative of victimhood and betrayal. They inflate the issue, using terms like "corruption" and "deception" to stoke moral outrage, even when they were not personally harmed. Their goal is not to solve a problem but to validate their own life choices and affirm their identity as a former member.

Good see you again @2BizE, you do liven things up. Despite what my opinion is about it, those are indeed the recent events that likely inspired the common outbursts. So, yes, thank you for that. Corruption The SEC's charges against the Church were for disclosure failures and misstated filings, not for corruption or fraud. The legal definition of "corruption" often involves a "scheme to defraud" or "abuse of entrusted power for private gain," the SEC did not allege that the Church was involved in insider trading, embezzlement, or personal enrichment of its leaders. The core violation was a lack of transparency, an offense but one that falls short of what many would define as "corruption." The ex-Mormons argue that the Church, through its investment arm, somehow violated a fiduciary duty to its members by accumulating a vast reserve, instead of using it for its mission or charity. The Church, on the other hand, maintains that the reserve is necessary. As predicted, the frivolous lawsuits brought against the Church by pre-embittered ex-members, alleging that they were defrauded, have all been dismissed by courts. Tithing is a spiritual practice, members are not "investors" and are not entitled to a detailed financial report on how their donations are used. The only members crying corruption are those with a "victimhood complex". Individuals who had already left the Church due to unrelated doubts, see the SEC fine as proof that they were right all along. It fits neatly into their pre-existing belief that the Church is dishonest and "not what it seems." The outrage is not a result of harm, but a celebration of a new piece of evidence that validates a long-held belief. Those ex-members having no direct financial loss yet feel some sense of betrayal, your anger isn't proportional to a real-world financial injury. By collectively expressing outrage online, they reinforce their shared identity as those who have "seen the truth" and been wronged by the Church. The outcry becomes a communal ritual that strengthens their bonds and validates their shared experience, a form of "virtue signaling" and a way to reinforce a narrative of betrayal and victimhood, rather than a proportional reaction to a real-world harm. The claim that the Church "lied to members again at the next general conference" by not mentioning "irregularities" is an oversimplification. The Church's general conference addresses have not traditionally been used for detailed financial reports. Instead, it typically provides a high-level summary from an independent auditing firm, which merely attests that all funds have been accounted for. The Church's specific statement on the SEC settlement was released separately in a press release. You are conflating different communication channels and expectations. Those who imagine they were harmed by tithing to a church they didn't know was wealthy, the Church has never made a claim of poverty to solicit funds. In fact, leaders have often preached principles of fiscal responsibility and long-term planning. The argument that members gave when they "couldn't afford to" is a personal decision based on their faith, not on a claim by the Church that it was in desperate need. In essence, they are complaining the church practices what it preached us to do, create a reserve for hard times. Ex-Mormon Moral Grandstanding Those making this claim are likely have no personal or financial stake in it. So, anger is not a result of them being harmed, and there's no evidence of such a finding by Australian legal authorities. This reflects a desire to frame their personal disillusionment as a universal truth, a key feature of the "victimhood complex." The outrage can be critiqued as an example of "Moral Grandstanding", a term from social psychology and philosophy. Moral grandstanding is the use of moral talk in public to convince others that one is a "morally respectable" person. It's often motivated by a desire for social status and a need to project a virtuous image. The outrage is always being expressed by many people who are not current tithing payers and who have no direct financial stake. They are broadcasting their moral identity as someone who stands against institutional corruption. In online spaces, this often takes the form of "piling on", a cascade of public condemnation that serves to reinforce group identity. By joining the chorus of outrage, individuals signal their allegiance to the ex-LDS community and their rejection of the Church. This behavior is more about group cohesion and social signaling than it is about seeking justice or a meaningful resolution. By focusing on the "corruption" of the Church, they can redirect feelings of guilt onto an external target. Their outrage becomes a "cleansing fire" that makes them feel morally superior and helps them reaffirm their decision to leave. The act of condemning the Church allows the individual to believe they are on the "right side." This can be particularly appealing when they feel their own life choices since leaving the Church might be seen as morally questionable by others. The moral outrage over Ensign Peak becomes a convenient way to say, "I am a good or better person because I am angry about this, unlike those who are complicit." It never results in a deeper understanding of the issue or a path to resolution.

