Seven years ago I learned the truth about the book of abraham and I knew from that instant that the church could not be true.

BUT, I still believed that the Church leaders were good and righteous men who were true believers. Fine.

Then a few years later I learned that they had altered the Book of Mormon introduction to say not that the lamanites were the
"priniciple" ancestors of the indians, rather "among" their ancestors.

Though no longer a believer, still I was very disappointed to confront the reality that the apostles were actively engaged in deceipt and whitewashing of the past.

And now I come to yesterday. Thanks to this board for being so enlightening on all things LDS. I learned yesterday that some time ago the text of Gospel Principles was altered. Whereas before it read that Apostles are special witnesses of Jesus Christ, now it reads that they are special witnesses of The Name of Jesus Christ.

This is a blatant admission that they do not see Jesus. For my whole life, from infancy to adulthood, they let me believe that they saw Jesus. That they had special access to the other side. They would never actually say so, but they led us on in that belief.

But what really chaps my hide is their deceipt and sneakiness. The way they subtly, oh so subtly alter texts, without announcement.

This must mean that they are actively, In Council!! discussing the changes and how to best and most quietly implement them!

They preach honesty but do not practice it. They sit in judgement over us, but who judges them?

I am so angry I cannot even tell you how much. These are just white collar criminals, is that what it comes down to? They are no different than any other corrupt corporate executive. It's hard to believe that they are dishonest because they look nice. They are clean cut, wear nice suits, speak softly. It is just really hard to reconcile their polished presentation with the clear deceipt they practice.

Rant over.

Oaks's Bald Head Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These are just white collar criminals, is that
> what it comes down to? They are no different than
> any other corrupt corporate executive.

From the perspective of an "outside" observer (who is, nevertheless and after all these years, now fairly knowledgeable and---at least sometimes---able to analyze the facts involved), this is an accurate statement.

I think individual males are carefully selected for their probable potentials...they are tested over years of "lower" callings...and than---after that---they are VERY carefully trained and groomed in corporate corruption...so that by the time they reach the top ranks, they either are themselves white collar criminals, or they are those who will loyally support this kind of corporate criminality. (This is a time-tested process: the same selection/testing/proving/training/grooming process has been widely used from ancient historical times right up to today, and throughout large areas of this planet. Whether it is present day Russia...or the Mafia...or drug lords or human traffickers wherever they may be, etc., it's all the same organizational PROCESS.)

You have a right to be angry.

You've been had.

I am sorry.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2014 01:04PM by tevai.

"they are tested over years of "lower" callings...and than---after that---they are VERY carefully trained and groomed in corporate corruption"

Suddenly I feel flattered that I was never considered as leadership material in the Mormon church. Even though I had every indicator they usually like (basically: advanced degree, white, has penis, descendant from Mormon pseudo-royalty's plural wife, etc etc). Guess I either didn't stay in long enough or didn't seem like I could be church broke.

notnewatthisanymore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "they are tested over years of "lower"
> callings...and than---after that---they are VERY
> carefully trained and groomed in corporate
> corruption"
>
> Suddenly I feel flattered that I was never
> considered as leadership material in the Mormon
> church. Even though I had every indicator they
> usually like (basically: advanced degree, white,
> has penis, descendant from Mormon pseudo-royalty's
> plural wife, etc etc). Guess I either didn't stay
> in long enough or didn't seem like I could be
> church broke.

I think this is probably a very accurate assessment.

Beyond any of the criteria you mentioned, being capable of being church broke is THE critical qualification for being allowed "inside" in any way.

The absolute, very last thing they want among their upper ranks is someone who can NOT be church broke.

Congratulations on NOT passing the church broke test! :)

Thanks :)

I always felt bad about it, like I was defective. Now I know it is something to be proud of. They knew better than I did. Which explains why a few leaders I had tiptoed around trying to keep me in the church (like the MP not sending me he even though I literally didn't work for 3 months straight due to severe illness, he later said that he was worried I would quit the church...). I never understood why they did that, because I always thought I was a solid Mormon. I must've had a vibe or something.

You are welcome!!! :)

There is another way to look at this:

From a certain level (my guess would be stake level, but I could be wrong--so if I am, please correct me), either most every, or every, man chosen for a stake-or-above leadership position was judged by SOMEONE ELSE, higher up than them, to be potentially corruptible. Those doing the "choosing" may not have consciously realized that what they were doing was selecting for potential corruptibility, but they DID know what they had been taught was the "proper" criteria to base their judgments on. (Some may not have realized the significance of the criteria they were, as directed, using.)

