UPDATED BY VCG ON 8/28/2026 @ 23:23 EST#

Anyone can do this, but most won't.#

ChatGPT - Library of Rickandria

I’ll treat this as a forensic review rather than a polemic:

first reconstruct the thread faithfully, then separate factual claims, rhetorical/psychological moves, and theological assertions, and finally test each one against primary sources and Scripture.

I’ll also distinguish what the post actually says from what can reasonably be inferred about motive or psychology.

/x/ - LDS Analysis Thread (LAT) - Paranormal - 4chan

I’ve recovered the archived thread intact.

It is much smaller than the opening post suggests: one substantial OP, then mostly jokes, image drops, Masonry side-discussion, and two short doctrinal/community claims.

The core burden of proof is therefore concentrated in the OP; I’m checking each of its temple/doctrine claims against LDS primary sources first, then against historical scholarship and the KJV.

Two corrections are already important.

First, the thread’s “Elohim = God’s name” formulation mixes an LDS naming convention with biblical Hebrew:

LDS sources call Elohim a name-title for the Father, while Hebrew scholarship treats ʾelohim principally as “god/God/gods”; YHWH is the distinctive personal/covenant name.

Second, the Freemasonry angle is neither imaginary nor self-proving:

the LDS Church itself acknowledges Joseph Smith became a Mason shortly before introducing the Nauvoo endowment and acknowledges ritual parallels, but resemblance by itself does not prove occult origin, conspiracy, or satanic intent.

Soli Deo Gloria. I went through the archived thread itself, not merely summaries of Mormon temple practice, and checked its major claims against current LDS sources, early LDS historical material, academic work, Masonic sources, psychology research, and the KJV text you supplied. The result is more interesting than either a blanket “4chan is lying” or “everything in the thread proves occultism.”

The thread contains a surprising amount of real LDS material, but it repeatedly mixes verified facts with loaded vocabulary, inference, incomplete context, and guilt-by-association. Its strongest biblical problem is not “they have rituals” or “they repeat words”; it is the much larger theological question of what God is, whether God progressed from a condition like man’s, and whether human beings may themselves become gods.

1. Methodology#

For this review I used five evidence levels:

That hierarchy matters. The LDS Church deliberately does not publicly publish every line of the endowment, so some exact ceremonial wording can only presently be checked against unofficial transcripts. Such material can be useful, but it must not be represented as equivalent to an official current ritual manual.

Likewise, I am separating four different questions throughout:

Is this really taught/practised by the LDS Church?
Does the thread describe it accurately?
What does the historical evidence establish?
What does Scripture actually say?

And on psychology: we can discuss mechanisms visible in the thread, but we cannot diagnose anonymous posters.

2. What the thread actually contains#

The archived thread began August 16, 2026. Almost the entire substantive case is contained in the OP. Later posts consist mostly of Masonry speculation, memes, jokes, one outside video, a discussion of Masonic degrees, the temple-film money line, and brief comments about hell and LDS welfare. (4chan)

That is important because the phrase “LDS Analysis Thread” gives the impression of a large investigation. It never really becomes one.

3. OP, sentence by sentence#

Claim 1 — LDS temples teach Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall#

The OP says LDS temple participants learn about Creation, Adam and Eve, and the Fall. (4chan)

Fact check: TRUE#

The Church itself says:

“It teaches about the Creation of the earth, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the plan of redemption through Jesus Christ…”

That is its current public description of the endowment. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So there is nothing conspiratorial to uncover here.

Scripture correction#

Neither creation imagery nor temple ritual is inherently unbiblical. The Old Testament itself is full of prescribed ceremonial actions, priestly garments, washings, anointings, sacrifices, sacred spaces, and covenant signs.

Therefore this argument would be invalid:

Ritual → occult → false religion.

Scripture does not permit that inference.

The proper question is instead:

Did God institute this particular ordinance for the Christian church?