Sir, Joseph is just saying God once experienced a progression in some sense. But Joseph never nails that down as "a spirit birth of heavenly parents" nor "a mortal birth with parents", which is often an overextension by later interpreters. He just insists God was once in a state analogous to humanity. Because the Joseph Smith Papers also has a version that portrays Joseph Smith saying, "the same as Jesus Christ himself did..." If you've noticed, many modern Latter-day Saint thinkers use the "same as Jesus" phrase to counter the idea that the sermon dictates God's embodiment or earthly sojourn was "exactly" like our situation. Because Jesus both was and wasn't like us. The sermon explicitly states that God is an "exalted man". Now, Jesus was God before birth, and is also "a man” in form, body, and likeness, yet not merely mortal and not defined by a fallen beginning. Joseph’s words leave room for both truths: Jesus was a God who was a man, in a sense still is a man, who became exalted, thus in our terminology, became a god. Embodiment being a vital characteristic in Joseph's definition of human exaltation into "godhood". Now that may not be what a "god" is you, but to Joseph there is a distinction, for instance, Jesus is a member of the Godhead, and so is already God, even in His premortal state. So, what does "a God", therefore "becoming God", even mean to you? For instance: If you say the Bible dictates God's defining characteristic as not His exalted body but rather perhaps God is defined by being "the Creator" and thus God, then he became God when he first created something. Right? The Biblical God progressed to his present form of God in Genesis. Same for other like-definitions, like Father of Spirits, being Heavenly, being Sovereign over all, or the object of worship, would then mean he only became God when those things first happened. If you are still hung up on the Psalmic God being God "from everlasting to everlasting", again olam doesn't mean "infinite", "olam" = "long duration, indefinite time, hidden time," not necessarily without beginning or end. Exodus 21:6 speaks of a slave serving his master "le-ʿolam" - obviously not forever without end, but for life. Jonah 2:6: “The earth with her bars was about me forever (le-ʿolam)" - meaning it felt unending, not infinite. The Bible itself doesn’t use "eternity" in the pagan Greek philosophical sense some are using it. That’s a later import. This would mean they are reading that doctrine of a "God" back into Scripture, not directly out of it. If you define "God" as that which never changes (Malachi 3:6), Scripture complicates that to: Jesus is the unchanging God, the I Am. Incarnation: "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). Progressed: "Jesus increased in wisdom" (Luke 2:52). Exalted: "God highly exalted him and gave him a name above every name" (Phil. 2:9). Perfection through suffering: "He was made perfect through sufferings" (Heb. 2:10). So biblically, Jesus (who is God) experienced real changes, progression, and "becoming." On the other hand, He was always divine, yes, but only in the flesh was He "the express image of [the Father’s] person" (Heb. 1:3). The "I AM" "from eternity" is not static, not even with how He is known (Exodus 6:3 - "By my name YHWH I was not known to them"). If you say "that was only His human nature," then you're splitting Jesus in a way Scripture doesn’t ("the Word was made flesh," not “the Word just wore flesh like clothes"). In other words, the Bible itself testifies to divine progression in the person of Jesus Christ. Whom Joseph suggested God's embodiment was like Jesus. 1. The god One Becomes (Exaltation) This LDS form of godhood refers to the eternal potential in humanity. For instance, according to D&C 132 and other revelations, faithful Latter-day Saints who enter into and keep the "new and everlasting covenant" of eternal marriage can receive a fullness of the Father's glory. This isn't about becoming a new "God" to be worshipped, but rather becoming like God the Father. This state is called exaltation or eternal life. What it means: It means inheriting all that God has; glory, power, dominion, and the ability to have eternal increase. D&C 132:20 states that those who receive this blessing "shall be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them." This is conditional. It's tied to receiving temple covenants, a gift of grace from Jesus Christ, not something earned through human effort alone. 2. The God That Already Exists The divine beings who make up the Godhead: God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. This is the "God" that is worshipped. A God who existed in the premortal life. Jesus was a spirit, the "Firstborn" of the Father's children. He was Jehovah of the Old Testament and the Creator of this world under the Father's direction. He is not a god that "became" a god in the same way the D&C describes; rather, he has always possessed a divine nature and was appointed as the Savior and Redeemer from the beginning. He has now become a resurrected, glorified being, the "express image" of the Father's person. The concept of "God" in LDS terminology can thus refer to both the members of the Godhead and to exalted beings who have achieved a similar state of glory and power. For the Father has a body of flesh and bone, that Joseph doesn't "suppose" He always possessed that body. Does your overemphasis on the unreviewed-for-correctness King Follett Sermon as the ultimate word on the subject make it easier for you to delegitimize thoughtful scriptural-based interpretations from LDS thinkers who can ground their doctrine in the scriptures, like the Bible, not folk doctrines of the early LDS church?