And this has nothing to do with whether an individual so CHOSEN was ACTUALLY corruptible, because I am sure that there have always been a percentage of men "chosen" who were not, in fact, corruptible. (Some were undoubtedly just very dedicated true believers who were honestly clueless as to what was REALLY going on.)

But the next few promotional steps upward would tell the tale: those who were corruptible were free to progress upwards...those who were not either stalled or, in effect, dropped out of the leadership race.

By some certain point, EVERY SINGLE MALE CHOSEN HAD BEEN VETTED, ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS, BY MULTIPLE PEOPLE HIGHER THAN THAT PERSON, FOR HIS POTENTIAL CORRUPTIBILITY.

By that point (whatever it is; if someone can specifically identify it, I would be most grateful), EVERY MALE HAD PROVEN--IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER--THAT HIS LOYALTY TO TSCC EXCEEDED HIS LOYALTY TO ANY OTHER INTEREST (personal character, spouse, family, etc.), and that--if push came to shove--there would be NO question as to which direction he would loyally support.

There may have been some miscalls along the way. There may be some who were judged by others to be corruptible who actually--when the tough calls came--were NOT corruptible.

Overall though, this is how TSCC has been run since its beginnings (later intensified dramatically by the era of Brigham Young). [One of the reasons why the Mark Hoffman story is so riveting is that it illustrates, in real life, how this TSCC organizational culture plays out when an unanticipated, real life, organizational crisis occurs.]

When you next see General Conference, look at each of the main speakers and realize that THEY, as individuals, were judged [potentially, at the very least] corruptible, by multiple TSCC leaders, on multiple occasions, as they each rose the organizational ladder to being able to give that speech.

Kind of fun, eh???



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2014 05:25PM by tevai.

"witnesses of The Name of Jesus Christ" what exactly does this phrase mean?

It means, "We saw the name, Jesus Christ, right there on the page."

It means they know how to spell "Jesus Christ"

Dang! I keep on sticking an H. in there. That explains everything. Or maybe it's the lack of a penis or the scrap of integrity.

As well you should. That is the only recognition ever given to his twin brother, Harry. The knowledge gave rise to the exclamations, "Jesus H. Christ" and "Jesus Christ and his bother Harry."

.....that all of the apostles are notary publics. :-)

Joe the Ho would be so proud of his scam, if he could see it today. If he were alive today he would be annoyed that he could no longer force women to have sex with him, but there are always high priced hookers.

I feel your anger, Oak's bald head.

Despite the recent change to "witnesses of the name of Jesus Christ" they still allow those members who want to believe that they have weekly PPI's with Jehovah in the SLC temple.
And yes, there are members who believe this. I know. Some reside within my ward boundaries.

Of course this could be very quickly and easily clarified if the Brethren would just say something about this. No more of this "its to sacred to talk about" crap. In fact, that statement alone is saying "yes, we've seen Christ but its too special to talk about". If they didn't want people to believe they walk and talk with Jesus they wouldn't say "No, we haven't seen Christ but its too sacred to talk about the fact we haven't".

So they speak with forked tongues. They give a vague answer that can be interpreted two ways. They are the biggest liars that prey on those of faith. No integrity resides at the COB.

We exmos say "sacred" really means "secret" or "stupid," but it also means "scam."

"It's too mich of a scam to talk about."

EXACTLY!!

When they say they've had experiences so sacred that they cannot give utterance, they are clearly and purposefully leading the membership to believe that they see Jesus. BUT, since they don't explicitly say it, they have room to maneuver. Very duplicitous!

I wonder why it wasn't too sacred for Joseph Smith to boldly claim his first hand testimony? Lame excuse for the 15 based on that precedent set by Joe. Bunch of Bovine Excrement I suppose.

The Prophet no longer is called prophet, he is called president. The quorum of the 12 liars is now called special witness to the NAMe of jc. What the fu#k does that mean? This was one of the things that pissed me off when I realized they were fuc&ing liars.

Elder Faust spoke to my mission in Brussels 1993. In the Q&A an Elder asked him if he had seen Jesus, and Oh My Gosh did he get a dressing down from Faust. The Elder was told in no uncertain terms that his question was inappropriate. But it got worse. Faust told us All to "grow up!" And I'm thinking, "wait a second, why am I getting included in this reprimand, I didn't say anything."

So the Elder sheepishly re-phrased his question, and said that he merely was wanting to know how Faust got his testimony. To which Faust replied that he had always had a testimony since his youth. This was very disappointing to me, because what he was saying was that he believed it because his parents told him so, which made his testimony no different than mine.

By the way, when the Elder asked that forbidden question, my MPs put his head down, literally, and sank in his chair. It was pretty hilarious.