That is much more difficult for LDS theology to demonstrate from the New Testament.

4. “Prayers that they think heal the sick and needy”#

Fact check: BASIC FACT TRUE; WORDING MISLEADING#

The LDS Church openly operates temple prayer rolls. Names of the sick and afflicted are submitted, and participants unite in a temple “prayer circle” on their behalf. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So the underlying claim is correct.

But “perform prayers that they think heal” makes the practice sound as though the ritual itself mechanically produces healing.

That is not an accurate representation of the Church's public explanation. It presents the act as collective petition to God.

Biblical correction#

Prayer for the sick is completely biblical:

“pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.”
— James 5:16

So praying together for the sick is not the doctrinal problem.

The proper question is whether Scripture establishes a uniquely efficacious temple prayer circle or a special ritualized “true order” of prayer for Christians.

It does not.

Jesus instead teaches His disciples to pray to the Father:

“Our Father which art in heaven…”
— Matthew 6:9

Thus:

Intercessory prayer: biblical.
A mandatory secret temple prayer form: not established in the New Testament.

5. “God's name is Elohim”#

This is one of the most important places where both critic and LDS member can talk past each other.

Fact check: TRUE AS LDS TERMINOLOGY; MISLEADING AS HEBREW EXEGESIS#

Official LDS teaching designates the Father by the “name-title ‘Elohim.’” (Church of Jesus Christ)

So the OP accurately describes modern LDS usage.

But that is not the ordinary semantic distinction found in biblical Hebrew.

Oxford's biblical-language reference explains:

• YHWH is Israel's God's proper personal name.
• ʾelohim means “god” or “gods.”
• Elohim is normally a common noun, although in context it can function like a designation for Israel's God. (OUP Academic)

Compare the familiar Hebrew expression:

YHWH Elohim = “LORD God.”

That construction itself demonstrates that these aren't simply two proper names for two different beings.

KJV witness#

Psalm 83:18 says:

“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

Your supplied KJV contains that wording.

And Isaiah repeatedly identifies the LORD as the unique God:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”
— Isaiah 44:6

“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”
— Isaiah 44:8

Verdict#

The fair correction is not:

“Mormons invented the word Elohim.”

They did not.

It is:

Modern LDS theology assigns “Elohim” specifically to the Father in a manner more specialized than ordinary Hebrew Bible usage permits.

That distinction matters enormously when interpreting the Old Testament.

6. “Adam and Eve performed an incantation…”#

The OP then gives the repeated “O God, hear…” formula and calls it an incantation. (4chan)

This requires three separate judgments.

Historical/ritual fact#

Unofficial transcripts of modern and earlier forms of the endowment do indeed contain the threefold phrase attributed to Adam's prayer and subsequently used ceremonially. (For an Answer)

But the Church does not publish the complete current script. Accordingly:

High confidence that this has been part of the ceremony.
Lower confidence about the exact current wording/configuration unless independently documented.

The Church has explicitly stated that methods and presentation of the endowment have changed over time. (newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org)

Is “incantation” fair?#

Not automatically.

An incantation normally suggests words believed to possess ritual or magical efficacy in themselves.

Calling any formal repeated prayer an incantation simply assumes the conclusion.

That is rhetorically loaded.

Scripture correction: repetition is not automatically vain repetition#

This is especially important.

Jesus warns:

“when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.”
— Matthew 6:7

But Jesus Himself later:

“prayed the third time, saying the same words.”
— Matthew 26:44

Therefore:

repetition ≠ necessarily vain repetition.

Matthew 6 condemns the idea that verbosity or formulaic accumulation forces divine attention.

The stronger biblical criticism of the LDS practice is consequently not, “They say a sentence three times.”

It is:

Where did Christ or His apostles command Christians to reproduce this Adamic formula, accompanying gestures, or temple prayer order?

That New Testament warrant is absent.

