I just got through listening to the Mormon Stories interview of Roger Hendrix, who was formerly a teacher in CES and a mission president among other positions with TSCC. Aside from John's penchant for asking long, rambling questions, the interview was interesting and I applaud Mr Hendrix for fighting through the fog, but I really don't get Mr. Hendrix.

Hendrix said that a few years ago he decided that TSCC was not true, that Joseph was not a prophet and the First Vision, Moroni and the other foundational stories are not true. Nevertheless, Hendrix said that Joseph had a great story that created a great religion and therefore Joseph was a great man! I don't get it. Simply put, it would have been more accurate if Hendrix would have more frankly stated that Joseph was a great liar,conman and sexual predator and that the Church has conned and brain washed millions of converts and members and especially children for 188 years with its lies, deceptions and cover ups. Does this make TSCC a great religion? Maybe it does. In fact, maybe that is exactly what "great" religions do. But, as Gordon Hinckley said, either the First Vision occurred and Joseph was a Prophet or it did not occur and TSCC is a massive fraud. It didn't and TSCC is. Why is Hendrix sugar coating it? I just don't get it.

Hendrix also said that he does not believe in a God that supervises the world as does the Mormon and Christian God. But, then he turned around and mildly stated that Joseph would be punished for the wrong things he did. What? If there is no God, who or what is going to punish Joseph? The Spaghetti Monster? I just don't get it.

Hendrix also said that he is not angry or bitter towards TSCC, as if that is a good thing. Wait a minute. He was conned and lied to for decades and as a result he (unknowingly?) conned and lied to probably thousands of people and that does not make him angry or bitter? I just don't get it.

Finally, Hendrix on more than one occasion went on at length in expressing his opinion that John Dehlin loves TSCC more than anything else on earth and the TSCC should reach out to John and welcome him back in the flock. What was the purpose of this? What did it have to do with the subject? Let me see-- there is no God, TSCC is false, TSCC has lied and lied and lied about its history and foundational truth claims and Joseph was not a Prophet, but nevertheless it's great that John still loves TSCC and he should go back into its welcoming arms (and start paying tithing again)? I'm not saying that Hendrix is a shill for TSCC in implicitly encouraging us to forget the fraud that TSCC is and go back, be obedient and pay our tithing, but I'm sure the Brethren would agree, especially to the tithing part. I just don't get it.

Mr. Hendrix is two-faced. Hendrix read Fawn Brodie's book "No Man Knows My History" in the early 1970s, and concluded it was true (i.e. Joseph Smith was a fraud). However, he stayed in the Church, and stayed working for CES. Why? I will tell you:

1) He enjoyed working for CES, and made money by it.

2) His wife was TBM, and if he left the Church, it would cause a divorce of at least massive friction in the marriage.

There are MANY such men in CES! Not a majority (yet), but many of them have no faith in JS or the Church. They have faith in an easy job, great retirement, lovely Mormon family, lovely Mormon wife, easy life. They want to keep it that way.

I don't know Hendrix from any other stranger I don't know. But I will tell you that it is no easy thing to be dependent on the Church Education System for a paycheck, health insurance, retirement savings, and then suddenly decide to quit.

I did it. It was traumatic and took guts, for my wife as well as me.

So I would not be so quick to think in only black and white terms - that he is a hypocrite for not quitting CES as soon as he stopped believing whole heartedly. Having been in his shoes, I can tell you that it takes a helluva lot more courage than you obviously realize.

It takes time to come to grips with you "not believing." And it takes time to determine what your strategy will be for leaving. Grant Palmer told me before he left (and I had left) that he wanted to retire and have a decent retirement savings and pension so he wouldn't be completely cut off because his beliefs so he laid low. He asked to be transferred to the Penitentiary where he could teach "Jesus" instead of strict Mormonism.

Different strokes for different folks. . . .

As I understand what Hendrix said, he has been a management consultant for over 30 years and has done very well financially so I doubt that it was the meager CES salary that kept him in the church.