*I pray*

I agree that we should seek truth for its own sake. None of us should settle. If an old paradigm isn't true, letting it go isn't a bad thing. The problem is how we often go about it. As the scriptures warn, some people are "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7). Why? I think that happens when we look for truth in the wrong places or reject the very thing that can guide us to it. Or as @bluebell is saying truth isn't just about the information being presented; it's also about the receiver's willingness to accept it. If their mind is already set against it, if they've decided in advance that they 'won't believe the truth even if it was told to you', will be rejected. This is the trap of skepticism: Doubt can become a closed system that prevents new information from entering. The person who says "I won't believe until you prove it" can, ironically, be the very one who makes it impossible to be convinced. They've built a wall of predetermined unbelief that no amount of truth can get through. If I'm looking for reasons not to believe, I'll find them. I can find human flaws in prophets, unanswered historical questions, and apparent paradoxes. However, none of that necessarily means the gospel isn't true. If God is real, then truth isn't always something we can control or understand on our own terms. As Alma warned, we can take the seed of faith and "cast it out by your unbelief" (Alma 32:28). In that case, the seed was good and true, but skepticism killed it before it could grow or bear the fruit that would show you it was good and true. A skeptic might say, "I just want to know what's true, and I won't have faith until it's proven." But in practice, that sets the bar so high that even when truth is offered, it might not register. Scripture calls this "resisting the Spirit" (Acts 7:51). Faith isn't the opposite of truth, it's a disposition that allows you to receive the truth. Without faith, we often just end up confirming our own biases and doubts. That's the folly of the spirit of skepticism. The Folly of Skepticism

Actually, a very old idea expressed in a new way. The scriptures do indeed put "seeking" in a conditional frame, as you say: what you set your heart on determines what you end up finding. Jesus said, “Seek, and ye shall find” (Matthew 7:7). That’s usually read positively - seek truth, and you’ll find truth. But the inverse also appears true too: if you "seek for signs," you may get them but "unto condemnation" (Doctrine and Covenants 63:7–12). Likewise, those who "seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness" are condemned (Jacob 4:14). So, scripture shows that seeking isn’t neutral - it’s directed by intent. What I see, as someone who sees esoteric things in scripture, is the unstated need for hierophants, guides and community. Seeking in scripture is rarely a purely solitary quest. Priests, prophets, angels, or the Spirit often act as interpreters for seekers. Even Nephi, though he sought to see the vision himself, then immediately turned to the Spirit of the Lord to ask it questions (1 Nephi 11:1). Paul speaks of believers being “no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" if there is no ecclesiastic help (Ephesians 4:14). Without them, seeking can turn into wandering. The way I see it, many Protestant traditions emphasize "sola scriptura" and personal searching. That can empower with freedom but can also leave people fragmented if they have no shared interpretive anchor. The LDS approach insists that seeking is done with the Spirit and under authorized guidance, which helps avoid the endless whirl of “every wind of doctrine." So yes, that interpretation, that what you choose to seek, with faith or with doubt, determines what you will find, is valid. But paired with the recognition that God provides guides (Spirit, prophets, community) so that our seeking doesn’t just mirror our own bias.

I’m not arguing that there are or not spirits guarding treasure. It's what are the odds that the Book of Mormon would contain a 'treasures slipping away' motif. Perhaps, it simply shows it’s a more universal idea not just of 19th century Americans, hence its in other cultures. Or maybe it even could mean there’s a kernel of truth to the idea, and there are forces, natural or divine that makes buried treasure elusive. Maybe Samual or Mormon are purposely echoing any similar conditions in the "last days," and that included Joseph’s day. Like Isaiah often had dual fulfillment. Or Joseph translated the story in the language of his day, though the original plates said some other idiom (e.g., “your wealth will vanish”), Joseph could have rendered it in a phrase he understood "slippery."

Again, there is no dispute Joseph Smith was associated with local treasure-digging culture in the 1820s. But the surviving accounts differ: some were from hostile critics, others are secondhand recollections decades later the Book of Mormon. Nearly all "failures" to find treasure seems to specifically refer to Josiah's silver mine. So, while there’s evidence he participated, the details (frequency, seriousness, whether he actually "led" any hunts, or paid for anything more than to just dig) are not fully consistent. But what was First, the Chichen or the Egg? Some of the "treasure guardian," "slippery treasure," or "vanishing gold" anecdotes about Joseph before the Book of Mormon were written down decades after the Book of Mormon was published and after Joseph had already become a figure of controversy. That means: It's possible the influence runs both ways. The Book of Mormon itself, once published, could just as easily have reshaped how neighbors, critics, and later storytellers remembered or described earlier events. Historians note this problem. Richard Bushman and Mark Ashurst-McGee both point out that distinguishing between "actual treasure-digging traditions Joseph participated in" versus "stories retold after the Book of Mormon gave people a new interpretive framework" is very difficult. Some treasure stories may predate the Book of Mormon, but it’s equally plausible that some stories only took on their final shape because of the Book of Mormon’s publication and the cultural debates it sparked. Native American Traditions Who is to say the Book of Mormon people couldn't believe in slippery gold? Algonquian (Wabanaki) stories speak of stones or treasures that "slip back into the earth" if approached incorrectly. In Cherokee stories, spirit guardians protect sacred objects; attempts to steal them cause the items to vanish. (Stith Thompson, Motif-Index of Folk-Literature (1932–36), esp. D1825–D1829 ("Treasure sinks into earth when grasped improperly"). Middle Eastern Traditions All over the Middle East were stories of treasure guarded by jinn (genies, demons of King Solomon fame), treasure that disappeared if the seeker breaks ritual rules. Jinn were believed to transport or sink gold to thwart humans. (Robert Irwin, The Arabian Nights: A Companion (Tauris, 1994)) The Science of Slippery Gold While not magic, should I get the Tanners to remind you, gold is dense (about 19x heavier than water). In soil, or sand, or clay, heavy objects like gold naturally work their way downward through natural processes like; bioturbation, freeze-thaw cycles, rain wash and soil compaction over time. This is why some pan for gold in riverbeds, gold tends to sink below lighter material and settle in cracks or bedrock. So, the belief that "treasure sinks" wasn’t just superstition, it had a real-world basis people could observe. I'm sure American soil has swallowed its share of ancient gold. I'm sure the Book of Mormon people could find such instances to be a very profound spiritual lesson.

