SusieQ#1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The LDS Church would not be as successful as it is
> if the leaders all thought it was some kind of
> fraud or scam. It would have fallen apart decades
> ago, in my view.
I disagree and believe the opposite. The reason it is so monetarily successful is because it is run as a business with top leadership caring not for the actual spiritual well being, but the bottom line.
One thing is certain, Hinkster's actions are fitting of his nickname and show he probably knew it is a con.
Think about how the conman operates. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_trick ) Think about Bernie Madoff. (
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/24214/ ) They make promises that are fantastic and play to the dreams and wishes of the victim. They gain trust by deceiving. Now at this point you could say the person leading astray is not conning, but deluded and fooled themself. The difference lies in how they treat negative information on their claims. An honest person would attempt to objectively look at the flaws in their claims.
For a conman, if any bad info comes to light, they start by never acknowledging it so as not to draw any attention in the hopes it will wither on its own. When forced to confront unsupportive info, they deny it and refuse to discuss it further, pretending offense and playing the victim. If pressed further or in a way that they cannot deny it, they lie about it--downplay its importance, etc.
Hinckley did both. Denied it live on press. Then downplayed its importance to the church body.
The Q12/15 use some of these very clever tactics to coverup and slyly change history in order to keep the "all is well in zion" story flowing. An honest servant of god would be up front about issues and try to work with people openly and without guile.
Some examples that come to mind:
0) Secrecy about church finances. They refuse to open the books. This smacks of con through and through. Why wouldn't a steward of the Lard give honest accounting to all members of their donations? There is no law or doctrine requiring secrecy on "sacred funds".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints1) the revelation on "blacks and the priesthood" was followed by subtle changes in the words in the BoM where "white and delightsome" were changed. It became obvious the 15 were receiving revelation on race in order to appeal to the world changes. The quiet, almost secretive way they changed the scriptures reveals the MO of potential coverup, rather than full honest disclosure.
http://www.mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm2) temple ceremony changes due to a significant amount of attention paid by Godmakers and others to the death oaths. The coverup is held in place due to the secrecy of the ceremony claimed by the 15.
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no104.htm#Summary3) change in the BoM introduction due to the DNA lamanite crisis. This was not acknowledged until the media forced it. And even then, the 15 go on as if nothing has changed in the Lamanite landscape. They never directly discuss the issue at GC. But it has become about the most serious flaw in the BoM.
http://www.heraldextra.com/lifestyles/article_a645beb5-d963-5606-b91f-ac401d5f859d.html4) Holland lied about the very copy of the BoM kept with Joe Smith, in attempt to elicit strong feelings against anti-mormons. (October 2009, GC)
http://www.postmormon.org/exp_e/index.php/discussions/viewthread/18043/5) Mark Hofmman conned Hinckley/Kimball on a variety of falsified documents that posed LDSinc in bad light, and they covered it up. There is a big difference with this and how LDSinc extols a prophet (Alma) discerning a conman's (Korihor) trickery.
http://www.mormoninformation.com/hofmann.htmhttp://lds.org/ensign/1981/05/the-joseph-smith-iii-document-and-the-keys-of-the-kingdom?lang=enghttp://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no115.htm#anthonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salamander_letter#Suspicion_.26_Resolutionhttp://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/30.42?lang=eng#416) Propistion 8 cover-ups. Just as they did with the gay marriage in hawaii issue, the LDS church covered-up how they financed a political operation that strains the separatoin of church-n-state. They deny all of it, but it has been documented.
http://www.mormonproposition.com/Now, an honest prophet would talk openly about these issues and why these changes are made. A dishonest conman hides unfavorable issues, makes the changes secretly and refuses to acknowledge them at all. It's better not to pay any attention to your weakness when you run a scam, but to change things secretly and pretend it was always that way. The Moaps perform the latter, by claiming that the new revisions are really what ole Joe intended himself, and we were diverted by misunderstanding in the congregations.
They're not knowingly complicit in the 15's scheme, but are acting as suck-ups do.
Also, it's very very clear to me that Joe Smith knew it was a con, BY in his very authoritative leadership did too. And so one has to wonder how the secret continued to the next prophet. As the profit of the con increased with the growth of new victims, one man could never have contained it himself. So what was the process of revealing the con to trusted insiders?
This interview with William Law is revealing in how this might actually work:
http://waynesimister.mysite.com/lawint.htm>>> "...This was simply the result of a very smart system adopted by the prophet and his intimate friends like Brigham Young, Kimball and others. They first tried a man to see whether they could make a criminal tool out of him. When they felt that he would not be the stuff to make a criminal of, they kept him outside the inner circle and used him to show him up as an example of their religion, as a good, virtuous, universally respected brother." <<<
One wonders if the 15 don't do something similar today. Look for those LDS strongmen in bizness that are corruptible, elevate them to the Q70, watch if they embellish and cover up in their own little kingdom and then elevate them to the 15. How else do they keep those in the know so quiet? Because birds of a feather flock in quorums together.
