Leaving the Church mentally came easy when every question I had about the church had a mountain of evidence in the negative and little to zero in the positive. But there was one question about leaving the church I could never seem to reconcile. Until now (sort of).

I remember a fight with my father one night about the church post coming out about my Apostacy (im 17 and this was about 5 months ago, coming out about apostacy about 8 months ago). I was shooting down every argument he threw at me when he finally got frustrated and came back with the question "Well if you think the church is a fraud then what about the 15? The prophet, his counselors, his apostles, do they know it's a lie? If so why has no one ever reached that position, learned of the lies and exposed the church? Or do they believe it themselves? If the church being not true is SO OBVIOUS and their is SO MUCH EVIDENCE against it, don't you think the brethren know about this so called evidence? How could they still believe then?"

This is to me, one of the only difficult questions to answer as an Exmormon. Both scenarios, whether the brethren believe or not, have clear issues.

Eventually I have found a rebuttal, but it still doesn't totally satisfy or answer the question. I have recently shot back to that question with this answer:

"You don't believe in the catholic church? What about the Pope? The cardinals, the archbishops, everyone in the higher up hierarchy of the catholic church? Are they disbelievers and liars hungry for power? Or do they believe knowing about all the dirt on the Catholics church history including the covering up of the systematic molestation of children. The same goes for them."

I think that's a solid answer. Just like we have to ask ourselves whether the brethren believe or are liars, we would have to ask the exact same question if we were tbms looking on the catholic church. And what would we answer in their sake? Do the pope and the cardinals etc know its BS? Or do they really believe it?

Its a strong rebuttal to the question, but it still doesn't really answer it. I have no doubt Joseph Smith was a Charlatan and knew it so, but I couldn't tell you if Brigham Young really believed he was following the footsteps of Joseph Smith and really believed he was the prophet of the one true church, or if he was a liar and a Charlatan as well. If so, when if ever did the people in power in the church go from liars and charlatans to true believers?

Your thoughts? And how do you approach this question?

~TJ



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2016 06:08PM by fbtj.

"If so why has no one ever reached that position, learned of the lies and exposed the church?"

This part of your question is actually pretty easy to answer. There are great incentives for keeping the secret. They get a living "stipend" they get "fame" or at least a close approximation. They get power, they are running very large companies and have political influence in the world. Their families are well taken care of.

So, money, power, and fame. People have kept bigger secrets for less.

As for do they know? It's hard to say. The LDS church is good at their brainwashing and keeping it's members in line. But I do think at least some of them know that it's all a lie and they keep it to keep the money flowing in.

I have answered that part of the question similarly, rebutting that it would be hard giving up not working and being literally worshiped. But at the same time the question still kind of stands, don't you think someone would have enough integrity to step up and say something by now?

Keep in mind that all the people at the top are selected, they are not random, and certainly not inspired. That helps, because when making their selection, the others at the top are not likely to pick someone they think will blow the whistle. They are going to pick people who can be easily controlled or people who are going to continue the required dialog.

Also, it's not a normal business where any worker can ruin everything by exposing corruption. It's a church. We've seen time and time again where other heads of churches are caught, often literally, with their pants down and people still believe and forgive horrible actions.

So, not only are the cards stacked against there being whistle blower in the first place, it would be hard for them to actually be heard.

Agreed!
Even if Hoax and Holland got together in a press conference and blew the whistle on the LDS fraud, maybe 10% of active members would leave. The majority would easily brush it off claiming Satan got to them as predicted...deceiving the very elect!....And life would go on...

>>the others at the top are not likely to pick someone they think will blow the whistle<<

This^^^

To be selected you have to keep the secrets of the lower level positions. There's plenty to blow the whistle on at the ward/stake/mission/BYU level, but a good proto GA doesn't.

The big 15 notice these guys from their big video monitor wall just like Mr. Burns.

"How was the cow able to jump over the moon?"
--E. Pathos Lagrimas, tutor to the stars' butlers

Perhaps not a useful answer, but I think it is impossible to reach the final 15 with integrity intact. They will have already experienced several "just toe the party line, and all will be well" and "don't you think the brethren know better than you?"
They will have gotten used to ignoring their gut feeling.

Just look at Hans Mattsson that lead up to the "Swedish Rescue", message from the top, "keep quiet, don't repeat these questions to anyone." He left with integrity intact, having discovered the truth, but could have stayed and no doubt climbed the ladder higher having demonstrated loyalty to the church before all else, including the truth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2016 06:29PM by antonymous.

I think your response is a good one.

Your father's argument is a classic example of fallacious appeals, the fallacy of appeal to authority and the fallacy of appeal to popularity.

There are two possible explanations about the public stance of the general authorities:

- They truly do believe it
- They really don't believe it, but they believe it is for the members' benefit that they say that they do believe it

If it's the first, then they are stupid, since the evidence against the church is available to them, as it is to the many members who have decided to leave. If they have not examined the evidence, then they are no respecters of truth, and unworthy of someone claiming to be a messenger from God.

If it's the second, then they are arrogant liars and deceivers.

It's got to be one or the other.

One must also not assume that all the general authorities are one or the other (stupid or deceitful). Some may fall in one category, others not.