7. “They call this the true order of prayer”#

Historical/reconstructed temple texts do use that terminology. (For an Answer)

Current LDS public pages confirm a prayer circle, but do not reproduce all ceremonial wording. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So the accurate formulation is:

Temple sources historically identify a ritualized prayer-circle ceremony as the “true order of prayer”; the exact current ritual should not be reconstructed solely from hostile or leaked transcripts.

Biblical test#

The New Testament gives considerable teaching on prayer but nowhere identifies a secret Christian “true order” involving temple signs/tokens.

Christ's teaching stresses:

• prayer to the Father;
• sincerity rather than performance;
• forgiveness;
• God's prior knowledge of our needs;
• and prayer consistent with His will.

That does not prove any structured prayer ritual is sinful.

It does mean the burden lies upon the person claiming this additional form was apostolic Christianity.

8. “They learn that they will be gods”#

Fact check: SUBSTANTIALLY TRUE#

This is not an anti-Mormon invention.

The LDS Church's own Gospel Topics essay says that humans possess the potential for exaltation and godliness and quotes Joseph Smith:

“You have got to learn how to be a god yourself.”

The same essay explicitly says this teaching goes beyond what most contemporary Christian churches understand. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So critics are on solid factual ground here.

What needs careful handling is the biblical response.

9. Psalm 82 — “Ye are gods”#

This is perhaps the most important LDS biblical proof text.

Psalm 82 says:

“I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.”

Jesus quotes this passage in John 10:

“Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”

and then says:

“the scripture cannot be broken.”

What does this establish?#

At minimum, it proves biblical language can apply elohim/theoi terminology to beings other than the one supreme God.

It does not, by itself, prove:

faithful humans eventually become Gods of the same ontological order as the Father.

Psalm 82 actually gives us the opposite contrast:

The LORD judges.
The “gods” are judged.
The “gods” die like men.

Interpretations differ over whether the Psalm addresses human rulers/judges or heavenly members of a divine council, but neither reading naturally gives us the full LDS doctrine of eternal human exaltation.

And Jesus' John 10 argument is answering a blasphemy charge regarding His claim to be God's Son; it is not a systematic sermon promising His hearers independent deity.

10. Biblical glorification versus LDS exaltation#

Here we need fairness.

The Bible absolutely teaches astonishing transformation of the redeemed.

“we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
— 1 John 3:2

Peter speaks of believers becoming:

“partakers of the divine nature”
— 2 Peter 1:4

Paul speaks of believers as:

“heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ”
— Romans 8:17

Eastern Christian theology has long used the term theosis/deification for participation in God's life.

So it would be historically ignorant to claim that “becoming like God” is uniquely Mormon.

The crucial distinction is:

Classical Christian theosis#

Humans become godlike by grace and participation while remaining creatures.

Stronger LDS formulations#

Humanity belongs to the same broad kind of divine progression in which God Himself once stood where human beings now stand.

Those propositions are not identical.

The LDS Gospel Topics essay itself acknowledges both the similarity to Christian deification traditions and the distinctly expansive LDS understanding. (Church of Jesus Christ)

11. “God was once a man”#

Fact check: TRUE AS JOSEPH SMITH TEACHING#

This is directly documented.

The official LDS essay summarizes Joseph Smith's King Follett teaching that God:

“was once as one of us”

and records Lorenzo Snow's famous formulation:

“As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be.”

(Church of Jesus Christ)

The Church therefore does not deny the historical doctrine.

It does add an important present-day qualification:

“Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught.”

(Church of Jesus Christ)

12. “…and once was not God”#

Fact check: TOO STRONG#

Here the 4chan OP moves from citation to inference.

“God was once as one of us” is documented.

“God once was not God” is a philosophical conclusion someone might draw from that doctrine, but the statement is stronger than the official LDS sources I found.

A rigorous critic should not put words into an opponent's mouth.

But the underlying biblical tension remains severe#

Isaiah 43:10 says:

“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”

Isaiah 44:6:

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

Isaiah 44:8:

“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.”