I'm not in Hendrix's shoes, but I'd like to think that if I were I would be very sorry for my role in deceiving hundreds or thousands of people by perpetuating the Mormon con. I would also be very angry with the church for deceiving me and using me as a pawn in perpetuating the con unless I knew the church's truth claims were false all along and willingly participated in the con for some personal reason such as wanting to be part of an organization and culture that I enjoyed or for professional reasons. In that event, I would hope I would now be mortified at what I had done. In either event, I hope that I would not now speak in loving terms about the church, but would call a spade a spade and state publicly and repeatedly to as large an audience as I could that the church has been lying to and brain washing its members--especially its children---generations and that it is time the church told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth instead of its modified, limited Watergate style hangouts when the church is absolutely forced to do so. I would hope that I would also publicly apologize to those people that I had deceived, whether wittingly or unwittingly. Giving an interview to Mormon Stories is a start, but only a start

But, who knows, maybe I would value my own happiness and economic benefit over truth. Many tens of thousands of Mormons do.

1) Seminary teachers make slave wages, but NOT Institute Instructors. They make what professors at the nearest university makes. That's how the Church calculates their salary, by asking "What does a tenured full professor at the nearest college/university make?" He was director of the University of Southern California LDS Institute, so he made a GREAT salary. Make no bones about it. I was told what CES Institute instructors make by James Carver, at the Seattle Institute of Religion.

2) Poontang is a HUGE motivator. Most LDS males I knew, Poontang and Money were the two Great Motivators. His wife was LDS.

So, YES, I think he stayed in the LDS Church for Money and Poontang. "Financial Management" is about your clients TRUSTING you. Do you THINK his Mormon clients would trust him MORE or LESS if he was EX-LDS?????

Figure it out.


omyheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I understand what Hendrix said, he has been a
> management consultant for over 30 years and has
> done very well financially so I doubt that it was
> the meager CES salary that kept him in the
> church.
>
> I'm not in Hendrix's shoes, but I'd like to think
> that if I were I would be very sorry for my role
> in deceiving hundreds or thousands of people by
> perpetuating the Mormon con. I would also be very
> angry with the church for deceiving me and using
> me as a pawn in perpetuating the con unless I knew
> the church's truth claims were false all along and
> willingly participated in the con for some
> personal reason such as wanting to be part of an
> organization and culture that I enjoyed or for
> professional reasons. In that event, I would hope
> I would now be mortified at what I had done. In
> either event, I hope that I would not now speak in
> loving terms about the church, but would call a
> spade a spade and state publicly and repeatedly to
> as large an audience as I could that the church
> has been lying to and brain washing its
> members--especially its children---generations and
> that it is time the church told the truth, the
> whole truth and nothing but the truth instead of
> its modified, limited Watergate style hangouts
> when the church is absolutely forced to do so. I
> would hope that I would also publicly apologize to
> those people that I had deceived, whether
> wittingly or unwittingly. Giving an interview to
> Mormon Stories is a start, but only a start
>
> But, who knows, maybe I would value my own
> happiness and economic benefit over truth. Many
> tens of thousands of Mormons do.

Jim Carver, formerly of UW Institute was/is a friend of mine, and I doubt he told you what you report about LDS CES salaries.

You see I drew one of those salaries for 32 years. I know all about them. My salary did not change one penny based on my move from teaching RT Seminary (Principal), to Institute, and later to Institute Director.

Those salaries are not necessarily based on salaries of Universities adjacent to the Institute or even others in the same state. They are based on analysis by the Central office in Salt Lick City, and are handed to you on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. You sign your letter of appointment if you want to or not.

One more time. Institute salaries are not based on what the colleagues at universities make. Not even close. You're in over your head when you start pretending to know something about CES salaries. If you want more details and "real" insight into CES salaries then ask, and I'll tell you.

What are slave wages ?

Calling his wife pootang is odd as hell. I'm sure she has a name and is just a regular person, not a slutty piece of meat, as you imply.

Honestly, I don't know of any married couple is who is just in it for sex. Maybe you do, but thank god I don't associate with those people.

Your idea of a "great" salary is apparently far different than mine. Tell a University professor of religion that he or she makes a "great" income and you will most likely be met with stunned disbelief. I have to believe that the vast majority of his income came from his businesses. When you say he did it for"poontang" are you referring to his wife? Maybe he was scared of what she would do if he "came out", but I doubt it was because of hot "poontang." If being a true believer gets you hot "poontang", I think I have suddenly obtained a testimony. It's a miracle!

p.s.

