No, WHO Is Not a “Secret Combination” for Corrupting Children, in Spite of Their Sex Ed Guidelines for Ages Four and Younger (But Being Public Doesn’t Make WHO Safe)

For people losing faith in local or national government over abuses regarding free speech, excessive spending, corruption, or other misdeeds, it’s easy to be even more skeptical of global agencies seeking to influence or control multiple nations, especially when those agencies seem to be aligned with forces or nations that oppose the principles of freedom enshrined in the US Constitution. But let’s not get too extreme in our concerns. The temptation to over-dramatize can be especially severe among faithful Latter-day Saints who take the Book of Mormon seriously, for they tend to be familiar with the Book of Mormons remarkably relevant and accurate description of the ways in which corrupt and often murderous megalomaniacs like Amalickiah or Gadianton manage to gain wealth and power as they operate through various illicit means such as murderous gangs or “bands,” networks with the rich and powerful, and corrupt secret alliances.

The Book of Mormon and the Book of Moses describe these diverse operations as “secret works of darkness” (2 Nephi 9:9, 10:15) or “secret works” (Alma 37:21-25; Helaman 2:4; Moses 6:15), “secret covenants” (Alma 37:27-29; cf. Moses 5:29–31, 49), “secret murder” (Helaman 6:17, 29, 30, 38), “robbers” (Helaman 6:18-21; Ether 10:33) or the organized crime of “robbery” (Helaman 2:4), a “secret band” (Helaman 7:25), a “secret society” (3 Nephi 3:9; Ether 11:22), “secret plans” (Ether 9:26), and most famously “secret combinations” (2 Nephi 9:9, 26:22; Alma 37:27-31; Helaman 2:8-13, 6:38; 3 Nephi 5:5-6, 7:6, 9; 4 Nephi 1:42; Ether 8:13-24, 11:15, 13:18; Mormon 8:27, 40; and Moses 5:51), all designed to help the participants to gain wealth and power as their influence corrupts their society and makes so many things worse. The Book of Mormon not only warns that these illicit forces caused great corruption and ultimately the destruction of two different civilizations in the ancient Americas, but that they will also be present and dangerous in our day (Ether 8:18-26). Moroni urges us to “awake to a sense of [our] awful situation” when we see such things among us (Ether 8:24), and warns the Gentiles of our era that there will be a secret combination seeking to “overthrow the freedom of all lands” (Ether 8:25). This is a dramatic and moving warning from a prophet who saw secret combinations destroy his people and knew of similar forces that destroyed the Jaredites as well.

Given the dire warnings in the Book of Mormon,  I can see how some of its students might be alarmed to see an organ of the globally-influential United Nations seeking to undermine the family and push for radical forms of sex education for young children, an agenda that some of us fear might further undermine the values necessary for healthy families of faith and thus can support the goals of the enemies of liberty and faith. You may not have heard this news because our media, in my opinion, tends to report very little that might be irritate some of the more radical elements of the LGBTQ community, not because reporters are all vile members of some kind of conspiracy, but simply because of aligned perspectives and shared agendas, or fear of being shamed, fired, or deplatformed. So of course, there are high incentives not to rock the boat. Likewise, the agenda of the WHO, revealed in their recently issued guidelines for Europe, is definitely not some kind of “secret combination” or “secret plan” because it, like the WHO itself, is now very public and not a likely candidate for a “secret combination” per se. One doesn’t have to entertain conspiracy theories about the UN secretly pushing for a “woke” agenda behind the scenes because it’s all out in the open. So again, let’s not get too dramatic.

The WHO Collaborating Centre for Sexual and Reproductive Health on their page, “Standards for Sexuality Education,” has links to their new PDF document in multiple languages on sex education guidelines for Europe. The link to the English PDF is at

Here is some explanation from “Standards for Sexuality Education“:

The framework Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe (Standards) presents the concept for holistic sexuality education and includes information on the themes relevant for children and adolescents in the various age groups.

The Standards provide practical guidance for preparing proper curricula. They can also be used to support arguments for introducing holistic sexuality education in the European countries of the WHO Region.

Target groups: political stakeholders, healthcare authorities, and professionals working in the fields of education and healthcare.

