I honestly dont buy the theory they all are experiencing cogitative dissonance. The net worth of the Morg is $48 billion USD, even if they spent half of that on upkeep, maintenance, etc. your still looking at $24 billion. TSCC operates through business fronts. An example is Coca Cola, the LDS church has a very large percentage of shares in a publicly shared and controlled company. But not directly. Its another business that officially owns the stock but that business is owned by the church. Its just a massive web of money that you can follow the paper trail to the 12.

Anyway, with so much money i dont believe the apostles/prophet make just a six-figure income as were told or can research. I'm sure they make this money directly but keep in mind this is completely tax exempt since they are a religious organization and i do believe each one of the 12 have access to millions of dollars.

It boils down to not wanting to stop being an LDS church leader because you would be walking away from a lavish lifestyle, world class healthcare, credibility, power, etc. Even if one of them has a conscience to publicly say "This is all horse $|-|It" why would you? You would be homeless instantly.

Anyone else share this view?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 03:30PM by roya1b100d.

Similar to Amway, to sell it more effectively you have to buy the products and love them. You know there are more sensible products out there, but in your mind you've convinced yourself they are the best and your life is improved from them.

It is super easy to fall into this mindset and become a devotee of what boils down to a pet rock in a hat.

"pet rock in a hat" - Genius!

Just one found in the ground.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/12/2016 11:51PM by Cpete.

Pick any dystopian story -- "Brave New World," "This Perfect Day," or "1984" and there's always a scene where the leaders are exposed as unbelievers. Mormonism is an artificially constructed dystopian society that those within it see as a utopia.

Modern Mormonism is more of a tribal identity than a religion. The current Brethren's actions indicate this. They know all about Mormonism's fraudulent origins. Their "mission" today is to preserve a way of life which they have inherited.

And I think they see 'stayin' White', as far as the leadership goes, is part of that plan.

That might explain their need to control everything.

Yes, clamping down on any vibrancy was their first reaction. They've got a good thing going for themselves and want it to continue for themselves for as long as they have left. The truth is coming out and they have only so much control over that.

If, instead they cared about the church, they would have had the opposite instinct. They could have broadened their appeal and added some liveliness. They could have given a little more autonomy to each ward and stake. But that would have been risky to themselves.

The Mormon church has essentially become a pyramid scheme, not unlike Amway, where those at the top can only retain their style of living by retaining those at the bottom. The "non-conversion" missions the youngsters now serve is aimed at doing this very thing.

Yep. What's interesting is they must know they're sweeping back the tide and it's a rather feeble effort. Where do they expect this thing to be headed, if not to the trash bin of history?

I would imagine the present leaders only want the scam to continue through their lifetimes. After that, they probably could care less.

If they really cared, they would have come out with the truth long before now.

They've been carefully groomed on each step of the ladder to the top. There's no way by the time they get there that they're going to cry foul. They're all complicit in the con. They may have been true believers in the beginning, but there's no way they could get as far up as they have without figuring a few things out.

For instance, they know the problems and they know they have no answers. They know people are leaving in droves and they know they've got nothing compelling to offer. They don't even try.

Even if they don't know all the problems, they have to know they aren't "apostles". They know they don't talk to Jesus. They know they're lying when they bear teary-eyed testimony about their "special witness" that is too sacred to talk about. They know there is no revelation. They know they're lying when they talk about 16 million members. Some may still believe, in some twisted way, but they have to have sleepless nights from time to time as they wonder if they're going to hell for their lies.

I wonder if they do have those sleepless nights or if they're more sociopathic than that. They certainly didn't get into that position without a lot of effort.

Yup. It's the most successful MLM ever.

I would imagine the ceremony when a person becomes a GA feels much like the initiation into the Mafia. Omerta, baby. You talk, you walk.

Remember the token Indian GA who didn't realize he was token? Yeah, went down in a flame of child molestation charges. As anyone would who had the gall to say the Emperor was naked.


Kathleen

PS. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't tell new GA's that their families would be translated early if they spilled the beans. Maybe Tom Phillips can comment on that.

Yes Kathleen, I was threatened on leaving although I did not recognise it as a threat at the time.

I was told by a GA "Tom, it's not worth losing your family over" (the truth). I thought that sounded ridiculous. How could I lose my family by telling the truth?

Never underestimate a cult.

If TSM believed at all, he wouldn't be driving around in a bulletproof Audi.

The Church isn't going to risk its empire by having a believer (who could turn after figuring out the scam) in the Q15. They're vetted in the quorum of the 70.

They are all true believers. That's why they were chosen by the
other true believers.

I have a bad habit of underestimating the human capacity for stupidity.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have a bad habit of underestimating the human
> capacity for stupidity.


Awesome statement, bradley.

If they do, they are even stupider than I think they are.

For my opinion, see my FAQ:
FAQ: "Do the leaders of the Mormon church know that their church is false?"

http://packham.n4m.org/know.htm

(short answer: they believe it's true because they cannot entertain the thought that it ISN'T true. They got their job by believing - or convincing those who "called" them that they believed.)

Richard,

I agree with you regarding the 'older' generation of GAs.

However, your statement "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" no longer applies IMO.

In the past they refused to look at, let alone acknowledge the evidence against. Now, with the internet and the feedback they have received, they know their truth claims are false. They now choose to believe, despite the incontrovertible evidence against them. This makes them deliberate deceivers IMO.