And biblical theology presents God as God from everlasting rather than as a being who became God through a process.

That is where the real debate belongs.

A critic does not need to exaggerate King Follett doctrine; the documented formulation already raises profound questions alongside Isaiah.

13. “They take on a new temple name”#

Fact check: TRUE#

This practice is independently documented in LDS scholarship and historical material.

A BYU Religious Studies Center treatment says:

“The concept of ritual renaming holds special significance within Latter-day Saint theology…”

But the same LDS scholar makes an unusually useful methodological admission: Scripture is “practically silent” regarding such temple renaming, and any reconstruction of it in ancient Israel remains hypothetical. (Religious Studies Center)

That is excellent scholarly caution.

The OP's autobiographical aside about his own assigned name cannot independently be verified, nor is verification necessary to assess the doctrine.

14. “On the new earth you will be known by your temple name”#

Fact check: NOT ESTABLISHED#

This is one of the weakest claims in the OP.

Revelation 2:17 says:

“To him that overcometh will I give … a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.”

Revelation 3:12 separately says Christ will write upon the overcomer:

“the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem … and … my new name.”

Those texts unquestionably contain new-name symbolism.

But Scripture does not say:

“At the resurrection everyone will address you socially by the confidential name assigned in an LDS temple.”

Even LDS scholarship acknowledges the biblical evidence for ancient individual temple renaming is weak and hypothetical. (Religious Studies Center)

Verdict#

Temple new name: verified.
Biblical new-name imagery: verified.
“Your temple name becomes your identity on the new earth”: not adequately sourced.

That claim should be removed unless a primary LDS doctrinal source can be produced.

15. The “Mason handshake” reply#

The very first reply says:

“Looks like a mason handshake.”

(4chan)

There are two completely different issues here.

Visual inference#

A hand position in a photograph is terrible evidence of secret membership.

Human hands can form similar configurations for innumerable reasons. The thread itself eventually posts an ordinary sign/salute/handshake comparison image, inadvertently demonstrating the false-positive problem. (4chan)

One needs:

provenance + ritual context + corroboration, not simply a similar-looking thumb position.

Historical LDS–Masonic connection#

Here, however, there is a real story.

The LDS Church itself states that Freemasons use:

• handgrips,
• key words,
• special clothing,

and that Joseph Smith joined Freemasonry in March 1842. Shortly thereafter he introduced the Nauvoo endowment. (Church of Jesus Christ)

The chronology is striking:

March 15, 1842: Joseph initiated Entered Apprentice.
March 16: advanced through Fellow Craft and Master Mason. (Church of Jesus Christ)
May 4: first Nauvoo endowment given to nine men — all nine were Masons. (Church of Jesus Christ)

Heber C. Kimball himself observed:

“there is a similarity of priesthood in masonry.”

The LDS Church's history page reproduces that evidence. (Church of Jesus Christ)

Therefore two extremes are wrong#

Extreme A: “Any resemblance to Masonry is conspiracy nonsense.”

False. The historical connection and ritual similarities are documented by the LDS Church itself.

Extreme B: “A similar grip proves Mormonism is secretly Freemasonry/Satanism.”

Also false. That conclusion does not follow.

The LDS explanation is that Masonry supplied forms or a catalyst while divine revelation supplied restored meaning. A historian need not accept that theological conclusion, but it must be represented accurately. (Church of Jesus Christ)

The historically defensible formulation is:

Joseph Smith's encounter with Masonry almost certainly belongs in the immediate historical context of the Nauvoo endowment, and specific formal similarities are genuine. Historical similarity alone cannot adjudicate the claimed divine source of the endowment.

16. Why “Solomon's temple → Freemasonry → Mormon temple” is not established#

This is where chronological control becomes decisive.