At first, I was just going to show a case of disorderly person begins with sworn complaints. A Justice of the Peace conducts an initial hearing called an "examination" where testimonies are given. John A. Dunlap, The New-York Justice (1815) - a widely-used New York JP manual laying out forms and procedure of a first appearance hearing for a disorderly person was: a complaint, a warrant, bringing the accused before the justice, an examination of witnesses, a decision to discharge, bind over, or otherwise dispose. Dunlap supplies the standard oaths and forms for witnesses and for commitments/bind-overs from a JP examination. (Primary procedural handbook used by NY JPs.) Thusly, as it is in the Joseph Smith Papers—State of New York v. JS–A Introduction "According to the manual, prosecutions under the disorderly persons statute were initiated by a complainant who described the alleged disorderly conduct under oath. Based on the complaint, the justice would then issue a warrant for the arrest of the offender. The statute outlined three methods by which a justice could convict an individual of being a disorderly person: first, ‘by his own view’; second, by the confession of the accused; or third, ‘by the oath of one or more credible witness or witnesses.’" JSP Overview—Justice of the Peace Court Authority '[Justices of the Peace were] conservators of the peace ... possessing authority to prosecute disorderly persons and to hold preliminary examinations to determine whether there was sufficient evidence that a crime had been committed to send the case to trial at a county-level court." Justices of the Peace were ones who handled initial hearings for minor offenses. Their role was to assess whether cases should proceed deeper into the judicial system. Now I found the other shoe. The reason for the ambiguity Since "disorderly person" was not like other criminal indictments that required a jury or trial. It just needed 2 or 3 credible witnesses to make a conviction, if the person fit the statutory definition of "disorderly." If the justice found the accusation sustained, he could enter a conviction on the spot and impose the statutory remedies (like binding the defendant to keep the peace, requiring sureties, or in default, jail). So, it was both a first proceeding and, effectively, the trial, because it was so petty it didn't need a trial or a jury. To put it in modern terms: One gets a felony = preliminary hearing + grand jury + trial before a judge. A petty disorderly person = one-step summary proceeding before a local magistrate. That’s why we're arguing over whether Joseph Smith’s 1826 case should be labeled a "trial" (since there are trial-like elements like testimony and a decision without another proceeding, like an actual trial) or just a "hearing" (since It was the first appearance, there wasn’t a jury, and the justices of the peace was handling it summarily).

First notice the phrasing: "most likely" means they are hedging because the surviving documentation is incomplete. Second, they can also say "tried" in a generic sense, to meaning he went through an examination or judicial proceeding. They don’t have a record of a formal trial, conviction, or verdict. One could say the accused was “tried” in the loose, non-technical sense, but it wasn’t a trial by jury or a criminal conviction. Because the original records are fragmentary (docket entries, bills, letters), the editors can’t confirm the exact type of proceeding. Using “tried” communicates that he went before a judicial authority but does not imply a trial as we understand it today. It looks exactly like an examination. In early 19th-century New York, a “disorderly person” charge often began with a preliminary examination before a justice of the peace, where the justice would hear witnesses, assess whether a formal prosecution was justified, and decide whether to issue a warrant or dismiss. JSP is just cautious, they are not definitively saying Joseph Smith faced a formal criminal trial. That is very different from how hostile ex-Mormons would inflate "tried" at a first appearance with a criminal jury trial in a higher court, and further that merely being at a court for the first time means you are guilty or shady would be misleading.

