I can't figure out what they are.

This is my premise, that the church is a cult that uses, victimizes and harms its members. I think we all know the many ways the members get guilted, shamed, live in a patriarchial, performance based cult, and a culture of conditional love or affection. Many RM's rush into marriage to have sex, have kids early, and lots, try to live the antiquated single income with many many kids, started while still in college. Members pay for their own mission, and the missions are an extreme level of control. They controled virtually every aspect of our lives from our underwear, what we can consume, wear, appearance, do with our spare time, social life, and excessive church duties.

Normal people would be more aware of the damaging and irresponsible expectations the church puts on its members, even with the now added requirement of cleaning the church toilets and bathrooms. They claim to be Apostles and Prophets but not one since JS, has any revelation about the anything in the BofM or other claim that JS said.

These are things they probably have:

Admiration from the leader worshipping members
Control over religious side of the church
Control over the business side of the church
Running the church and its billions each year(power)
A sense of spiritual superiority
Everything fiancial taken care of
The ability to continue to hide negative church history
Call anything negative, anti mormon and a lie
Maintain a Patriarchial culture of don't think, just obey
Indoctrinate using feelings instead of study and investigation
Have the ability to call themselves prophets, seers, and revelators without actually prophesying, revealing or seeing anything

But they are leaders of an easily provable con, and they most likely have been exposed to much of actual church historical facts (I never was)

So are they just deluded religious fanatics?

Or are they deceiving, narcissistic con artists?

A religious con is the most hypocritical con there is. Using someones desire for spiriuality to manipulate them is the worst. It's taken me my lifetime to be able to see narcissists in action, and they are very good at getting you to service them. They put on an ACT, to manipulate you. And people fall for it until they recognize it. But when people are given attention, are flattered, and in the case of the church, feel that they are given spirituality, they can sucuumb. Narcissists charm and people sucuumb. But it is an act. They don't care about you, only using you for their benifit, or in the case of the church, the church doesn't care about you only what you can do for its growth, $$$, and how many children you can reproduce for it.

If it actually cared for the membership, it would be a lot different and there would be a different ratio of 4 million active with 9.5 million inactive or resigned (out of the 13.5 million claimed)

So which one is it, or is there something else?

I vote conmen for most or all of the 15. Fanatics for the Q70 and the rest.


The 15 use 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:
1) the revelation on 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.

2) temple ceremony changes due to a significant amount of attention paid by Godmakers and others to the death oaths.

3) change in the BoM introduction due to the DNA lamanite crisis.

Now, an honest prophet would talk openly about these changes and why they are made. A dishonest conman 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 Mops 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 did too. And so one has to ponder 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.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:22AM by Jesus Smith.

He he! That is a priceless quote I am going to add to my list of quotes. "Birds of a feather flock in quorums together"

Still in practice today:
Their principle was to weaken a man in his purse, and in this way take power and influence from him. Weaken everybody, that was their motto. Joseph's maxim was, when you have taken all the money a fellow has got, you can do with him whatever you please."


"Did you ever hear Joseph speak of his money?"

"Oh yes, he used to boast of his riches. He expressed the opinion, that it was all-important that he should be rich. I heard him say myself, 'It would be better that every man in the church should lose his last cent, than that I should fall and go down.'"

I think many of these guys are probably conman and others could be religious fanatics. But there's nothing preventing any individual from being a religiously fanatic conman.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2010 10:49AM by Cheryl.

Yes.

I have personally known only one GA, one of the seventy. I knew him before and at the time he was called, I have not talked to him in 25 years. At that time, he was a down to earth successful farmer who loved the church. A real nice guy, not a conman at all. The rest of them? You probably have a mix.

Something in me does not suspect they are conmen. But I too am trying to figure it all out how one like me can see now how false it is when I am not nearly of the intelligence as some of those guys. It is a question I contemplate all the time.

cnange the word "or" to "and" ....


and the answer is yes.

It's a mix. Most are willingly deluded. But I think most of the conmen didn't start out that way but after being sucked up into the inner circle became jaded.

I always thought the Hinkster fit the bill of a guy who started out pretty sincere but then after he saw the inner workings of the system tried to make the best of the con. His years as a counselor in the presidency probably helped him to become adept at his fakery. Monson IMO is also a total fake. He was probably pretty sincere as a young man when first called to the 12 but with all the nonsense he has seen over the years I truly doubt he believes anymore.

I think by the time you get into those levels of leadership, you have invested so much into the church, you just stick with it. I bet they get some nice perks they don't want to give up. They like the attention.

I would imagine it's much like a politician going to Washington DC. They leave a halfway decent person but by the time they have been there a few years, they become corrupted.

Yes!! That is a very good explanation. I think that probably happens. They find out later while they are "in office" then they just keep it up like tradition because it is what they are used to and because they are in a lofty position and they have the whole faith counting on them and looking up to them including their families. They really don't have to say much about their theology/doctrines. Basically their speeches are the same as other Christian denominations with very few variances at General Conference.

All of them are social climbers; bullies or kiss asses.

You see the same things in any group. Think of your place of work if you have a lot of co-workers. There is always some kiss asses who become the boss's pets. There is some pushy ones that get away with tyrant type of behavior because nobody want's to cross them and they golf with one of the big guys etc.

I think some of the guys in SLC were fairly humble, deluded believers who truly wanted to "build the kingdom" all their lives, and managed to play the social game well enough to keep being given leadership positions. They had enough social skills and leadership traits to get to the top.

Some others were more the cut throat business men types who through a combination of social skills and controlling pushiness kept getting the top job.