Here's my theory (and it's only a theory - there is no way to test it that I can think of):

Every Mormon, whether a convert or born in the church, starts out by accepting Mormonism as true. That is the basic premise: "The church is true. Joseph Smith was a prophet." Therefore, anything that contradicts or casts doubt on the basic premise must be false, and there is probably a good explanation for why it doesn't look false (whether you can find the explanation or not). Those who have a strong testimony of the truth of the Mormon gospel naturally advance in the church. Nobody advances, of course, if they express doubts or if they ask too many questions. Every general authority in the history of the church (except for the very few who were excommunicated or who apostatized) has achieved that distinction by strengthening and continually bearing his testimony and the testimony of others.

What happens, then, when some embarrassing historical fact or doctrinal contradiction surfaces? The general authorities are not historians, nor are they theologians (except in the most amateur sense of the word), nor are they scientists. So how does an apostle or other GA deal with the assertions about the DNA evidence showing that the Indians are not Israelites? He turns it over to a scientist at BYU and asks HIM to deal with it. Now, put yourself in the position of that BYU scientist. Are you going to tell the president of the church that the Book of Mormon is wrong about the origin of the American Indians? Of course not - you would lose your job, your temple recommend, your church membership, and probably your wife. So, you wrack your brain to come up with some spin on the evidence that the GA will like. And you finally come up with some off-the-wall pro-Mormon explanation and write a very long report, with dozens or hundreds of footnotes. The GA doesn't read through the entire report. He doesn't have the time. All he's interested in is the conclusion, so he reads that, and is relieved that everything is OK, his testimony is strengthened, and he can state publicly, in all good conscience, that the DNA is not a problem for the Book of Mormon because a top scientist at BYU has told him so.

Obviously the leaders think that they are receiving revelation. They believe that firmly, because by definition they are SUPPOSED to receive revelation. So they interpret any idea, any hunch, any flash of imagination as revelation from God. Every such idea or hunch, then, confirms their belief that they are receiving revelation.

They studiously avoid asking embarrassing questions of themselves or of their colleagues, because they know that that is the first step to apostasy, and the sign of a weak testimony. And they firmly believe that their primary job is to be a model for the members of the church. (Gordon Hinckley even stated that in a public interview, saying nothing about receiving "revelation.") They are busy running the organization. They believe in the advice that they give to doubting members: Surely there is a suitable answer somewhere, but it is not necessary for your salvation - all our questions and puzzlements will be satisfied in the next life. Meanwhile, pray, study the scriptures, and attend to your callings.

Remember what happened when B. H. Roberts (a general authority and assistant church historian) presented to the Apostles his disturbing study about the Book of Mormon, how it appeared to be a poor fiction, authored by Joseph Smith, based largely on Ethan Smith's book "View of the Hebrews"? The apostles' response was to bear their testimonies that they knew the Book of Mormon was true. They never dealt with the problems that Roberts raised.

So, my guess is that the leaders really believe it because they refuse to acknowledge or investigate any evidence to the contrary with an open mind.. Remember all the courtiers and servants in "The Emperor's New Clothes"? They all could see that the boss was naked, but to say so would mean that they were "unworthy." And nobody ELSE failed to see the beautiful clothes. So they MUST be there.

That does not excuse them morally, of course. In the law, for example, you are responsible for what you know but ALSO for what you should know after exercising "due diligence" to find out the truth.

Lying and liars are a complex phenomenon. Once a liar gets good at it, he doesn't think of it as lying any more, especially if people believe him. And actually, the fact that some people DO believe the liar tends to persuade the liar to think that what he is saying is true, because other people acknowledge it as true. This was the attitude of Mark Hofmann, who produced forged historical documents and sold them to the church and to antique dealers. His attitude was that if he presented a forgery to the experts and they certified it as genuine, then it WAS genuine.

Remember that great line from the movie spoof of Mormonism, "Plan 10 from Outer Space":

"Just because he made it up doesn't mean it isn't true."

J. Reuben Clarke, of the famous "If we have truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed" declaration, very soon realized that asking serious questions about the church and its history resulted in answers that were not ... praiseworthy.

So later in life he backed off the above sentiment and declared himself a fan of Abraham Lincoln's sentiments: Abe justified reading the Bible despite his reputed agnosticism with the comment: "I have learned to read the Bible. I believe all I can and take the rest on faith."

"To a friend, Reuben related the Lincoln story and added, 'Substituting in the substance the words 'our Mormon Scriptures,' you will have about my situation."
--J. Reuben Clarke, a biography, by D. Michael Quinn

The pages in question can be seen at http://imgur.com/a/RyS3W


The reductio ad absurdum that must follow is that J. Reuben Clarke forced himself to believe the church was true, or in reverse logic, forbade himself from making that logical jump.

Well put. I could add that I remember what I said in my trial. I was asked if I would tell my children what I believed - that TSCC was not true. I told them that I wasn't sure whether I would or not because of the effect it would have on them, that it could destroy all belief not just that of TSCC. I have now determined that they deserve to know the truth and I sent them a letter explaining it which is essentially found in the bios. I can understand that the 15 and others may be reluctant at blowing the whistle as they know of nothing else to replace TSCC and are afraid of the consequences to the millions they think are TBMs if they come out in the open.

While at MIT I took a course on business policy (final course for those receiving either an MBA or PhD in management) and being asked the question of what you would do if you were chairman of the board of a tobacco company and determined that smoking was injurious to health. I spoke out that I would immediately resign and lead the fight against smoking. Some of the other students disagreed. Yet, when it came to TSCC I was reluctant to tell all of our TBM progeny. I was right when a student and today believe we have and the 15 have the obligation to tell the truth.