I understood the event was an examination before a justice of the peace under New York’s “disorderly persons” statute, not a formal criminal trial. The exact outcome remains unknown due to missing records. The docket lists him as "Joseph Smith the Glass-looker" a descriptor used to differentiate him from other people with the same name, not a charge or judgment of guilt. But both could be true. “Glass-looking” itself wasn’t a chargeable crime under New York law in the 1820s. What could be a chargeable offense was the much broader “disorderly person” statute in New York’s Laws of 1813, which allowed local justices to prosecute anyone who: pretended to tell fortunes or otherwise made money by deception. They are thinking he's pretending to be a glass-looker to scam money from Josiah. Josiah Stowell in 1830 supposedly gave testimony according to the Boston Christian Herald (Sept. 19, 1832), Stowell said that about three years earlier (1827-ish), Joseph had been arrested in Bainbridge, Chenango County, for “breaking the peace,” but had escaped from the officer and returned to Palmyra. That'd be a year late. Escaping custody would have been a serious matter, leaving more traces in the record. Nothing contemporary supports it. Historians think the Christian Herald mixed up the 1826 examination with later 1827 hostile rumors. There is doubt Josiah Stowell said Joseph was allowed to "escape", unless he was just saying Joseph was allowed to “run off” or "flee town." John S. Reed letter (1861) later confirmed that Joseph was charged under the "disorderly person" statute for “the crime of glass looking.” However, Reed is clear that Joseph was acquitted or discharged - not convicted. This matches the records that don’t prove conviction. Most likely scenario: Joseph was examined, the case dismissed, and he left freely. The “escape” story mostly comes from later hostile accounts, often second- or third-hand reminiscences written decades after 1830. Like, William D. Purple (1877, Chenango Union newspaper) claimed Joseph was “condemned” but let go because of his youth. It is not a trial transcript - as Joseph was never formally convicted of a crime based on this record. It does not provide any evidence that Joseph profited from treasure hunting or engaged in fraudulent schemes to be found guilty. Even Josiah's testimony absolves him. Those who call it a “trial” or “conviction” are exaggerating or misrepresenting the facts.

They are looking through the Twitter replies to Cabot that are claiming they are canceling.

Cool, global consciousness. Few hours later Cardon also says Cabot "stepped in it":