Parents are not listed among the target groups, possibly because most parents would be shocked to see what the elites behind this document think is appropriate for young children.  While there may be a lot of good ideas in these standards, there are dangerous elements that may be harmful for children. Let’s look at the “matrix” provided for the youngest age group, zero to four years.  The portion of the “matrix” on sexuality for ages zero to four years comes from page 40 of the English PDF document, “Standards for Sexuality Education in Europe“:

I’ll also show three more sections from pages 40-41, again for the very youngest group of children:


Here is a table with three of these sections in case the image is hard to read (emphasis mine):


0-4 [Years]

Give information about

Enable children to

Help children to develop

  • enjoyment and pleasure when touching one’s own body, early childhood masturbation
  • discovery of own body and own genitals
  • the fact that enjoyment of physical closeness is a normal part of everyone’s life
  • tenderness and physical closeness as an expression of love and affection
  • gain an awareness of gender identity
  • talk about (un)pleasurable feelings in one’s own body
  • express own needs, wishes and boundaries, for example in the context of “playing doctor”
  • a positive attitude towards one’s body with all its functions = positive body-image
  • respect for others
  • curiosity regarding own and others’ bodies
Sexuality, health and well-being
  • good and bad experiences of your body/what feels good? (listen to your body)
  • if the experience/feeling is not good, you do not always have to comply
  • trust their instincts
  • apply the three-step model (say no, go away, talk to somebody you trust)
  • achieve feelings of well-being
  • an appreciation of their body
  • the awareness that it is ok to ask for help
Sexuality and rights
  • the right to be safe and protected
  • the responsibility of adults for the safety of children
  • the right to ask questions about sexuality
  • the right to explore gender identities
  • the right to explore nakedness and the body, to be curious
  • say “yes” and “no”
  • develop communication skills
  • express needs and wishes
  • differentiate between “good” and “bad” secrets
  • an awareness of their rights which leads to self-confidence
  • the attitude “My body belongs to me”
  • the feeling that they can make their own decisions


Notice how many times parents are mentioned in these guidelines. Noticed how many times educators are encouraged to tell children to turn to their parents for guidance and help.

So the WHO wants various strangers in schools and perhaps other institutions talking to toddlers about masturbation? And their “right” to explore various gender identities? Do we want random adults to teach our kids that the standard for what is good or bad is what feels good? That’s how you tell right from wrong and decide when to say yes or no? Do we want these adults telling little kids that “physical closeness” from someone else (say, a coach, teacher, or other authority figure) is just a healthy expression of love and affection? And that they “do not always have to comply” IF it doesn’t feel good?

When I quoted a couple of these items to an alert mother I trust, her immediate response was, “They’re groomers!” She was outraged. And that’s when it hit me: these guidelines are hard to fathom as just accidental foolishness from over-educated elites who don’t understand the threats our children face, which was how I was tempted to view it initially. Rather, the guidelines make more sense if they are coming from people who are disconnected from the challenges and joys of family life and parenthood, who think the State needs to take over the role of parents to transform and reprogram children, unaware of the harm to children that such an approach can bring. It’s also possible some of the people behind this effort may sense some kind of benefit from corrupting children, whether they are groomers, profiteers, Marxist radicals seeking to destroy religion and middle-class opposition, or just bitter sociopaths. These are not the things that normal healthy people with a respect for the institution of the family would push onto children. Something is very wrong here.

One of the things that is wrong is downplaying the role of parents, if not overriding the duty of parents to shape and guide their children. On page 40, the document recognizes the “informal role” of parents in sex education and also note their general inability in Europe to opt out of sex education for their kids, which is fine for parents, we are told, because they aren’t comfortable doing it themselves. The existence of parents is acknowledged in several places, mostly to indicate their need to be supportive, but the “matrix” of guidelines for various age groups essentially ignores their fundamental role and rights in sex education. It’s obvious that this document is all about other adults, all tools of the State, shaping the views and behavior of children in all aspects of sexuality from their earliest days into adulthood. Of course, this is already happening in many parts of the world and in the US. Do parents understand that adequately? Do they understand what can go wrong?