The LDS Church's own history admits:

“There are no known Masonic documents before about 1400.”

and says surviving lodge records begin around 1600; modern Masonic ritual appears to have arisen in early modern Europe. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So historical methodology cannot simply run:

Solomon → ancient secret Masonry → Joseph restores it.

That is a traditional Masonic/LDS theological interpretation, not an established chain of historical documentation.

This distinction between origin myth and documentable institutional history is crucial.

17. The Sister Wise / “waifu” diversion#

Posts 42832642 and 42832662 switch from theology to joking about an LDS woman. (4chan)

There is no substantive argument here.

Methodologically it does three things:

• derails the investigation,
• sexualizes an irrelevant person,
• rewards amusement rather than evidential advancement.

Psychologically, this is exactly the kind of interaction anonymous boards facilitate.

Suler's classic research on the online disinhibition effect identifies anonymity, invisibility, asynchronicity, and minimization of authority as factors that cause people to disclose or act out online in ways they might not face-to-face. (PubMed)

That does not mean anonymous posters are mentally abnormal.

It means the communication environment changes behaviour.

18. The external YouTube video#

One reply provides only a YouTube link. (4chan)

That is not an argument.

Unless its claims are reproduced, sourced, and connected to LDS history, the link contributes almost nothing to the thread's thesis.

This illustrates a common methodological failure:

association replaces demonstration.

“Masonry exists.”
“This person may be a Mason.”
“Mormon rites look Masonic.”
“Therefore they belong to one hidden system.”

Every arrow in that chain requires independent evidence.

19. “I was a MM” and the 33rd degree#

Another poster mocks people who claim knowledge about Masonry without understanding Blue Lodge or the 33rd degree. (4chan)

There is some legitimate correction here.

In ordinary Masonic terminology MM means Master Mason, the third Blue Lodge degree.

The Scottish Rite itself says there is:

“no Masonic degree more important than that of Master Mason”

and its 4°–32° degrees expand upon the first three. (Scottish Rite)

The Scottish Rite also states explicitly that a 32° Scottish Rite Mason has no greater Blue Lodge authority than a 3° Master Mason. (Scottish Rite)

And its own handbook says:

“The Scottish Rite does not acknowledge any Degree higher than the Thirty-third Degree.”

(Scottish Rite)

So internet mythology about hidden “degrees beyond 33” should not be treated as established Freemasonry.

Strong methodological lesson#

Secrecy produces a dangerous epistemic loophole:

“You cannot prove my hidden level exists because it is secret.”

Once a claim is protected that way, it becomes practically unfalsifiable.

Absence of evidence is then converted into evidence of successful concealment.

That is not sound historical method.

20. “Not a Masonic grip” / “only inside a lodge”#

Posts 42834714 and 42834720 argue over whether a photographed hand position constitutes a Masonic grip and whether that terminology applies outside ritual context. (4chan)

The useful insight here is contextual:

A gesture resembling a ritual sign is not necessarily performance of that ritual sign.

Compare:

• a raised arm,
• folded hands,
• touching the chest,
• kneeling,
• joining hands.

All occur in countless unrelated settings.

This is why iconographic “spot the secret sign” investigations generate so many false positives.

Again, the LDS–Masonic historical relationship is real enough that we do not need weak photographic speculation.

21. “You can buy anything in this world with money”#

A later post supplies this line from the temple drama. (4chan)

Fact check#

Unofficial 2023 comparative transcripts preserve this wording in the dramatic exchange. (Mormon Perfection)

But there is an enormous context omission:

the line is spoken by Satan.

Therefore it is not LDS doctrine being positively affirmed.

Within the drama it represents the temptation/logic of the world.

Using it as though the Church teaches:

“Money can buy everything”

reverses the function of the quotation.

Biblical comparison#

Acts 8 gives a direct Christian rejection of buying spiritual power.

Simon offers money for apostolic power; Peter responds:

“Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”

If someone wants to argue about LDS tithing requirements and temple recommends, that is a legitimate separate investigation.