He had a chance to clear the air about that and he didn't.

And I thought the purpose of a Special Witness was to testify. Now I know that it just means to obfuscate the facts and belittle anyone who dares ask any pertinent questions.

With all of the guns in the US and the sheer number of members learning the truth I wouldn't be surprised if somebody shoots some of these guys one day. They did it to Smith.

We really can feel like justice is in the hands of the people, despite the patronizing and commanding coming down from the top. think of them in red suits, like Joseph Smith prancing around pretending to be a top general.

They have been tried and are being convicted by the justice of public opinion who have rendered their verdict and will not be swayed by any amount of google ads, clarification statements, raising of bars, false statistics, testimonies, declarations, etc.

The verdict is "weird" and their sentence is permanent, unaltering truth waterboarding them until they have been forced to admit they are witnesses to the NAME only...

And that the book was INSPIRED by the papyri, not a translation...

Gulp, gulp, and there were never any real threats of murder or suggestions of suicide in the temple...

And the LDS always loved black people, it was just the Lord that punished...that is...withheld...the priesthood for a time, for reasons we don't know...we always were praying he'd change his mind...gulp, gulp.

And the prophet, er, well, the people just sustain him as such (cheesy grin), they think he is but he didn't actually himself ever say that, because, because he is so humble, doncha know?



Kathleen waters

When the mishies or younger members come around to talk to me, they think I'm a hater and a liar for simply telling them of the teachings from my mormon youth. When I see mormons who are my age, I wonder how they've mananged to silence the dissonance.... or how they can remain silent while sitting through today's pablum talks and lessons.

I still have a lot of the old books, but mormons turn into the 3 monkeys when I want to show them.

Excellent post, Oaks's Bald Head. Your hurt and angry feelings rose to the surface. I especially found the following quote right on the button:

"But what really chaps my hide is their deceit and sneakiness. The way they subtley alter texts, without announcement. This means that they are actively, in Council discussing the changes and how to best and most quietly implement them!"

You put my feelings into amazing words. Thanks. This behavior, plus the Cult's censoring of member's right to think and choose what to read, are at the top of my long list of unacceptable behaviors of the church. Hitler and the 15 Doofus Suits are more alike than different.

I would be careful about mocking Dallin Oaks's baldness. He might use his priesthood authority to summon bears to maul you like the prophet Elisha did to some kids for making fun of his baldness.

Go up, thou bald one!

Dallin came to my mission back in 2006. He was asked if he’d seen the savior too. He got offended and said we don’t discuss such sacred occurrences. And I thought

“But you’re a special witness of Christ, how are you supposed to bare witness of Christ if you can’t talk about ever having witnessed him?”

Same with Bednar when he came to our local MTC, he was asked a bunch of questions about the mysteries of Mormonism, he got upset and told us we were asking questions we simply didn’t know the answers too. (they were good questions) and I thought “why would we ask questions we already knew the answers to?” He also refused to admit to ever seeing jesus.

What gets me is they say “we don’t talk about such sacred things” as though to imply that they had and can’t talk about it. When in reality they haven’t and the idea that it’s too big a deal to talk about is just a diversion to save face.

Oh, and I have to share that Dallin came to my stake in Illinois a few years earlier and said "The temple is a sacred place where worthy members are blessed with the opportunity to consummate their marriages."

Nobody called him out on his consummate/consecrate mistake... But everyone talked about it on the way home, and it piqued the interest of more than one non-member in attendance.

Fenwick Montgomery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, and I have to share that Dallin came to my
> stake in Illinois a few years earlier and said
> "The temple is a sacred place where worthy members
> are blessed with the opportunity to consummate
> their marriages."
>
> Nobody called him out on his consummate/consecrate
> mistake... But everyone talked about it on the way
> home, and it piqued the interest of more than one
> non-member in attendance.

:D :D :D

I've had a few of those moments too.

For me, one was while reading The Mormon Murders [Steven Naifeh, Gregory White Smith]. GBH pretty much pretended that he didn't really know Hoffman which just didn't fly. I felt they manipulated things to keep GBH off the witness stand too. I really got the sense they were lying.

The other thing that really pushed my buttons was when they presented polygamist prophets as being family oriented monogamists in the Sunday School manuals.

The lies by omission are really irritating. They are intentionally avoiding critical facts. Then they insult us by acting like they never taught half the stuff they did.

I really think they feel the end justifies the means, and it's OK to be less than honest to protect people's faith.

Perhaps what they mean is "We have not seen him and are too scared to admit it"!

I always say that the organization which taught me honesty and integrity practices neither of those things.