One of the key tools for actual groomers and pedophiles is to encourage children to keep secrets from their parents and to trust other adults rather than mom and dad. Here we have guidelines that totally leave parents out and will obviously go against the wishes of many parents. The instructors are being told to help kids know that there are “good secrets” that they can have with respect to sexuality — no need to tell parents about any of this, right? They are told to turn to “somebody” that they trust when they have questions or concerns, say some non-parental authority figure, perhaps? After all, it’s their body and they can make their own decisions at ages 3 or 4 (like deciding if one is a girl or boy — again, no recognition of parents having any role in such vital decisions). They tell children that masturbation and physical closeness with others (adults other than parents?) is normal and pleasurable and that the standard to follow is not any form of absolute morality, rules from parents, or principles from one’s faith, but whether something feels good or not. But no need to worry about groomers, for the kids will also be told that if something doesn’t feel good, they don’t always have to comply. Not always! So there’s that safety valve.

Parents are right to wonder what a molester or groomer could do with these guidelines. But even if the schools only hire moral, decent teachers and coaches, if they follow these guidelines, great harm can still done through what is taught and how it’s taught. Having kids at age three or four learn about masturbation is sick. Having them get used to talking to random adults other than mom or dad about sexuality is wrong. The guidelines read like a handbook for groomers. Again, is there a more charitable but accurate way to put it?

No, I am not saying anything about any alleged conspiracies of pedophiles, but there is such a thing as pedophiles, and there is such a thing as danger to children, and when what is being taught to children undermines the protective principles that wise parents want to teach, then something very ugly is taking place. I am also not saying that any of the motivation for the WHO to support the push to have young children question their gender has anything to do with powerful companies that make huge profits by convincing young people that they need drugs or surgery for the lengthy and expensive process of transitioning. I don’t know the motives behind the guidelines — that may be the field of wild conspiracy theorists — but I can see what the guidelines are and can recognize that there is great evil and danger in what they are doing. No conspiracy theories needed. No appeal to secret combinations. It’s the public combinations and public works of darkness that have me worried. 

Perhaps some corruption and greed or perversion is behind these guidelines and some of the movements that all seem aligned along a common deviant direction. Perhaps we need to explore the funding of the WHO and who influences it. But just because, say, a rich billionaire with some ties to, say, Jeffrey Epstein or other perverts could theoretically be a WHO influencer and major funder absolutely does not mean that some secret shenanigans were at play. Nor does the involvement of people associated with the abortion industry such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), who provided some of the sexual “rights” alluded to in the document, mean that the interests of that industry are being served. But there may be fruitful data somewhere to help us understand why such troubling agendas are being pushed from so many angles. Perhaps there could be “secret combinations” at play that might be inferred from profit motives, conflicts of interest, and obscure alliances, but what is public is trouble enough.

Many parents in schools across the country have become alarmed at the content their children are being exposed to, whether it’s from once-trusted entertainment sources, “family friendly” activities with gyrating drag queens, classroom and media indoctrination regarding sexuality, encouragement for little kids to identify as the opposite gender without letting parents know, and teaching such blatantly unscientific doctrines as “doctors just guess your gender at birth.” It seems like many aspects of our society, from the schools to movie makers to the US government are suddenly supporting radical doctrines on sexuality that can have harmful effects on young people. Now we see the WHO coming out to push nations to accelerate the efforts to change the mindset of children in ways that will make parents less influential in the crucial area of preparing children for their roles in life. And for those rare villains who genuinely delight in corrupting children, these standards may play into their desires or lusts. There is cause for concern — not necessarily from anything secret, though, but for what is open and public, and yet very dark. This may be one of those times when some righteous indignation is really needed to counter the attack on families from the WHO and other “public combinations.”

But wait — this document is for Europe. This kind of thing, woke sexual ideology being pushed on kids without the ability for parents to opt out, that isn’t about to happen in the US, right? Tell that to the parents of, for example, Montgomery County, Maryland, where Muslim and Christian parents, including Latter-day Saints, found that the school district rescinded the right to opt out when too many parents objected to the pro-LGBTQ ideology was being pushed on very young children. A broad coalition of parents sued, claiming that their freedom of religion and parental rights were being threatened, but a Federal judge didn’t see any problem and upheld the power of the school district to trample parental rights. It’s a telling example of the use of the power of the State to compel objectionable ideology being imposed on children against the wishes of patents. It’s going to get worse if you remain silent and inattentive. Why has this become such a huge movement in the West? Is this just a random fluctuation in social norms, or is something deeper going on? That’s a topic for further research and study, but it’s not a healthy sign.