Cabot Phillips Really Stepped In It Cabot Phillips, a conservative political activist and media personality, currently serving as a writer and editor at The Daily Wire. Recently posted an anti-Mormon tweet because he believes a common conservative notion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is harmful to society, aligning with his conservative views and political activism. A recent tweet while dunking on a normal LDS girl who claimed all churches have a shady past, the LDS church has the least shady past. She now has 1 million views on her tweet on X because of Cabot Phillips' reply to her: "Before founding Mormonism, Joseph Smith ran a scam business using a magical ‘seer stone’ which he said directed him to buried treasure on people's property." In 1826 he was put on trial for ripping so many people off. In 1827 he just happened to dig up the "golden plates" that became the Book of Mormon. Totally not shady!!!!" (@cabot-philllips, X [formerly Twitter]) Mormon Stories I asked AI to search into this, it couldn't find the tweet, however the AI largely agreed with it. When I asked where the source for its information came from, it was all links from Mormon Stories webpages, with a blend of other primary sources that said no such thing. What I see as happening is, there seems to be a resurgence inspired by The Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Essays in which critics say the church changed its official tone from a denial that Joseph engaged in any Treasure Hunting, to supposedly admitting Joseph Smith operated a scam business, implying intentional deception and fraud. He used a seer stone (a folk-magic object) to locate buried treasure on other people’s land. The discovery of the “golden plates” in 1827 is insinuated to be just another 'treasure' story. Because that is more or less what Ex-LDS say about every Gospel Topic. As for AI, I'm sure like many non-LDS do, just thinks Mormon Stories is a source for information. Was there a Shift? In the 2010s with the Joseph Smith Papers and Gospel Topics Essays, the Church supposedly shifted to acknowledge Joseph’s treasure-digging and seer stone use in a more open, contextualized way. But I don't see any past denials of treasure hunting nor mining, just not "money-digging", always distinguishing "treasure seeking" from "money digging." B.H. Roberts (early 1900s, LDS General Authority) in Comprehensive History of the Church (1902–1932), Roberts described "money-digging" stories but framed them as hostile exaggerations of his manual labor. Joseph "hired out to Mr. Stowell … to dig for the silver mine … for something like a month … they vainly sought to find the 'hidden treasure.'" Joseph Fielding Smith (Apostle, 1950s–60s) in Doctrines of Salvation acknowledged Joseph's participation in treasure-seeking, Joseph F. Smith emphasized that it was a cultural phenomenon and not indicative of fraud. “Joseph Smith never was a money-digger. The whole story is a fabrication.” “Informed people do not dispute the fact that Joseph Smith searched for buried treasure. The disagreement is about what it means.” The only "shift" as I read it, is the church officially calling out most arguments against all treasure hunting, as the Presentist Fallacy it is: Judging 1820s folk practices by 2020s standards of scams or devilry, instead of understanding them in their own cultural and religious context. In the early 1800s, many respectable American people (not just Joseph) engaged in treasure-seeking. To dismiss it as “scamming” ignores the wider cultural acceptance and reduces it to a modern insult. Critics proceed to exaggerate the evidence (Hasty Generalization) and misrepresent the church's admissions (Strawman). They also twist ambiguous facts into hostile certainty. There isn't hard evidence he scammed folk. Joseph in 1822 finds a Seer Stone as a Youth Historical sources (both friendly and hostile) agree Joseph found a brown seer stone while digging a well around 1822. It’s clear he experimented with it; looking for things, trying to find objects underground, and sometimes telling neighbors what he "saw." And before the Book of Mormon, he developed a positive reputation of success. The important note: this was as a teen - long before he organized the Church. Early American folk practices weren’t unusual in rural New York. Joseph Knight Sr. (an early, faithful believer) wrote in his reminiscences: “Young Joseph … looked in the stone and told them there was a treasure.” (Dean Jessee, Early Mormon Documents, vol. 4, p. 15) Joseph’s Mother, Lucy Mack Smith's memoir, she acknowledged Joseph’s reputation for looking into a stone and that the neighbors sought him for it. She framed it positively: he was known for “having the gift of seeing” - not as a fraud, but as someone with a spiritual gift. (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (1853)). Joseph’s 1826 Court Hearing as a Glass-Looker Surviving bills and notes from Justice Albert Neely’s 1826 Bainbridge, NY examination calls Joseph Smith a "glass-looker" under his name, thought not his crime but rather to distinguish between all other Joseph Smiths. “Glass-looking” itself wasn’t a chargeable crime under New York law in the 1820s. What could be a chargeable offense was the much broader “disorderly person” statute in New York’s Laws of 1813, which allowed local justices to prosecute anyone who: pretended to tell fortunes or otherwise made money by deception. He was never sent to trial, as we see there were no credible witnesses against him, but the documents show Joseph was at least publicly known as a glass-looker. Glass-looking: A clairvoyant looking into a stone or glass, or other medium to try to see hidden things - often underground objects, lost items, or distant events. (Wesley Walters, “Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trial” (1971), reproduces the actual bills and notes.) Joseph was Not a "Money Digger" Lucy Mack Smith (Joseph’s mother, in Biographical Sketches) said "Joseph … endeavored to divert [Stowell] from his vain pursuit … laboring for about a month. It was from this … that the very prevalent story arose of Joseph’s being a money-digger." In Joseph Smith History, Joseph said that him being a "money digger" was a "rumor" started he was hired to dig for a Silver Mine. He was accused of being a "money digger" as a “charge brought against him” by critics, but he denied being what that implied: a fraudulent swindler. There’s a big difference between occasionally participating in digging for a mine (a normal cultural activity) and being a professional “money digger” or scam artist. In early 19th-century New England, a "money digger" was generally understood as someone who: Claimed to locate buried treasure (often Spanish gold or pirate loot). Using any modernly non-conventional or supernatural means (peep stone, divining rods, astrology, etc.) to do so. They usually accepted payment or promised a share of the treasure if found, in exchange for their services. This practice was widely mocked and stigmatized. By the 1820s, a “money digger” was as a derogatory label, similar to calling a psychic a fortune teller. How it applied to Joseph Smith Joseph had a Seer Stone he found in a well as a child, and by his 20s had a positive reputation for occasionally helping people find things with his gift. An Ensign article states Stowell arrived in the Susquehanna area “carrying a purported treasure map” with a digging crew. A Church History Department interview transcript (Legacy radio) says Stowell “had a map of some kind” pointing to a Spanish silver mine. The silver-mine idea and location was already on Stowell’s radar, via a map, before Joseph got involved. He hoped Joseph would join. Promising nothing, Joseph just wanted to be paid as a digger, while Josiah may have hoped by just having him around would give him an edge. The title of “money digger” was applied by critics to paint him as a fraud or charlatan, triggered by the events surrounding the 1826 Court Hearing. Semantics Matter - Key Nuance There is no source I've seen, that Joseph regularly took money just 'find' treasure, how do we know he wasn't just helping out of curiosity or folk faith, without payment, then he wasn’t technically a "money digger" in the economic sense - he’d just been part of a folk religious/mining activity that was common in his community. Mining isn't money digging. Joseph could truthfully say he wasn’t a “money digger” if by that, he meant “I wasn’t a fraud who lived off of deceiving people,” even if he once helped a man search for a silver mine. He became absolved of any wrongdoing by both the law and even Josiah himself, against accusations of Josiah's nephews. 1830 Palmyra Reflector (Newspaper) It seems the neighbors only started sharing the 'negative' rumors in 1829 after Joseph found the golden plates. In 1830, the Reflector began publishing mocking reports about Joseph as a “money digger”. Abner Cole (using the pen name Obadiah Dogberry) disliked Joseph and in the newspaper parodied the Book of Mormon before it had officially released. Example: “This work [Book of Mormon]… is said to be a history of the first settlers of America, written by one of their prophets… translated from the golden plates by Joseph Smith, Jr., who has been known as a money-digger." 1834 Eber D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed Eber D. Howe was a newspaper editor in Painesville, Ohio. In 1831–32, right after the Church’s move to Kirtland, Ohio, apostates and outsiders in Ohio and New York were compiling negative accounts from New York neighbors about Joseph Smith. Howe collected these reports and in 1834 published Mormonism Unvailed, the first major anti-Mormon book. Mormonism Unvailed leaned heavily on affidavits gathered by Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a disaffected Mormon. These affidavits came from Joseph’s Palmyra and Manchester neighbors; Chase, Stafford, and Stowell families (of course not Josiah Stowell). They claimed Joseph was a “money digger” and “lazy", alleged that Joseph deceived people into believing he could find buried riches. I've seen nothing yet about being paid for just looking for treasure. Howe was also the origin point of the debunked "Spaulding Manuscript theory" that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from a lost unpublished romance by Solomon Spaulding. The dominate anti-Mormon argument for decades, though it has since collapsed (once the actual Spaulding manuscript resurfaced and bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon). It was Mormonism Unvailed that cemented the "money-digger" narrative in public discourse. Joseph himself pushed back: in his 1838 history he called such stories "folly and lies" used to discredit him. The critic kept the “money digger” stigma alive for decades. 2007 John Foxe and Wikipedia Editing Wars As early as July 2007, John Foxe was a pseudonymous editor on Wikipedia was actively editing multiple LDS-related pages, including the First Vision article, pushing for sections on "treasure-seeking" to be included as the lead paragraph, even when other editors argued it was undue detail. Foxe created secondary accounts, like Hi540, later exposed as sock puppet accounts used in the editing wars. The masquerade led to a two-week Wikipedia suspension. In the 2000s, Wikipedia became the first stop for casual research. Because Wikipedia ranks so high on Google, their framing disproportionately influenced journalists, students, and even lazy "scholars". The "money digger" gets "locked in" as neutral fact. 2010-2020 Ex-Mo Media Era Platforms like Mormon Stories, CES Letter, and ex-Mo Reddit all take the “money digger” framework and lean hard into ridicule - and strangely they become a source, creating another loop: Where mainstream journalists and editors like Cabot Phillips are Googling Joseph Smith, find ex-Mo takes, then amplify it in their own articles and X feeds. What make Cabot Phillips tweet striking is that even someone outside from Mormonism parrots this Ex-Mormon ridicule narrative as if it’s settled fact. That shows how effective the ex-Mo content machine has been. Cabot probably didn’t dig into the early sources, he likely picked it up secondhand through the ex-Mo ecosystem that dominates search and social media. Ex-Mo echo chambers, each retelling added more certainty. What began as “Smith was accused of glass-looking” slowly became “Smith was convicted of the fraud of glass-looking” (though no conviction exists). Each loop hardened the language and erased nuance. First it was Anti-Mormon books making exaggerated claims and quoting from and sourcing other Anti-Mormon books. Ex-Mormon forums, and YouTube amplified these recycled claims. Since digital platforms reward volume and repetition, these old, exaggerated claims got repeated thousands of times - giving the impression of being overwhelming facts. Oh, The Irony Ex-Mormon Critics often accuse the Church of lying to control the narrative but in reality the anti-LDS narrative has thrived through uncritical repetition rather than fresh evidence. Only when scholars, including the Joseph Smith Papers team, emphasize the need to go back to original documents because so much of the narrative was built on secondhand and thirdhand claims. The critics uses the documents the church published to claim the Church was hiding documents about Joseph Smith’s past because they’re too embarrassing or proves Joseph was a fraud. The Church funded, compiled, edited, and published the Joseph Smith Papers Project, making documents like the 1826 hearing record publicly available. That’s the opposite of a cover-up: If the Church wanted to bury them, they easily could have. Yet the documents still don’t support the critics’ most pointed claims. The hearing transcript doesn’t prove fraud or scam. It shows a subset of neighbors arguing, a second-hand testimony, and a justice letting Joseph walk without a conviction. Critics contently misstate it as a trial (it wasn’t), saying Joseph was convicted (he wasn’t), and claiming he profited by scamming (no evidence). The documents failed to condemn Joseph, yet ex-Mormon influencers accuse Joseph of fraud with no proof anyway and blame the Church for "lying" if they do not agree with their interpretation, and the Church "controls the narrative" through censorship. When it's them who clearly controls the wider non-LDS public narrative that dominates public perception. They rely on lying exaggerations that the actual documents don’t support. If anyone is controlling a narrative by omission and distortion, it’s the critics, not the Church. The only reason we even know about these documents is because the LDS Church made them public. That undermines the very conspiracy claim that the Church lies and hides evidence. And the documents themselves don’t prove the fraud claim, so the critics are left propping up their narrative with recycled accusations.