From my personal interaction with Monson, Hales and Holland they know it is false. They uphold it for business reasons (Monson) or vested interests (Hales and Holland). Oaks also falls into the category of deceiver.

Nelson probably fits into your category. How a heart surgeon can deny organic evolution by natural selection is unfathomable. Ballard is a salesman who tries to sell a product he knows to be dubious.

My dealings with Eyring in the 1980s suggested he was a true believer, but not now. He has vested interests. Uchtdorf is 'business minded' like Monson - doctrine has no real relevance to him.

I have only given these brief comments and opinions on those of the current 15 with whom I have had personal interaction. The more recent members are less known to me as I have been out of it for 14 years now.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 04:12AM by Tom Phillips.

Mr. Phillips/Mr. Packham

If possible, can you offer some specifics as to why you felt Hales, Monson and Holland are closet non-believers? The psychology of fraud for personal benefit-as I observe it- is a phenomena above the area or regional authority level. Why don't we see more disaffection and leaving at those levels or below? I admit just by reading this site there are bishops and stake presidents who have called it quits. Been in the church for greater than 50 years and just now am aware of the " lower levels" leaving.

Gatorman

and in my opinion he didn't react as a smug true believer would. He took the reporter's questions personally. He also seemed to realize the reporter wasn't fooled.

I've never seen any of the Brethren actually profess the "truth" of Mormonism in their limited public appearances. They know most people know it's fake.


Remember William Jennings Bryan in "Inherent The Wind?" Now that was a public profession of faith....

Tom Phillips Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My dealings with Eyring in the 1980s suggested he
> was a true believer, but not now.

Tom,

I can't comment on Eyring today since I haven't talked to him in almost fifty years, but I can state that when I ward clerked for him in the late 1960s when he served as Bishop of the Stanford Singles Ward there is no question in my mind that he was a true believer at that time.

I grew up in Salt Lake City in the 1950s and came to know many of the general authorities. The church was much smaller then and one of the twenty or so GAs always spoke at our quarterly stake conference. They were descendants of the early members like us and had grown up in the church. Many were blood relations who we knew before they were GAs. My mother's own cousin served as a GA for a number of years. We were all pretty much cut from the same cloth. Frankly, I can't think of any reason someone would have had for questioning the Mormon truth claims back then. As difficult it may seem now, they were simply accepted without question or doubt. There was only one version of church history and that was the one repeatedly told to us.

Joseph Fielding Smith, as church historian, kept all controversial church records and personal journals under lock and key. Even the apostles were denied access. The old anti-Mormon books were out of print and were very expensive or only available in a far off library somewhere. The original Book of Commandments wasn't even available so we had no way to know the original revelations had been changed. Fawn Brodie said that it was very difficult for her since important documents were spread all over the United States. Cheap photocopying was not yet available and Jerald Tanner still strongly believed in the Book of Mormon.

We were kept in a bubble since it was next to impossible to check out footnotes and many anti-Mormons (and pro-Mormons like Hugh Nibley) misquoted and/or misrepresented what the original sources actually stated. The church historians office refused to show me some documents claiming that handling them would destroy them since they were old and brittle. I learned some years later what I requested has been available on microfilm since the forties! It no longer mattered since I was well out of Mormonism by then and only served to confirm that I had been smart to get out when I did.

Templar,

That is why I give a pass to past GAs (SWK etc). Even Hal Eyring in the 1980s.

As you say, they were kept in a bubble. We all were. Now it is not the same, and the 15 are fully aware of the issues and the falsehoods. They are, therefore, choosing to be in denial (e.g. Nelson) or deliberate deceivers (e.g. Oaks and Holland).

IMO of course, but with compelling evidence.

Tom

I fully agree. There is just too much out there for any thinking Mormon (GA or otherwise) to avoid reaching the conclusion that the church is false. The BoA alone abundantly proves that fact and the failed BoM confirms it.

Doubting members are constantly coming to the GAs asking them to help them with their concerns. Any GA would soon realize that the only answer is that there is overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith simply made it all up. The apostles now emphasize that they are not special witnesses of Jesus Christ, but merely special witnesses of his NAME, whatever that is supposed to mean. Seems like a clear denial of testimony to me.

As of late, the church leaders don't even attempt to answer members questions and problems, they just shrug their shoulders and tell them to accept what they say on faith and pray away their doubts in the true nature of cults. The so-called "Swedish Rescue" is a prominent example of this. Similar "rescues" in Idaho and Arizona have been handled in much the same way.

I would expect the next step in the Mormon path to ruin is to emphasize the fraternal benefits of belonging to the church. The temple endowment has been so watered down that the early members would not even recognize it and Mormonism is no longer the path to eventual godhood which it proclaimed for over 180 years! One would guess that the purpose of the SA now is only to seal members to "be LIKE god" or "dwell WITH god".

What a travesty Mormonism has become. It's reached the point where only blind fools can actually embrace it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 10:51AM by Templar.

"It's reached the point where only blind fools can actually embrace it."

It has always been so. Always.

"The Prophet Of The Nineteenth Century"

https://archive.org/details/prophetofninetee00casw

What compelling evidence?

When the church was poorer, GAs left over even minor doctrinal issues.

Now that they're wealthy LD$, Inc, hardly any GAs leave.

Hmmmmmm. They say "money talks." But maybe it also shuts mouths tight.

Really impressive posts and enlightening even to a 70 year old. Keep the enlightenment coming....

Gatorman

Yes. A requirement for leadership is seeing with spiritual eyes. And spiritual eyes can see gold where regular ones can't.