Parting Thoughts on the Often Misunderstood “Secret Combinations” of the Book of Mormon

Strangely, while the theme of “secret combinations” is one of the most pervasive and emphasized in the Book of Mormon, as well as an important theme in the  ancient Book of Moses (a form of which may have been on the brass plates, serving as a source for many references and allusions in the Book of Mormon), it’s one of the least discussed topics in Latter-day Saint sermons, Sunday School lessons, and other lessons. We tend to nod our head and acknowledge that secret combinations are definitely bad and should be avoided when related passage comes up, and then we move on, as is probably the wisest course in public settings. After all, we live in a society where one of the worst, most damaging labels you can receive is “conspiracy theorist.” Nobody wants to be one of those crazies, the tin-foil hat people who think the earth is flat or that everything that happens is part of some vast conspiracy of all power secret forces controlling every aspect of society. I don’t accept either of those proposals (the earth is round, and history and current events are complicated and often chaotic). But I do believe corruption is real and needs to be called out. However, so frightening is the label of “conspiracy theorist” that we often don’t even want to look at any source that associated with that term, in some cases acting as a shield to deflect investigation into genuine corruption.

Here I must point out that the popular stereotype of “conspiracy theories” being about some all-powerful secret organization that is controlling all aspects of our lives is a caricature of real conspiracies and the real “secret combinations” of the Book of Mormon. At least in our private study, it’s a topic worth exploring more deeply and wondering just what evidences of such dangers should get our attention, if Moroni’s words in Ether 8 actually have prophetic application to our day.

In the Book of Mormon, even when very cunning conspirators gain power, the result is not successful, lasting control of all aspects of society, but often chaos and suffering as one faction competes against another. One megalomaniac murders another to gain the throne, and then another contender arises with his secret combination. Blood and horror is the norm.

The early rise of secret combinations among the Jaredites results in Jared, son of Omer, gaining the throne after enlisting the help of Akish in forming a secret combination, only to shortly thereafter be murdered by Akish’s secret combination, followed by civil war between Akish and his sons, causing massive destruction. Much later, secret combination in Jaredite society lead to a vicious civil war and the collapse of their society. In Nephite society, the prominence of secret societies before the coming of Christ results not in total control, but the destruction of the government and the division of society in multiple tribes. Then later, as secret societies rise again and gain power, the Nephites become more vulnerable and are destroyed by the Lamanites, who themselves, plagued by secret combinations, fall into chaos and civil war after their great success of wiping out their Nephite enemies.

Secret combinations in the Book of Mormon are run by utterly amoral and often incompetent, arrogant people with very bad judgment, naturally surrounded by equally dangerous and unwise fiends. They are always striving for power and wealth, but the results are terribly ugly, not a well-oiled machine that secretly controls everything smoothly. The master behind it all is not some brilliant genius, but Satan, whose goal is not a successful society but the blood, horror, and chaos that ensues when very greedy people under Satan’s influence give up every shred of decency for their temporary gain. The Book of Mormon reveals the opposite of the misguided stereotype of all-powerful secret organizations adeptly controlling every aspect of life.

Whatever the motives behind the team at WHO and other organizations who put these educational standard together, the focus on teaching about masturbation and more to very young children and giving them values and standard that are contrary to the basic values of many faiths is a woeful indicator of global directions being pushed with zeal. We must not assume that everything will be fine as long as we keep our heads down and go about our normal lives. The adversary is not sitting still in his plans, secret or otherwise, to take your children down unwholesome paths. We can see the WHO is not an organization that can be trusted, and we need to defend ourselves and our schools from their influence.

One step for today is to prepare your children for the indoctrination they will face. Teach them frequently from the inspired principles in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” Talk to them about the unscientific lies and distortions they will hear in years to come and give them knowledge and faith to resist.  Being involved in your community can also make a difference. Speaking out, teaching, and sharing information can help. Let’s not despair and do more to support that which is good and resist that which is evil. The Lamanites in the Book of Mormon were able to track down and root out secret combinations from their midst, at least for a while. We can learn from their example. This would also be a good time to dig into the profound teachings of the Book of Mormon and make it a bigger, more relevant part of your life. Its teachings on secret combinations are so profound and accurate that they constitute some important and often overlooked evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.