These are "clarifications" he's inserting based on what is doctrinally true to him, but not necessarily a "mistranslation" at all. Reminds me a little of Joseph's edit to the Book of Mormon, "mother of God" to the "mother of the Son of God" wasn't really a mistranslation, rather we presume it sounded very Catholic, and he made a clarifying distinction that was important to Joseph. Similar to why he needed to clarify John 1, it was and is one of the most misunderstood verses. It might be instructive to discuss the Logos. Greek-speaking Jews and the Logos Philo (c. 20 BCE – 50 CE) was a Greek-speaking Jewish scholar in Alexandria who was from a High Priestly family, and representative of Hellenized Judaism at the time of Christ. He often used λόγος (Logos) as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew דבר (Dabar) = "Word," especially from "the Word of God." Genesis 1: God created by His Speech "And God said…". Psalm 33:6: "By the word of the LORD the heavens were made." The Jewish idea is that God’s Speech or Word was a being, an agent of God through which God created the world and through which God interacts with the world. To Philo, the Logos was the agent of creation (“through the Logos God created the world”), a kind of “second god” (deuteros theos in Quaestiones in Genesis II.62). The mediator between the transcendent God and the material cosmos. Our heavenly High Priest, interceding for humanity (On Dreams 2.173). Who spoke to prophets "In the place of God, as though there were another” (On the Confusion of Tongues 146). Philo is a monotheist, he avoids calling the Logos "God" in the full sense, but to say it is divine, preexistent, and active, much like what John 1 later says. Philo does not mean there are two equal gods. For him, a "god" here means a divine agent, not God Most High. He is comfortable using "god" for the Logos in a lesser sense. New Testament Usage of Theos There are several examples where theos or "god" is applied to beings who are clearly not part of the Godhead. Even in John, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods [θεοί]'?" (John 10:34–35) "The Logos was with God" = a distinction. "The Logos was God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) = sharing in God’s divine nature. For "indeed there are many 'gods'" (1 Corinthians 8:5) Paul acknowledges the term "god" can be applied to many beings, though there is only one God in the ultimate sense, the Father. What John Is Actually Saying We know the Logos wasn’t a blank-slate word in the 1st century. I don't think John is inventing any new Logos doctrine; he’s only identifying Jesus with it. That’s why John doesn’t have to stop to explain what the Logos is; he just says it and asserts the well-known properties of the Logos, and his readers would already know there was already a "god" who is not the Father category for this being. To say the Logos was with the Father and somehow was God the Father would be a radically new idea and paradoxical. John is not saying, nor would he be understood as saying the Logos is the Father. The Logos is already a well-known distinct "god". All John is saying is the Logos is a divine, yet distinct, pre-existent Jesus. Only much later Trinitarian theology leans heavily on John to prove "Jesus is fully God." But John is in no way altering the established beliefs by calling the Logos a god. John assumes you know the Jewish Logos that is "divine-but-not-God", he merely asserts the Logos you know from your Greek Jewish theology is real and is now Jesus of Nazareth, the Son. Joseph Smith is correct to dispel this historic error, the Logos was divine, but not the Father, it is the Son.