But it cannot be established simply by quoting a Satan character condemningly portrayed within an LDS drama.

22. “Mormonism is the best Christianity because of cool rituals…”#

This post is mostly taste rather than argument. (4chan)

“Best” and “cool” are unfalsifiable value judgments.

But the second half contains a real doctrinal claim.

23. “…they don't believe people go to hell forever because they chose the wrong religion”#

Fact check: BROADLY RIGHT, POORLY EXPRESSED#

Official LDS teaching distinguishes:

Spirit prison / hell: temporary for many.
Kingdoms of glory: eventually received by almost all humanity.
Permanent perdition/outer darkness: Satan, his followers, and the “sons of perdition.” (Church of Jesus Christ)

So LDS theology does indeed reject the caricature:

“You happened to pick the wrong denomination, therefore infinite conscious torment.”

It also teaches postmortem evangelization and vicarious ordinances.

That does not settle whether LDS eschatology is biblical; it merely states it correctly.

Biblical correction#

The biblical issue should be framed around Christ, sin, resurrection, judgment, and reconciliation to God—not “picking the correct religious brand.”

Christ says salvation is through Him, and the apostolic gospel is Christ-centered.

Theological disagreements remain over the nature and duration of final punishment, but the 4chan sentence is too crude to represent either traditional Christianity or LDS theology carefully.

24. “Everyone in the community is taken care of”#

Another poster compares Mormon community support to Judaism and says everyone is cared for. (4chan)

Fact check: REAL SYSTEM, FALSE ABSOLUTE#

The LDS welfare apparatus is substantial.

Its handbook describes:

• ward/stake resources,
• fast offerings,
• service,
• temporal assistance,
• ministering,
• humanitarian aid.

(Church of Jesus Christ)

But “everyone” is demonstrably too sweeping. The handbook contains eligibility judgments, spending policies and limitations, and normally refers nonmembers to community resources except in particular circumstances. (Church of Jesus Christ)

So:

“LDS communities have unusually organized mechanisms for mutual assistance”

is defensible.

“Everyone is taken care of”

is not.

The Judaism comparison is likewise too vague to be analytically useful. Judaism is not a single homogeneous welfare system.

25. Psychological anatomy of the thread#

This part deserves special care because psychology is often misused as an ad hominem weapon.

We cannot say:

“These posters believe this because they are paranoid.”

There is no basis for diagnosing anyone.

We can, however, identify psychological mechanisms that make this particular subject extraordinarily potent.

A. Secrecy produces epistemic attraction#

Douglas, Sutton, and Cichocka's review divides motivations associated with conspiracy belief into three broad groups:

epistemic — desire to understand what is hidden;
existential — desire for security/control;
social — desire to understand one's group's position relative to other groups. (Sage Journals)

LDS temple ceremonies are restricted. Freemasonry has private ritual. Handgrips and names are involved.

That combination naturally generates:

“What are they hiding?”

This question is psychologically compelling even before wrongdoing has been established.

B. Ritual itself intensifies meaning#

Ritual involves fixed sequences, repetition, symbolism and prescribed bodily action.

Experimental psychology finds ritual can reduce distress associated with uncertainty or failure. (PubMed Central (PMC))

Collective ritual can also strengthen social bonding and group cohesion. (PubMed Central (PMC))

That applies to:

• Mormon temple worship,
• Catholic liturgy,
• Orthodox liturgy,
• Jewish ritual,
• Freemasonry,
• military ceremonies,
• graduation,
• secular civic rituals.

Therefore the psychological power of ritual proves neither divine inspiration nor deception.

C. Synchronization can have benefits and risks#

Research on synchronous ritual reports stronger cooperation and cohesion, while also noting possible costs such as conformity, groupthink, or obedience under some circumstances. (PubMed Central (PMC))

This is a useful category for studying any highly structured community.

But again:

social cohesion ≠ cult.
ritual synchronization ≠ mind control.