Author: Jeff Lindsay

17 thoughts on “No, WHO Is Not a “Secret Combination” for Corrupting Children, in Spite of Their Sex Ed Guidelines for Ages Four and Younger (But Being Public Doesn’t Make WHO Safe)

        1. Puzzled. I use the word “seriously” once, referring to those of us who take the Book of Mormon seriously. But I don’t say that we should not take secret combinations or the Book of Mormon seriously, and in fact urge people to pay attention to its prophetic message. If there’s a quote from me where I literally say the opposite, let me know. And if there’s some irony or sarcasm that you are misinterpreting as literally advocating for something I’m obviously against, please check and let me know. Thanks.

  1. The title of this article is very misleading. I have been involved at the UN for 30 years, and WHO is definitely pushing abortion and sexuality that is NOT good for our children. They have a huge influence on many countries of the world. Maybe it isn’t a “secret” combination, but most people do not know what they are doing. Thanks for informing parents, to be aware of the dangers lurking to attract their children.
    However, I do not believe that the 4 year old push for masterbation is often promoted, but many other sexual things, as the children grow, are promoted.

  2. “We can see the WHO is not an organization that can be trusted”

    FACT: The WHO is evil–it matters not whether it is secret or not.
    FACT: The WHO is part of the UN–there is plenty of evidence demonstrating the evil deeds of the UN.
    FACT: The LDS Church donates tens of millions of dollars to the UN.
    How does this not make the LDS Church appear to be supporting evil?

    1. The Church is not supporting the WHO’s promotion of sex education when it donates money to humanitarian efforts such as the World Food Programme or UNICEF. Now if they learn that their donation is not going to feed the hungry or help children in need, they would be right to feel cheated and to not help those programs in the future, but as far as I know, the World Food Programme is not pushing the objectionable stuff we see in the European sex ed guidelines. Helping to feed people through the World Food Programme does not make the Church evil.

      There’s much that we can object to in some aspects of the UN, just as there is much that we can object to in some aspects of what the US government does. But this does make someone evil who aids a seemingly good aspect of either body. I don’t like some things that the military does, but I don’t wish to criticize those who join the military, for example. There are US-government efforts that are honorable, just are there are decent programs in the UN.

      1. We support who we give our money to, especially when we know what they stand for. There are plenty of other organizations without evil intents that the Church could choose to work with, including just doing its own charity services standalone, without “partnering” with evil organizations. Instead, the leaders have gotten in bed with the modern-day Gadiantons, and the Church’s reputation suffers appropriately. We are who we choose to associate with.

        If someone told everyone that they were against abortion, and then donated their money to Planned Parenthood, they would righteously and rightfully be judged a hypocrite.

        Your “US-government” argument is straw man: The Church doesn’t donate to the government (unless you want to include the $5 million fine it paid to the SEC for hiding $160 billion in profits during the last 22 years–but that’s a different topic). The military only follows the orders of our civilian leaders–the Pentagon doesn’t act on its own authority.

        1. I have objections to several things that the UN and other large organizations do, but to say that the Church or anyone else is in in bed with Satanic forces by supporting a program to feed hungry people seems unfortunate.

          Few large organizations, companies, governments, or NGOs are 100% free of actions, policies, or histories that can be criticized. You can join a great company and then find out later that part of their profit comes from selling printed labels for a whiskey brand or tobacco product. Must one quit to avoid supporting the forces of evil? I’ve joined forces with efforts sponsored by other religions, including non-Christian religions for honorable causes, in spite of disagreeing with them on some issues of real spiritual significance — but perhaps I was just supporting evil.

          My comment about the US government was not a straw man implying that the Church donated to the US government, but was about how you and I may give money to support organizations that aren’t all good. A large body like a government may have many diverse branches, some of which we may object to, and others of which we may be proud of. If you choose to remain in the US and thus choose to pay taxes to the US government, you may think of the good that is done with that money, but should I not condemn you for the evil things that the US government is doing, which you support with your income taxes? Again, you could certainly move to another country to avoid supporting them.