It’s true that in rural and wilderness settings, water was often perfectly fine to drink, especially from springs, wells, or streams. Yes, people did drink water regularly. However, towns like Nauvoo, even Kirtland during the cholera outbreaks, water supplies could be contaminated with human or animal waste. The epidemics of cholera, dysentery, and typhoid were directly linked to bad water sources. Even in the frontier, clean-looking streams could still carry parasites or bacterial contamination, and people didn’t understand microbiology. I don't know how many times my family members caught dysentery, cholera, and "camp" fever from the water on the Oregon Trail (j/k) but seriously, people often did get sick from water contaminated by upstream camps or livestock. Families certainly brought whiskey and cider partly because it was both safer and comforting. But another factor was preservation: alcoholic drinks stored better and far longer than water, milk, or juice. If you wanted a drinkable liquid in late winter or after long storage, cider or beer was the safer choice than stagnant water. “Evil and designing men” adulterating wine wasn’t paranoia. There are documented cases of adulterated or dangerous alcohol in the 1800s. Merchants diluted expensive wines with lead acetate (“sugar of lead”), which sweetened it but caused poisoning. Cheap whiskey and rum were often “cut” with turpentine, sulfuric acid, or other additives to stretch the supply. So, as newspapers say. So, when the Word of Wisdom mentions “evil and designing men,” it is very likely alluded to both Joseph’s present-day liquor merchants and a future trajectory (corporations, industrial food/drink systems). After the 1840s, many of the Word of Wisdom items listed were deliberately altered with additives or processing methods that made them more harmful, more addictive, or both. 20th century industrial alcohol production (esp. during Prohibition in the 1920s) sometimes used methanol, denaturants, or contaminated processes that killed thousands. In modern times, some low-quality spirits (esp. in black markets) are still being cut with methanol or other toxins.