Those require additional evidence.

D. The “secret knowledge premium”#

Restricted knowledge often feels more important because access is restricted.

A temple name, handclasp, degree, private room, symbolic clothing or secret phrase carries boundary value:

insiders know; outsiders do not.

Ritual researchers specifically note that group rituals can signal affiliation, commitment and identity. (PubMed Central (PMC))

That helps explain why both participants and critics can become fascinated by ritual minutiae.

Participants may experience:

sacredness through controlled access.

Critics may experience:

revelation through disclosure of controlled information.

Those are mirror-image responses to the same secrecy boundary.

E. 4chan's architecture rewards associative reasoning#

Suler's online-disinhibition model is relevant here: anonymity and reduced authority constraints change online behaviour. (PubMed)

The thread demonstrates it almost immediately:

doctrine → handshake → attractive Mormon woman → meme → Masonry video → 33rd degree → handshake photo → Satan quotation.

That is not cumulative argumentation.

It is associative browsing.

One idea triggers another without an evidential bridge.

26. The principal logical errors#

The thread repeatedly flirts with several bad forms of inference.

Ritual resemblance → common source#

Not necessarily. Similar ceremonial forms can arise independently.

In this particular case there actually is documented historical contact with Masonry, but resemblance alone would not prove it.

Masonic influence → false theology#

Still doesn't follow.

Historical borrowing can establish dependence or influence; it cannot by itself decide whether the resulting theology is true.

Secret → sinister#

Not logically valid.

Privacy, sacredness, secrecy, confidentiality and concealment of wrongdoing are different concepts.

Strange to me → occult#

Also invalid.

Many biblical practices would seem extremely strange to a modern outsider: priestly blood rituals, scapegoats, incense, anointing oil, lots, circumcision, laying on hands, sacred garments.

Repeated words → pagan incantation#

Matthew 26:44 prevents that simplistic argument.

“They really teach X” → “therefore every hostile interpretation of X is true”#

Also invalid.

This is exactly what happens with “God was once man” being silently upgraded to the stronger claim “God once was not God.”

27. Where the strongest biblical disagreement actually lies#

The thread focuses heavily on ceremonial strangeness.

I think that misses the theological center of gravity.

The serious questions are these:

God#

Scripture:

“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.”
— Isaiah 43:10

“beside me there is no God.”
— Isaiah 44:6

Joseph Smith:

God “was once as one of us.” (Church of Jesus Christ)

Those deserve direct theological reconciliation.

No Masonic handshake is needed.

Human destiny#

Scripture genuinely promises:

• adoption,
• inheritance,
• conformity to Christ,
• sharing divine life,
• reigning with Christ,
• seeing God,
• being “like him.”

Yet the same Scripture never straightforwardly states that redeemed human beings become additional Gods within a sequence of beings who themselves progressed into deity.

That distinction deserves direct exegesis of:

Psalm 82; John 10; Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 8; 2 Peter 1; 1 John 3; Revelation 3; Isaiah 40–46.

Christian access to God#

The New Testament centers access to God upon Christ and His finished priestly work.

A Christian critique should therefore ask:

If signs, tokens, new names and temple covenants are necessary for the highest exaltation, where does apostolic teaching establish those requirements?

That is much more substantial than saying the ceremony “looks occult.”

28. A particularly important corrective about Mormonism and Christianity#

We should also resist another common shortcut:

“Mormons use rituals, therefore they aren't Christian.”

That is weak reasoning.

The actual doctrinal differences concern such questions as:

• the nature of God,
• the relationship of Father/Son/Holy Ghost,
• pre-existence,
• materiality,
• creation,
• continuing revelation,
• priesthood restoration,
• authority,
• exaltation,
• temple ordinances,
• additional scriptures.

Those questions can be rigorously compared against Scripture.

Calling unfamiliar things “witchcraft” before doing that work actually weakens the biblical critique.