And all of them have thanked me.

I think they are chosen for their ability to do as they are told by higher up leaders, no matter what, and not question.

it is well established that cults and people who invest their lives in a belief system will regard any evidence that goes against their beliefs to mean precisely the opposite (closed loop thinking). no matter how much evidence that the earth is flat, or that the moon landing did not occur, some people will never accept the truth.

what would it do to their credibility if they left the church? their whole lives would have been for nothing. they would be shown to be liars who strung millions of people along. they would have been complicit in the execution of large scale fraud.

they are trapped in their position whether they like it or not. it helps that their lives consist of only conversing with fellow believers, thus creating an illusion that everyone is a believer. this would not be the case if you were the only mormon in a city, and could see that your beliefs are peculiar and not in keeping with the christian faith. it would be much easier to leave then.

"what would it do to their credibility if they left the church?"

I think it all boils down to this. At least some of them must know that it's not true. They know that they receive no revelation even though they've been sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators for decades. They couldn't just claim they were deceived and they just now learned that the church isn't true. They'd have to admit that they lied...for Monson, that would be admitting almost his whole adult life was a lie.

If anyone was going to blow the whistle, it would have to be one of the newbies. Of course, as others have mentioned, they're carefully picked. It's not likely that any new member of the 12 will ever speak out.

Think about the BoM witnesses. All of them left Joe. While Oliver may have admitted it was a fraud, and Harris admitted he actually didn't see an angel or the plates, others didn't deny any part of their testimonies. Why didn't David Whitmer just say he lied instead of saying he received a revelation to separate himself from the Mormons? He was trying to leave with his dignity intact. He didn't have the courage to simply admit that he had lied.

A few old chestnuts come to mind:

"They know what side their bread is buttered on."

"They drank the Kool-aid"

"They're like rock stars."

This is almost a question of faith, but for some inconvenient facts.

The hiding and reveal of what's been in the secret vault - Only the top were in charge of those deliberate acts.

Then there's the effort to control the reading material to which TBM's are exposed. Either the church is true, or it's not. If it's true, no amount of "anti" lies could burn their temple down (so to speak). "Yes, sister, I saw that article, too, and here are some genuine, rock-solid facts upon which to stand, not the expensive, fallacy-ridden well-spun apologetics that the apostates offered." But, that's not how it goes. It's the exact opposite of that scenario, and everyone knows about the teams of deleters "called" to erase any inconvenient fact that may pop up on an LDS site. Those jobs are designed to hide facts. Those "calling" them to keep the nasty, nasty truth away approve the training manuals.

Which takes us to the essays, those sweet versions featuring Deseret Disney Joe, the Martyr. Who never did what is documented that he did. The subtle rewordings of policy, doctrines and chants. Again, all approved by the Q.

The invisible financials, the child-like free sales force, bullied from birth into going, sent forth before they have the wherewithal to say, "No."

And let's not forget the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not question the Q. Whosoever questioneth the Q shalt have his question changed or dodged.

From my perspective, this cult is designed as a cult from the top down, not because they believe that they can trust their "Lord." Their willful acts, hoarding of cash and assets, abuse of and lying to their members show that they gather their treasure for this planet, not some future existence.

I have tried to consider their innocence. The endless trail of pain preserved on this site, and the many brilliant works of well-known contributors and their sites - most have the choice of remaining anonymous to the public. This would not be true for the Q. Their pain would be public.

Still, for their own safety and comfort, they sacrifice millions, so any sympathy quickly evaporates. They take the resources of the poor and oppress the weak. They turn their backs on those at risk of suicide, and blame victims. They know that they do these things.

They are not stupid. I think of the good that they could do, but do not, and I judge them as knowing "sinners."

Your father argues from the stance of faith. He either is not willing or able to see who the Q really are.

Knowing what I know now, and if I thought that arguing with a TBM were a good idea, and I don't, I would rebut that the Q know exactly what they are doing. He ignores that the church has been exposed by "insiders," time and time again, but as soon as those insiders speak their truths, those truths become the "anti" lies of a now-expelled "apostate," and he is not allowed to cread or hear the expose'. He is simply unaware of them. Thou shalt not challenge the Q.

Brigham Young probably didn't give a damn whether the church was true. He was Dictator of Utah, had access to as many women as he wanted, and used church funds as his personal piggy bank (it took years to sort his estate out).

As for the current Q15, look what they have by maintaining the charade. Your father won't believe that they get money from the church, but even he has to admit that they live a pretty sweet life.

- Their houses are in the most exclusive neighborhoods in Utah.
- They jet around the world at will, and they don't fly coach.
- They're fawned over by Mormons everywhere they go.
- The sheep hang on their every word as if god was speaking, no matter how banal or ridiculous their speeches.
- Mormons are conditioned to OBEY THEM.

In short, they have money, power and control.

Now look what can happen if a Q15 violates his apostolic omerta.

- He loses all of the above perks and privileges.
- His wife will divorce him because, in her mind, how will she get to the CK with him now?
- His children may well disown him for the same reason.
- Any business associations that benefit his family will likely be taken away as a punishment for apostasy.
- His reputation and character will be smeared in every ward, aided and abetted by the Deseret News and the rest of the Mormon propaganda machine.