A prophet of god who truly believed he represented the all knowing, all powerful supreme intelligence would defend that being without excuse or concern for what the world thinks. To the prophet, god is above the world so far, it wouldn't matter what the scorn was--he'd defend whatever bizarre, wacky command god gave.
Hinkster didn't do that.
1) He dissembled on important doctrines of eternal progression ("I don't know that we teach that" on becoming like god)
2) He downplayed polygamy and its history (Let the past remain in the past)
3) He was fooled by Hofmann and tried to cover up documents that posed poorly on Joseph Smith. (If smith were truly god's prophet, hinkster would accept whatever visions/revelations he received even if publicly unpalatable).
4) He was instrumental in changing the racist parts of the BoM and dissembling the reason for them.
And so on. Hinkster had a history of dissembling, hiding and covering up less savory parts of church history. His goals were to mainstream the church and make it tasty for public consumption. He did this because not only did he NOT believe it is the one-and-only truth, but because getting more tithe payers was more important than defending his god and his truth.
Is/Was Hinckley the only one?
I think not....
Some here have argued that the 15 are just self-deluded and believe the crap they shovel. I think that there's no doubting they are deluded big-time. But they could know they lie and even know the church is a lie, and yet be deluded about their actions being justifiable for other reasons. They'd have to be. No one believes he himself is evil--the dishonest believe they are justified in doing horribly dishonest things because they deserve the rewards that are withheld from others.
We will at least all agree that they lie. Whether they are deluded to buying their own lies or they are devious in their lies is the question.
Here's the interesting twist about that: The LDS church teaches honesty and integrity, requires it for temple entrance. Yet the leadership, historically and in modern times, continues exhibiting traits and actions that belie honesty to obvious levels. How did these leaders get to that point? How does an organization requiring honesty to be worthy of "blessings" and position raise up the most dishonest? How is it that these lying sacks of @#$%& are the ones at the top?
I think the William Law comment about how they see if they can make a criminal tool out of a man, and if so, raise him to the inner circle makes sense. The real honest guys are lower down.
So, there's no doubt they lie. Do they recognize they lie? I think yes, they knowingly lie, but feel justified. Do they believe they see god? Or do they rationalize away all the lacking spirituality that accompanies their office with a mere shrug of the shoulders as they enjoy the perks of the office. Perhaps the perks alone give them testimony enough to justify the lies.
-----------------
Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors."
- Apostle Dallin Oaks, footnote 28, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon, Introduction p. xliii
------------------
“Some things that are true are not very useful.”
“That historian or scholar who delights in pointing out the weaknesses and frailties of present or past leaders destroys faith. A destroyer of faith — particularly one within the Church, and more particularly one who is employed specifically to build faith — places himself in great spiritual jeopardy. He is serving the wrong master, and unless he repents, he will not be among the faithful in the eternities. ... Do not spread disease germs!"
- Boyd K. Packer, "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater Than the Intellect", 1981, BYU Studies, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 259-271
--------------------
"Indeed, in some instances, the merciful companion to truth is silence. Some truths are best left unsaid."
"Any who are tempted to rake through the annals of history, to use truth unrighteously, or to dig up “facts” with the intent to defame or destroy, should hearken to this warning of scripture:
“The righteousness of God [is] revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” (Rom. 1:17-18.)
"I repeat: 'The wrath of God is … against all … who hold the truth in unrighteousness.'"
To anyone who, because of truth, may be tempted to become a dissenter against the Lord and his anointed, weigh carefully your action in light of this sacred scripture:
“These dissenters, having the same instruction and the same information … yea, having been instructed in the same knowledge of the Lord, nevertheless, it is strange to relate, not long after their dissensions they became more hardened and impenitent, and … wicked, … entirely forgetting the Lord their God.” (Alma 47:36.)
"We must realize that we are at war. The war began before the world was and will continue. The forces of the adversary are extant upon the earth. All of our virtuous motives, if transmitted only by inertia and timidity, are no match for the resolute wickedness of those who oppose us."
- Russell M. Nelson, “Truth—and More,” Ensign, Jan. 1986, page 69
--------------
" As Elder George F. Richards, President of the Council of the Twelve, said in a conference address in April 1947, 'when we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.' ... The Holy Ghost will not guide or confirm criticism of the Lord's anointed, or of Church leaders, local or general. This reality should be part of the spiritual evaluation that LDS readers and viewers apply to those things written about our history and those who made it."
- Dallin H. Oaks, "Reading Church History," CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium, Brigham Young University, 16 Aug. 1985, page 25. also see Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B
---------------
Dallin H. Oaks:
"Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true."
I emphasize: "IT DOES NOT MATTER THAT THE CRITICISM IS TRUE"
Source:
http://lds.org/ensign/1987/02/criticism?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/ensign/1987/02/criticismThis is not for us, it's for the children!!
Oaks:
"The counsel against speaking evil of Church leaders is not so much for the benefit of the leaders as it is for the spiritual well-being of members who are prone to murmur and find fault. The Church leaders I know are durable people. They made their way successfully in a world of unrestrained criticism before they received their current callings. They have no personal need for protection; they seek no personal immunities from criticism—constructive or destructive. They only seek to declare what they understand to be the word of the Lord to his people."