29. Overall verdict on the thread#

30. Final assessment#

The thread's OP is not fabricated nonsense. Several matters that might initially sound like anti-Mormon inventions are genuinely documented: temple Creation/Fall instruction, prayer circles, new names, exaltation theology, Joseph Smith's teaching that God was once as we are, and a remarkably close chronological relationship between Joseph's Masonic initiation and the Nauvoo endowment. The LDS Church itself acknowledges most of that. (4chan)

But the OP hurts its own reliability by adding words like “incantation,” turning “God once was as we are” into “God was once not God,” and asserting that people will be known by their temple name on the new earth without adequate evidence. The replies then deteriorate into visual pattern-matching, memes, jokes and Masonry speculation instead of developing the strong historical material already available. (4chan)

The Scripture-first critique is consequently much cleaner:

Do not condemn LDS worship merely because it is ritualized, private, symbolic, repetitive or unusual. Scripture itself contains ritual. Test the actual propositions.

And the propositions that deserve the closest examination are the identity and eternality of God, the meaning of “ye are gods,” the biblical scope of glorification/theosis, Joseph Smith's concept of divine progression, the necessity of post-apostolic temple ordinances, and whether the New Testament provides any evidence for salvific signs, tokens, ritual new names or an esoteric “true order of prayer.”

On those questions the material is far more substantial—and far more challenging for LDS claims—than the sensational parts of the 4chan discussion suggest. (Church of Jesus Christ)

That gives us a solid Part I forensic map of every substantive post in the thread. The logical next layer is a verse-by-verse dossier on the LDS biblical proof texts—Genesis 1–3, Psalm 82, John 10:34–36, Matthew 5:48, Romans 8:14–23, 2 Peter 1:4, Revelation 2:17 and 3:12—followed by Isaiah 40–48 against the King Follett theology, and then a documented 1842 Masonry/endowment chronology. Those three studies would get to the theological heart of what the thread only gestures toward.

I’ll build this as a research paper rather than an expanded rebuttal list: first reconstruct the thread faithfully, then move claim-by-claim through historical verification, evidentiary method, psychology, theological interpretation, and finally the KJV text. I’ll keep explicit labels for what is documented fact, reasonable inference, interpretation, and Scripture, so the reader can always see what kind of claim is being made.

The evidence is tightening in a useful way. One point I’m correcting from our earlier outline: Joseph Smith’s surviving 1844 sermon notes do more than merely say God was “once as one of us”; they also record him challenging the idea that God was God “from all eternity” and saying he would explain “how God came to be God.” That makes the thread’s “once was not God” an interpretive paraphrase with substantial historical basis, not a direct quotation—and the paper should say exactly that.

The other major methodological point is also holding up: the thread is strongest where it reports actual LDS teachings and weakest where it tries to turn resemblance into proof. The historical Masonry connection is unusually well documented—including the LDS Church’s own acknowledgment of handgrips/key words, Joseph’s March 1842 initiation, and the May 1842 endowment—but modern Masonic history does not give us a documented institutional chain back to Solomon’s Temple.

Below is the full research-paper, written to keep the evidence trail visible without turning the piece into a dry catalogue of claims. I have treated the 4chan thread as a primary source, LDS publications and Joseph Smith Papers as primary/near-primary evidence for LDS belief and history, independent scholarship for linguistic/history/psychology questions, and the supplied Pure Cambridge Edition KJV as the biblical text used for Scripture quotations.

Temple, Tradition & Truth: A Forensic Biblical Analysis of LDS Temple Theology, Freemasonry & the Claims of a 4chan Thread – Library of Rickandria

4CHAN THREAD & POST BREAKDOWNS – Library of Rickandria

VCG PAPER PROJECTS – Library of Rickandria

Temple, Tradition & Truth: A Forensic Biblical Analysis of LDS Temple Theology, Freemasonry & the Claims of a 4chan Thread