So even if they know the whole thing's a crock, they're trapped for life. If any of them break with the church, he loses everything. Position, prestige, lifestyle, family; all will vanish.

And for what? The TBM sheep won't care. They'll just remind each other that "even the very elect can be deceived." Another apostle will be picked at the next GC and it will be like nothing ever happened.

So what's the incentive for a Q15 to defect? Absolute zero. They are owned.

But that's what gets me, maybe its just that I'm a goddamn pansy ass bleeding heart liberal puke who is beholden to Truth, but I just feel like atleast one of them would come forward and reveal it to be a complete fraud. Knowing that if an apostle or prophet did, it would shut the whole operation down.

Maybe that's exactly why they don't, maybe they know its false but are just as diluted as the rest of the church about how much good it does for the world.

That or they wouldn't want to face the backlash of a public knowing they knew it was false but sold it to people from a position of power anyway.

Having one of the afossils jump up from his chair at conference and scream, "it's all a crock, read my words at itsacrock.com! and then run, laughing, down to and out the Steve Benson Memorial Tunnels would only result in mutted 'tsk tsks' and commentary about even the elect will be deceived.

It won't be until he starts publishing the financials that poop will start to cascade into the COB.

Jesus of Orem Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In short, they have money, power and control.
>
> Now look what can happen if a Q15 violates his
> apostolic omerta.

(o·mer·tà ōˈmertə/
noun
((as practiced by the Mafia)) a code of silence about criminal activity and a refusal to give evidence to authorities.)

> - He loses all of the above perks and privileges.

The Mafia is business, Freemasonic COJCOLDS is business and the enforcement of omerta is the same for both.

A comfy offer no life-long dupe (or no) GA can refuse.

Shit, half the people on this forum are afraid to tell their spouse, let alone a top banana coming out to the public!

Maybe so, but there's a difference between a victim, and a victimizer.

Poor 'ol Joe. He was so trapped by his own lies. He must have used all those minors, women and their men, their labor and their property to ease his pain. I get it.


Not.

I haven't read all of the replies yet so hope I'm not repeating a suggestion already made, but look up posts by Steve Benson (grandson of ETB) re who knew what and how and why amongst the Big Top. Perhaps his essays on Dallin Oaks and Neil Maxwell (? I think) will be on topic for your question.

His experience of speaking to the top leaders and his essays about what goes on at the highest levels give a unique insight into whether they believe or if they are too far gone to question or if they have no ethics about it all and are just in it for the perks (the latter is hard for me to believe as Mormon is so stultifying, you'd think anybody would be happy to disbelieve and bail). Of course, it's one "apostate" guy against the church machine and they can (and do) say that he's lying.

That would be the likely response from the spouses and families of many exmos but Steve's accounts could still be worth finding and reading to possibly answer some of your questions on this topic.

The threads I'm remembering may be in the board archives or you could do a search on "steve benson" and take a look through the subject lines which give clues as to his subject matter in each thread. I don't remember one on this topic recently so you might have to dig a ways back - but maybe the key word "Dallin" will cut to the chase a bit faster.

This is an important question to a lot of people and I have noted over the yrs that many (including me, a mere convert) are horrified to contemplate that the leaders could knowingly deceive and give "testimony" about something in which they do not sincerely believe. I remember finding that concept very difficult to accept when I first read about it. I have wised up a bit now, a decade+ on, and know that people engage in all kinds of chicanery for all different reasons, so sadly when it affects people's very lives.

I tend to think that the ones who make it to the top are the ones who were the best at ignoring any evidence and towing the line, no matter what. My most-TBM friend belongs to an elite family here where I live. Her logic is always, "The Church is true, so no matter what evidence there seems to be, I know that my Heavenly Father will explain it all to me one day. So I'm just going to be the best daughter I can be and not worry about that right now."

Also the higher up they are, the more they stand to lose if they fall out of step.

I think this is probably the closest to what is going on. Just my opinion. I'd bet most of the Q12 don't even know how to use a computer (I remember a congressional aid telling me that his congressman didn't have a computer at his desk, didn't know how to use it, and certainly didn't check email--relied on others to do this for him.) So not only are they inept at accessing information, they simply don't want to and are content to accept everything on faith.

I am a nevermo but wow! you have received so many excellent and well-thought-out replies. While reading your post, I had decidedthat I was going to give you the link to RPackham's homepage, which contains a wonderful explanation for this very question, but then I saw that he responded here with a most excellent suggestion :) You will still want to peruse his homepage for some informative and enjoyable reading on other topics as well: packham.n4m.org. Good luck to you in further discussions with your father!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2016 09:52PM by cinda.

Thank you very much. :D

The Q15 are paid to do a job, first and foremost. The job is telling the members what they want to hear. If it happens to be an acting job, what's the difference if you're getting such amazing perks?

If they believe that perpetuating the story is the best way to avoid upsetting the lives of millions of members, they might be right. By limiting their coping skills, the church created a membership that needs it to be true.

No one, absolutely NO ONE reaches a top-15 position (or even a
seventy) until they have clearly proven that they have an
unbreakable testimony.

And what is a "testimony"? It's a decision one has made to
believe the Church is true NO MATTER WHAT. That means no
matter what the empirical evidence says. I recall hearing a
Mormon mucky-much say how glad he was that he had a testimony
before he learned certain things about Joseph Smith. In other
words, he was glad he had decided that evidence didn't matter
before he was presented with evidence.