Yes I think John Dehlin has a love/hate relationship with the Church; like a son of an abusive father who cries loudest at the father's funeral.

Roger Hendrix, in my humble opinion, is like Tom Ferguson, Hugh Nibley, and SCORES of other active Mormons who see the Church as a great social institution, and "who cares?" if it is true or not. To them, that is irrelevant. "Mormonism" to them means beautiful young women to have fun with before a mission, beautiful young woman to marry after a mission, making money with an EASY job (like CES...they don't shovel sh*t you know), good retirement. Easy life.

> Finally, Hendrix on more than one occasion went on
> at length in expressing his opinion that John
> Dehlin loves TSCC more than anything else on earth
> and the TSCC should reach out to John and welcome
> him back in the flock. What was the purpose of
> this? What did it have to do with the subject?
> Let me see-- there is no God, TSCC is false, TSCC
> has lied and lied and lied about its history and
> foundational truth claims and Joseph was not a
> Prophet, but nevertheless it's great that John
> still loves TSCC and he should go back into its
> welcoming arms (and start paying tithing again)?
> I'm not saying that Hendrix is a shill for TSCC in
> implicitly encouraging us to forget the fraud that
> TSCC is and go back, be obedient and pay our
> tithing, but I'm sure the Brethren would agree,
> especially to the tithing part. I just don't get
> it.

Having been raised three blocks from BYU, I can tell you that "beautiful young women" are far outnumbered by sweet spirits and most missionaries couldn't attract a beautiful woman if they invented the internet like Al Gore.

tell us more about Al Gore inventing the internet.

I saw him say on CNN. At the time I thought it was a really dumb claim to make even if he could back it up. Turned out I was right. It’s been a meme ever since.

Except that he didn't say it.

I think you are right. Many Mormon men have their cake and eat it too in the church. They get certain benefits from the mormon community but they know it's BS or really don't think all that much about it.

Many people don't leave because they don't want to rock the boat but they don't have any serious convictions that it's true.

Another outlandish assertion. Do you have proof that any of these people were sleeping around with Mormon women?

William Law Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another outlandish assertion. Do you have proof
> that any of these people were sleeping around with
> Mormon women

Having gone to BYU and living in an apartment where my roommates were more social Mormons than orthodox Mormons I saw there is a lot of sleeping around in the church. Maybe not so much with married couples but the college aged kids do.

What’s also interesting is LDS young adults have their sexual flings and then they become more serious Mormons as they marry and have kids.

I know plenty of serious Mormons who really sowed their oats at BYU. I know plenty who just it tired of the church. I would say it’s not so much about poontang or even money. It’s exploiting the advantages of the LDS community. It might be you do like the LDS girls that aren’t so TBM but they are willing to get naughty with you. You might enjoy the business contacts and social opportunities. I know people who love being active in well to do wards. It’s a social club and good for business. No way in hell would these people be happy in a ward full of poor people.

They are happy in the bubble and as long as you tell people what they want to hear, you are fine. In other words, the Mormon church can be enjoyable for a shallow person as long as they are getting some kind of benefit from it. That can be as simple as keeping the rich parents happy.

I watched a lot of the interviews, and am not sure why Roger is so church-friendly after knowing what he knows. The difference with him though, is he is going public. Even though he likes Mormonism he is speaking out about the church being a fraud.

It must have taken a lot of courage to come out the way he did. I don't know why he isn't angry about the deceit and lies, but at least he isn't pretending to believe. He went so far as to say that man created god, meaning, Roger is an atheist.

I give him credit for what he did, there are many shades of Mormonism, he is putting his opinions out there to be public. He doesn't believe in Mormonism but likes the culture. I don't know why else he stays in.

Roger is a cultural Mormon. I was the same. I think he’s grateful for the opportunities he got from the church. Sounds like he had an actual friendship with some of the church leaders.

Being a CES guy I think he appreciated the church helped some of the youth. I’m no fan of the church’s dishonesty but like Dehlin and Hendrix I do credit it for some of the management skills and people skills I learned and heck, I could have gotten into drugs real bad or something. So in that perspective the glass is half full with the church.