My last bishop was the latter. I don't know he could be perceived as "spiritual" but he wore nice suits, drove Jaguars, had a summer home/cabin, and knew how to do the tone of voice that makes everyone else never talk over him. But I thought he was an ass, and his wife was fake as can be.

If he got to the top, he'd probably be one of the business type GA's that has a conference talk ghost written for him so he could give it in his authoritative voice that is mistaken for spiritual.

But a simpler answer is that they are abusive personalities and are in an abuser/victim situation. They behave like abusers everywhere and justify their behavior somehow in their own minds. Like the mom who screams at her kids and smacks them around, then says it's the kids' fault for not behaving. Or the husband who punches his wife because she burned his steak, justifying it because he works hard all day and the least she could do is have a good dinner for him. Or on the other end of the spectrum, Brian David Mitchell who felt justified in taking Elizabeth Smart because he truly thought he was a prophet and God told him to do it. Other peoples' rights became meaningless, because Brian was sure he was right. Or my bishop who yelled at me and never felt bad about it for a minute. You see, I dared to talk back to him and tell him to stay away from my son and I asked the bishop questions he couldn't answer about church history. He thinks he had every right to behave in an angry, abusive manner and I deserved it for daring to question him in any way.

I think the GA's are the same way. They believe what they believe for whatever reason and because they are so sure they are right, anything they do to anyone is completely justified. The abuser mentality. Some of them are probably flat out con men. Others are religiously deluded. Others probably figure Mormonism isn't true but it's better than anything else out there so any lie is justified because they think they are right about the "blessings of Mormonism." They think they have the right to force us to be good, to protect the corporation, whatever it takes, for whatever reason and they run with that. Scary, huh?

and politics and its concentration in the state of Utah might give you a better understanding on this.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

A little from Column 'A', a little from Column 'B'

YES to the main question.

Whoever oversees the Church Educational System is deliberately deceiving members and investigators for a start.

Whoever writes/oversees and puts together the church publications/films media/teaching materials etc are knowingly being deceptive.

Remember the Brigham Young manual? No mention of Polygamy?

In my Wilford Woodruff manual there is a picture of him and his wife and kids? ( Phoebe I think) BUT what about his other wives and kids? PURE DECEPTION.

Same with EVERYTHING the lying LDS asses print and publish.

Warning to atheists, agnostics and mushy Christians: You will not agree with any of this!

A little badgerer input: The question as posed is way too charitable to those that are running the LDS church. It assumes that the people at the top are merely run-of-the-mill cons, or perhaps just garden variety ignorant fools.

Now, knowing as we do that the LDS church is without a doubt a thorough lie, and assuming that there is in fact a spiritual battle being waged, and assuming further that Satan is a counterfeiter of truth and can pose as holy and pure when he is wicked and evil, then the answer is that those that run the LDS church MUST be tools of Satan. Some are willing tools, undoubtedly know it is a lie, and are happy to spread the lie so as to perpetuate deception; others are not so much willing tools as they are thoroughly deceived, likely happily deceived, as they do not wish to know the easily found truth. A tool nonetheless.

As I said, if you can accept that evil exists, and if you recognize that the LDS church is rooted in despicable lies, vigorously maintains those lies now, and is planning new lies in the fuure, then the logical conclusion is that the church and those who operate it are straight out of the pit of hell.

That is what the badgerer believes! PPHHHTT!

"atheists, agnostics and mushy Christians"

Who's left?

I know many LDS who really love God and are loving and kind and all that. Some have produced good fruits, meaning they are charitable and honest and hard working. I don't think they are a product of Satan. I see deception and lies that go on, but I don't believe its extremely one thing or the other. Just my opinion.

I do not doubt that some mormons, perhaps many mormons, live honorable lives. My entry was directed at the mormon church as an institution and the leaders of that institution.
But, on the other hand, a stream can rise no higher than its source, so individual mormon efforts at holiness are futile within the confines of the mormon faith.

I think the top 15 leaders of the LDS faith are both fanatics, con men, and bullies

a related question, and perhaps a more sobering one, is do any of the 15 view or think of themselves as such? In my opinion, I don't believe any of the 15 actually consider themselves as either con men or fanatics. THAT is what makes it so scary!

yet he is totally aware McDonald hamburgers suck ass.

I think the real question is: Do the GA's KNOW that they are lying to members, or do they still believe it themselves? I don't know. Or, another possibility - do they eventually start to believe their own BS? I've wondered if that could have been the case with Joseph Smith. I wish someone would do a psychological profile of LDS leaders like they do for political leaders of foreign countries. But I'm no psychologist myself.

I would have the utmost faith and belief in a con that was making me a millionare!

religious ecclesiastical leaders, thousands of them in the world. On the whole, I think they are true believers based on a spiritual witness.
Maybe it's because I'm a convert, but this kind of ecclesiastical leadership is no surprise to me. These are the kind of men and women who are honored and respected throughout the centuries.

The leaders frequently lecture the faithful about this being "the end of days" to sell the faithful "fire insurance" (tithing). Then then go about directly TSCC's long term investments in real estate, shopping malls, Hawaiian housing developments, etc. That is evidence enough for me that the don't believe their own rhetoric.


They have cushy jobs with no fear of a lay-off, generous expense accounts, plenty of perks, adoration of the masses, etc. The benefits extend to their families. Why would they tell the truth and give that up?

Anyone with integrity self-selects out long before reaching the level of GA.

Which makes them even more despicable.

From 'The Demon Haunted World':

"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 is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. (So the old bamboozles tend to persist as the new bamboozles rise.)"