You're absolutely right to bring up the Catholic Church.
Mormons absolutely KNOW that the Catholics must be false. But
there are more Cardinals than there are Mormon GAs. That
someone else (or a lot of 'someone elses') believes something, is
in no way evidence that it's true. Similarly for the
Scientologists, Jehovah's Witnesses etc. Don't forget the
"People's Temple" in Guyana where over 900 people willingly
drank poisoned Kool-ade. You don't get stronger testimonies
than that.

How many people have been given discussions by missionaries?
How many of them believe in Mormonism? Only a small fraction.
In fact there are MILLIONS who have been baptized that don't
believe it. The number of on-the-rolls members in Chile and
Brazil who do not self identify on the nations' census as LDS
is well over a million alone.

If your Dad's going to play the numbers game point out that a
few GAs (or even the few million Mormons) who believe it is
nothing compared to the BILLIONS worldwide who don't believe it.

Don't all the general authorities sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement or something like that? I could have sworn I heard something like that on one ExMo site or another... Maybe it was fake. But it'd make sense.

It would be great if it were true, and like you say, it makes sense.

Didn't the men Jesus picked serve without purse or scrip?

That was Judas, of course.

1 Timothy 6.10

Hope this helps the following leaders all in the top 15 have left the church over the years

Oliver Cowdrey one of the three witnesses
Martin Harris one of the three witnesses
David Whitmer one of the three witnesses

Sydney Rigdon member of the first presidency
William Bennett member of the first presidency
William Law member of the first presidency

William Smith Patriarch to the Church

Apostles
Thomas Marsh
William McLellin
Luke Johnson
John Boynton
Lyman Johnson
John Page
Lyman Wright
Amasa Lyman
Albert Carrington
Moses Thatcher
John W Taylor
Matthias Cowley
Richard R. Lyman

A lot of apostles and other GAs who knew Joseph Smith personally and worked with him for years left the church. A few others you didn't list were Frederick G. Williams, Jesse Gause, Warren Parrish, and John C. Bennett. Also, all of the Whitmers had left the church by 1842.

Modern-day GAs don't spill the beans and leave the church for the reasons other posters have listed. There would be just too much social backlash to deal with. As WCG wrote, "Shit, half the people on this forum are afraid to tell their spouse, let alone a top banana coming out to the public!" Even l'il ol' nobody me had to deal with assholes of a stake president and a bishop who tried to assassinate my character and excommunicate me after I learned that the church was bogus and started telling other ward members what I had learned. That persecution would be 1000 times worse for a GA. On top of that, a GA would probably lose his family, his house, and of course would lose his source of income. He'd be like George P. Lee, who went from being an honored, respected "Lamanite" GA to a pariah after he wrote that letter condemning the church leaders.

Another early GA who left the church and wrote about it was Benjamin Winchester. Read his opinions of Joseph Smith at

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1235005,1235758#msg-1235758

The CEOs of big tobacco ran a deliberately deceptive campaign to discredit the evidence that their products were causing harm. They even testified before congress that they "knew" their products didn't harm human health. Tobacco is still legal today and still sending people like my dad to early graves.

People have an amazing ability to not see the evidence that isn't in their financial/personal interest to know.

I suspect that all the 15 KNOW it is false but are required to sign-off on it before they are even invested as apostles. It probably starts more like,"If you found out that Mormonism was not totally true and Joseph was not a prophet, would you still uphold it's precepts and morals and hold to the iron rod, yada, yada, yada." I don't think those men would be given the keys to the corporate washroom without first vetting them to the nth degree. That would be truly a stupid upper level breech of protocol.

I also think it would take a rather odd duck, (ie. practically zero male ego) to accept all the money, respect, power, perks, family adoration, and fully legal access to endless, lifetime income, and nearly Godlike status, and later standup and admit that he was taken in by a deception. And when would he have to admit he was first deceived? Anyone over age 40 with a high level of education and business success would be laughed out of his profession if he came forward to admit he was deceived into believing in a cult religion in middle age. Humiliation would be immediate,pervasive, endless and abundant. The only time he could conceivably deny Mormonism as a fraud would be the moment the 15 offered him the calling and if that happened the 15 could immediately back out, deny,the offer, and declare him unworthy and apostate thereby crucifying him.

As similarly discussed, men in other high level corporate positions have done worse. I think of the bankers who knew and understood the level of greed behind the decision to immerse their banks in credit default swaps and numerous, highly risky sub-prime mortgages that would ultimately wipe out their banks and bankrupt massive numbers of clients and the general public at large. They almost destroyed the whole US economy. It was all legal so they self-justified. The Mormon top 15 can justify that they are only "extorting" 10% from their flock and even at that it is purely voluntary. They can defend themselves by saying that even if they told others the church wasn't true it wouldn't necessary follow that people would stop believing because faith is completely dependent on personal belief. Nobody can be forced to believe. The top 15 are in on one of the most squeaky clean cons ever devised, religion.

It would be good for someone to write a new "Dante's Inferno" and place the 15 and their predecessors in various echelons in hell. Perhaps some of the present 15 would repent and let the truth be known.

Hey,I am not a Mormon but have read this board for years.

I would say to him that yes of course the 15 know that there is lots of evidence against the church,hence why they have released many rebuttals in the form of the essays and the 'Swedish fireside' and also the answers to many frequently asked questions on lds.org.
They know the church is being scrutinised.They have also asked members to only use official church sites to research.Why?Because there is so much evidence out there against the church.