          If the US government made taxes voluntary and let us choose where our tax dollars went and you chose to only give money that directly helped to feed hungry kids, would I be right to condemn you for supporting the pro-abortion US government? Supporting the good parts of a flawed organization — whether it’s the US government, the UN, the Red Cross, United Way, or most other large charities, many large companies, many NGOs, etc. — does not make one evil if the organization has another branch or service that you strongly object to. That doesn’t mean the UN programs would be my preference for charitable projects, but painting an effort to alleviate hunger as simply supporting evil seems too harsh, IMO.

  3. Very informative article to be read by every grandparent, parent and caregiver. It’s what I am aware of but you brought it together and gave suggestions to combat it. We all can’t do everything but to do nothing is wiring also. God bless you for your research and boldness in proclaiming the truth and as you know some will ignore and defame you for it.

  4. Regarding your statement about secret combinations:

    “Here I must point out that the popular stereotype of “conspiracy theories” being about some all-powerful secret organization that is controlling all aspects of our lives is a caricature of real conspiracies and the real “secret combinations” of the Book of Mormon. At least in our private study, it’s a topic worth exploring more deeply and wondering just what evidences of such dangers should get our attention, if Moroni’s words in Ether 8 actually have prophetic application to our day”.

    Following is a statement from one of President Ezra Taft Benson’s October 1988 General Conference talks, “I Testify”.

    “I testify that wickedness is rapidly expanding in every segment of our society. (See D&C 1:14–16; D&C 84:49–53.) It is more highly organized, more cleverly disguised, and more powerfully promoted than ever before. Secret combinations lusting for power, gain, and glory are flourishing. A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world”. (See Ether 8:18–25.)

    He gave this talk as his closing talk of the conference. It is the last talk that he personally gave and the two talks in the next conference were read by his counselors. One was the talk on pride. It seems to me that he placed great importance on this final testimony given by him. (see especially Ether 8:25) Although it is not good to tie every conspiratorial evidence back to a world dominating group, it is prudent to watch for evidence of this group to which President Benson refers. Since 1988, the UN and related organizations, WHO being one of them, have increasingly shown a desire to influence world society into a centrally controlled organization. It is worth investigating the ever increasing evidence of efforts to subvert nations into a one-world entity. We should be exposing conspiratorial organizations. We should listen to a prophetic warning.

    1. Thanks, Paul. Definitely a time to beware of the agenda of those who call for increasingly global powers and transnational governments.What checks and balances can there be when such systems get the power they yearn for?

  5. I think you may be in denial, the WHO agenda is worse than presented here.
    (along w/other UN organizations)
    Being alarmed by the abuse of children
    does not make one a conspiracy theorist,
    a label applied to the rest of us by the groomers & abusers of innocent children.
    Shame on all of us for allowing this horror show to continue to thrive and grow at the expense of our children.

  6. My dad is not religious, but had a dream around a year ago that was vivid and remarkable. In the dream there was a one world government with a one world police/military force. They renamed the Earth, and were forcing people to use the new name. The name that the Earth was changed to was Morning Star. He didn’t realize what the name meant until he told me about it and I told him that that was a name for Lucifer.

    The devil is the great imitator. God has high priests who perform religious ceremonies to unite people with Christ, the devil has high priests who perform religious ceremonies using blood sacrifices (because they don’t have the Great and Last Blood Sacrifice in Jesus) to lead people into darkness. God has been building temples and establishing Zion with a goal to get everyone to live the law of consecration. The devil has been building temples (movie theaters) and establishing Zion (one world government) with a goal to get everyone to live the law of consecration (communism). I also believe that the devil will imitate the Second Coming before it happens.

    I think this is a pretty reasonable perspective, and because I believe that the devil’s anti-Zion is a one world government, then it stands to reason that any organization with the word “world” in its title is pretty tightly knit with the Book of Mormon “secret combinations”.

    I have a friend who is partial to the idea of 15 minute cities. In response to him I informed him about Yuval Noah Harari. He is the second-in-command of the WEF and I have never heard more literally satanic words come out of any person’s mouth than from his. I want to stay far away from any organization that has him at the top. The WHO has similar people in its upper ranks, so whatever they are doing I don’t want any part of it.

Leave a Reply

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

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