I would also ask your father what he makes of the Mark Hoffman affair.And about Joseph Smith's false prophecies.How much does the 'true church' really know?

There is strong speculation that alot of the higher up ones know and that they have signed contracts preventing them revealing all.I would believe this.

I liked your analogy with the Catholic church.I am sure you could say the same for the Unification church,the Scientologists etc.

It's always worth examining the other side of the coin,like how could 99 per cent of the world who don't accept Mormonism be wrong?

Also the 15 million members numbers is grossly exaggerated,try dividing that number by about 3 or 4.

They are not about to slay that goose that's laying their Golden Egg......it's a business....not a religion.

Mormonism is very, very true for its owners. They make great bank. And they are carefully vetted to make sure they don't accidentally appoint someone with a soul.

Michael Shermer's book "Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time"
is a very thorough explanation.

This excerpt from this book discusses smart people believing weird things http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/excerpt/

First off, the GAs call people who are thoroughly vetted as being "church-broke." Their term, not mine. And I mean a convert would not be selected, a questioner would never be considered, nor would one too personally charismatic or popular, like my former religion instructor George Pace.

Now imagine all the times you've sat in church and felt guilty for (fill in the blank). You know you blamed yourself and the GA's told you that faith was a gift and if you didn't have the gift, then act like you did.

This is important to the question you are asking because you have to see this apostle calling through the eyes of the type of person they choose.

I dated one of these pioneer descendant types and believe me they are full of guilt to the point of crying and beating themselves up because they aren't willing to walk across the prairie in the winter, freeze in a cave, etc., for the gospel. They feel as unworthy as anyone to carry the mantle and the weight of the faking weighs on them as they age.

Remember when HRH Gordon B. Hinckley appeared on the Larry King show and refused outright to say he was a prophet, only that he was "sustained as such?" He's scared there might be a Jesus to judge him and that day was not far away from a man in his eighties.

I believe that the apostles are basically church-broke yes-men who don't expose the truth because of what it will do to their families, not because they like the perks so much (ask anyone whose famous--they all say it gets old).

When I read your post I thought of Thomas Furguson, the anthropologist who gave up everything to finance a South American dig to prove once and for all that the Book of Mormon is true. He was the guy who went around giving firesides showing the Stella 5 and explaining that it was Lehi's Dream. (all not so, of course). Anyway, he became terribly disillusioned after years and what did he prove? That the BOM couldn't possibly be true...so that's what he told the brethren.

He could no longer work at BYU and went to the UofU where he hung out with believers, who kept asking why. He explained that even though it wasn't true, Mormonism was the best "brotherhood" ever and he didn't want to lose that.

Would you subject your family to public shame? Would you lose their love? Let Tom Phillips tell you about what happened to him as a Stake President who exposed the whole sordid Second Anointing mess. Did his children and wife thank him for caring so much for the truth that he was willing to give up his rock star status.

No indeed. I have compassion for the apostles even though I would rather walk through fire than continue as a Mormon toady. But I was a convert and none of my family was Mormon, so my shunning was minimal. Every person has to make that very difficult decision for him/herself and there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

Lastly - a SLC attorney told the story of his apostasy as a lower rung priesthood leader who took his BOM questions up the ladder of authority all the way to Oaks. To his astonishment, every single one of his priesthood leaders confessed they didn't believe the Book of Mormon was true, but that it was "truly helpful" to life on earth.

Their final argument was, "Well, is there anything better?"
Best

Kathleen

There have been apostles and General Authorities that have left the LDS church, and others that have been excommunicated (I think even within the past 50 years).

Overall, I think those that stay have a VERY strong testimony of the LDS church. I personally don't think they could keep up the illusion for as long as they had if they did NOT have that type of testimony.

Even more so, I believe that some of them may even feel that they have had personal spiritual experiences that far exceed what others have had, and perhaps some may even feel they have conversed or felt angels and other heavenly beings.

For those of you who were Mormon previously, or are Mormon now, look at those in your wards that seemed to have unshakable testimonies. What do you think would shake them of such a testimony? Do you think simply presenting your arguments that you present here would sway them? I think for most of those who have those strong "testimonies" in your old wards or congregatiosn, there is NOTHING you could say that would change their minds.

I come from a Southern Baptist background. In it, you have a teaching that to be saved you must have a mighty change of heart. It is a change the spirit effects upon you, and changes your desires from sinful ones, to feeling the desire to do and follow Christs example. For a Member who has felt this, and truly believes in this spiritual experience and that it happened to them, there is NOTHING in this world that will change their mind.

In the same light, I understand that LDS also have this type of experience, if not the same type of interpretation. In it, they have the Holy Spirit testify whether something is true. If there was a person that felt this, and believed it was the Holy Spirit testifying to them...or truly thought they knew it was...nothing else really matters. Like the Baptist, there is NOTHING that will sway them, not any facts one might think to present, not so called history, nothing will trump what they felt they received directly from heaven.

So, you have these types of people in the Baptist church, I'm pretty certain you probably have those types in the LDS church.

Then, you take those who are the most converted, have the strongest testimonies and give them a higher calling. Eventually, the strongest get to be General Authorities where they can be vetted. It is at that point whether those who may be weaker than others might become apparent and be "retired" "emeritus" or any other versions of being put out to pasture. If their doubts surface, and their faith waivers, then it becomes something which they can overcome, but probably shows whether they have the testimony to become "special witnesses" or not.

So, in my opinion, the 15 apostles of the LDS church have some of the most unwaivering testimonies in the church.

I feel they DO feel it is true, and I think they would be willing to die for that.

I'm not certain basing your own belief on that of another is all that powerful or decidedly choice thing to do, or even wise. It is probably best to determine for one's ownself what is true and what is not, whether it is the LDS version, the Baptist way of doing it, or another.

However, if one feels that the truth comes from heaven, and feels that is the message they have received, I think perhaps that is the truth many yearn for in many religions, and yet for many is also something they have not yet gained or attained.

In otherwords, as many here would say, instead of relying on others ideas and beliefs, sometimes it is best if you search and learn about things on your own, and decide for yourself what you believe or don't believe, rather than rely on the ideas, thoughts, and beliefs of others for your faith.

It is interesting that, in the aftermath of my disastrous Nauvoo Vacation, where I finally unloaded everything I knew about Mormon history on my TBM wife, the lingering question she has is, "Do you think the church leaders know about this?"

She first asked while we were still in Nauvoo, and I told her that I would be very surprised if they didn't know what I what I knew. It's been a couple weeks, and she is still asking the question as we are in bed nodding off to sleep.

"Are you saying they are lying to members about the truth of Joseph Smith and the church being a fraud," she asks.

"I suggest you do your own research and come to your own conclusion," I advised.

"Assuming you are right about the church and the leaders know what you know, why would they perpetuate the lie?"

"Well, look at what they would have to lose if they were to say, 'Hey, you temple-worthy, tithe-paying, service-oriented members. We really feel bad about the generations of money and time given to the church based on the promise of a pay out only after you die, but the whole thing is a sham. But you know, if you continue paying, serving, and obeying, the leadership can continue living off the benefits of your sacrifice. Agreed?' Yeah, dear, I don't think that would go over well, and you can bet the church and individual leaders would be fighting off lawsuits and criminal charges for the rest of their lives."

"OK, I see your point. But let's assume that you are wrong and the church is true, then it's possible the leaders don't even know about what you've told me. Because, if they did know about the lies being told about the church and that members were leaving because of those lies, wouldn't they have had a revelation from Christ that would disprove all of the lies and remove any doubt about the church?"

"That's a very good question, dear. Why don't they? Perhaps you should ask them instead of asking me."



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2016 10:39AM by surprenant.

"Assuming you are right about the church and the leaders know what you know, why would they perpetuate the lie?"

I'll repeat an experience I've related here several times. About 20 years ago, I had two different Mormon friends who had previously been active Mormons in the Atlanta area. They both left the church about the same time my family did. In speaking with them, they both told me that their previous stake president in Atlanta had admitted to them that "There ain't a damn thing that's true about the church, but it's a great place to raise a family." So there's a SP more than 20 years ago who knew that it was all a fraud, but he justified himself in remaining active for the alleged family and social benefits.

On that same note, I think that most of us here knew Mormons in the past who were active to some degree, but who admitted that "I don't believe the Joseph Smith story." When I was a TBM, I didn't understand how any church member could hold that position. After all, if the Joseph Smith story wasn't true, how could the church have even been founded in the first place? And how did the BOM come about? But now that I've left the church, I understand how some members can feel that way. They know very well that the church's founding story is bogus, but they stay in it purely for social reasons or to keep peace in the family. I think that's why the GAs don't spill the beans. They might know that the church is bogus, but they believe that it's still a valuable social group worthy of supporting and perpetuating.

"if they did know about the lies being told about the church and that members were leaving because of those lies, wouldn't they have had a revelation from Christ that would disprove all of the lies and remove any doubt about the church?"

Your wife's thought processes are those of a typical TBM: she doesn't understand that the church leaders don't have "revelations from Christ," and never have had any.

Mormons aren't leaving the church because of lies that are being told about the church by anti-Mormons; they're leaving it because of the lies that the church has told about itself.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/22/2016 11:29AM by randyj.

I'll admit that I'm a little more cynical about the GA and the Brethren. In my mind, anything above the Stake Presidency is where self-interest starts overriding the needs of a valuable social group. What I see and hear at the Stake level is much different than what I see and hear at General Conference.

Virtually everybody I know out here in the mission field in my wife's ward and stake are genuinely good and sincere people. I think they are wrong about the church, but I believe they are for the most part sincere in their beliefs. When we do talk about the church, they speak from the heart and without a sense of subterfuge or avoidance.

However, I have a totally different sense of presiding GAs at Stake activities and of those speaking at GC. Listening to them and their efforts to downplays member doubts and to promote the church, I see carefully crafted talks that are intended to persuade their audiences that they can't trust their own lying eyes and ears...just listen to church leaders, regardless of what your own small voice of common sense is telling you.

I see my wife listening in rapt attention to what any GA or apostle says, and I want to shake her and say, "Can't you see they are lying just by how they are framing the issue?"

It's an irrelevant question.
What he's trying to do is to (fallaciously) shift the burden of proof onto YOU. The construct, "Well, if it's not true, how do you explain THIS?" tries to shift the burden of proof, and implies that if you can't explain whatever THIS is, then it must be true. Which of course isn't the case at all.

For example: let's assume, for a moment, that the Q15 all truly believe the church is true. Whether they ignore evidence to the contrary, make up explanations for it, deny it, or however they got there, assume they actually believe.

Does their belief mean the church is true? Of course not. No more than your father believing it's true makes it true. What determines whether something is true or not is evidence showing something true or not -- whether somebody (no matter who, and appealing to authority on the matter is another fallacy, as if their belief "matters" more than anyone else's) believes it's true or not is irrelevant.

IMHO, your best response would be, "I don't know. Why don't you ask one of them next time you see one? At any rate, whether they actually believe it's true or not doesn't matter. Them believing doesn't make it true, them not believing doesn't make it false. Evidence determines whether it's true or not -- and evidence shows it isn't. Their belief doesn't matter."

The big 15 absolutely know it's all fake. The church is purely a corporation and it's cash cow is all the tithing that comes in. The big 15 don their Sunday suits whenever the occasion arises and get worshipped like idols by the faithful.They sit up on their altar during conference time and look out over their the sheep, knowing that they are giving them what they want. They don't care that it's all fake and they are preaching false doctrine.Those 15 suits are all C.E.O.'s in all those church owned businesses and receive huge paychecks for that. The church says the ministry is unpaid but they do not disclose how much the big 15 receive from the business side of the corporation.

Three obvious possibilities:

1. Sure they all know it's a lie. They also know it's keeping them powerful and rich. No reason for anyone to kill that golden goose.

2. Some of 'em probably suspect but all of 'em know it's smart to keep their doubts to themselves. If you think it's hard to publicly air doubts as an ordinary member, consider their position.

3. Sure they believe it. Why shouldn't they? They're appointed as believers, not as independent researchers. And believing it has been very, very good to them. If their belief had led to hard times for them but they still believed it, that would be a more impressive faith.

As often happens in real life, there is some overlap here.

I'm guessing that at least some of them are sincere. Maybe some have doubts about the church, but chalk that up to their own lack of faith or unworthiness. I imagine it's a real letdown when they don't actually get visited by Jesus, since they probably thought that would come with the calling. At least, I always thought the 12 were personal witnesses of Jesus Christ.

So maybe they think they just need to try harder and the questions will be answered, and they'll eventually get a stronger witness of Jesus.

Or they are just there for the food. (See Steven Benson posts about the elaborate Conference feasts for GAs).

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

Without going into a very long and drawn out discussion; Mormonism hinges on the claims of Joseph Smith. The claims of Christianity do no hinge on the Catholic church being "the one true church".

Interesting but I believe your use of this argument stems from your history as a Mormon. As a Catholic who attended BYU I noticed that the Mormons I met there-those who had been largely sheltered and exposed to an LDS worldview assumed that the relationship between adherents and the hierarchy of Catholicism mirrored that of Mormons and the leaders/founders of the Mormon church-it does not. This was evidenced by the comparisons they made and the jokes they told (Mormon Church vs Catholic, etc.) which fell flat with me- someone who had been raised a Catholic in a Mormon-free culture. Catholics don't actually tend to put so much faith in their "leaders" seeing them as flawed human beings like anyone else.

It's really hard to know for sure, because these are issues that the LDS leaders rarely, if ever, talk about. So, at best we can only speculate about their motives.

But, here are a few things I would consider.

1) There are a lot of smart, well credentialed people out there who believe in weird ideas, and lead organizations promoting all sorts of weird ideas. It does not mean that those ideas are true, and reliable.

Joseph Smith did not translate the Book of Abraham from the papyrus he bought, but claimed to do so. Joseph Smith was not a reliable person, and it does not make any sense to make his "restoration" the cornerstone of your life. Just because these generally well-educated men believe it, or at least claim to believe it, we don't necessarily need to follow suit.

Is whether Dallin Oaks believes in Joseph Smith's prophetic calling relevant to whether Joseph Smith's claims are reliable? Not really.

2) It is possible that some of them see themselves as trustees of the institution. The LDS Church has a lot of historic, and institutional assets that they may consider worth defending and maintaining--at all costs.

The temples, particularly the older ones, are artistically important structures to maintain out of respect for those who built them. The LDS Church maintains the BYU Universities and the LDS Business College that provide education at a comparatively reasonable cost. The family history resources of the LDS Church are extensive, and certainly a useful asset to human-kind. And it's fair to ask what would happen to all this activity if the leaders came clean? At this stage of their life, maybe they feel that the best way to help out is to continue to "serve" in this capacity.

But, what bearing should that decision on their part have on what you decide to do with your life? There are a lot of churches and other organizations out there doing good work--that don't require a person to compromise their integrity in the same way as the LDS Church does. If you are a young person today, why not start off on the right foot and work to serve humanity in a way that doesn't waste your time and mental energy jumping around questions about peep stones?

3) Can the LDS leaders adequately explain their position?

If they are so smart, so competent and so inspired by God--why don't they seem to be able to answer these questions in a satisfactory way? Do they ever offer to show up at an ExMormon Foundation Conference to answer questions? Do they write books about the questions that are causing people to leave the LDS Church?

People like Bob McCue and Tom Phillips have carried on correspondence with Jeffrey Holland about these subjects. Most of what he came back with were emotionally laden statements that didn't answer the questions Messrs. McCue and Phillips raised.

The recent essays are about as good as they could do, and I don't think those are adequate to justify committing your life to Mormonism.