Anyways, Hendrix and Dehlin are both hoping the old out of touch church leadership will learn the hard way they are off track and make changes in the church. There is something in the church they still want to exist.

As for me I. Outdoor care less what happens to the church. I think they will find themselves in financial trouble again after the credit bubble pops and stocks and real estate tanks. I think all these temples they have built will become a liability as well. I think the church has hit the high water mark. I think we will start to see it shrink from now on. We will see lot’s of changes in everything. Not just the church.

So Joe Smith and TSCC are "Great".

So is the Great Salt Lake, but I wouldn't recommend swimming in it.

I recommend swimming in great salt lake. I had a great time doing it. It's weird to be able to float like that.

Sometimes, anger can be delayed. But I got the impression that Mr. Hendrix never believed in the church all that much anyway. It seemed to be about his personal progression.

In my own 40 year time of "belief" or "testimony" in the church, I had many glimpses, or moments of understanding, where I realized that some church truth claim or another sounded silly and not belief-worthy. But I quickly buried it. I wasn't ready to face the truth, that my life-raft was not sea-worthy.

When Dehlin kept asking about the disclosure of finances, Hendrix more or less kept saying "just like you don't want people to know your personal financial situation, the church also wants to keep its finances secret."

The church is not a person. People donate to the church and want to know what happens to the donations. Of course they should disclose. I thought his excuse and comparison with a persons finances was ridiculous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/28/2018 06:02PM by perky.

Good point Perky - That was my thought also.

I got the impression that he thrives on receiving recognition among his peers. Therefore, loyalty to the brethren and the mission of the church is his focus- grow the membership and grow the wealth.

I don't get the impression that he is so much concerned about what God thinks of him as his peers but if you don't really believe it that makes sense. The church culture, especially in the upper echelons, is the environment in which he thrives.

I'm sure he has many great qualities but doesn't seem to focus on the things Christ espoused; lifting up the hands that hang down, etc..

He is proof that the Mormon church provides an opportunity rich environment for involvement and growth for those who aspire to it but not so much for those who want complete honesty and truth to be their guide.

I appreciated Rogers honesty in regards to his beliefs about Religion, god and Mormonism being a creation of man. He is taking some risk in going on Mormon stories and admitting as much. I have to assume that part of his reason for continuing in the church is to be an agent of change from within.

He stated that he believes as humans evolved so did the concept of a god which enabled us to deal with the growing awareness of our own mortality. Therein lies the justification for what Joseph did in creating the church even if it isn't the truth. "The ends justifies the means" - a lie. We humans need a god to believe in.

I guess his vision is that the church will gradually evolve into a better more truth oriented organization over time. I believe that it may be better to scrap the church as the vehicle of progress for humanity because there is so much of its doctrine that would have to be scrapped not the least of which is its claim to being created by divine appointment. The belief that one man or a small group of men who speak for god can dictate what gods truth is to the rest of humanity leaves too much room for error to enter.

Also it's growth is greatly halted by so much information available detrimental to its truth claims and therefor its growth. It is irrefutable that religion has a remarkable ability to bring people together and unite them in a common cause and create community.

My belief is that our common interests, desire for progress and betterment alone need unite people. I believe that truth, whatever it reveals itself to be is not negotiable. We humans can believe whatever we choose but will always experience a consequence for not aligning ourselves with the truth in the end.

Felix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I got the impression that he thrives on receiving
> recognition among his peers. Therefore, loyalty to
> the brethren and the mission of the church is his
> focus- grow the membership and grow the wealth.
>
> I don't get the impression that he is so much
> concerned about what God thinks of him as his
> peers but if you don't really believe it that
> makes sense. The church culture, especially in the
> upper echelons, is the environment in which he
> thrives.
>
> I'm sure he has many great qualities but doesn't
> seem to focus on the things Christ espoused;
> lifting up the hands that hang down, etc..
>
> He is proof that the Mormon church provides an
> opportunity rich environment for involvement and
> growth for those who aspire to it but not so much
> for those who want complete honesty and truth to
> be their guide.


I appreciated him not wanting to have church courts on missionaries and was empathetic about what sending them home early; especially in Utah does to one’s reputation.

I think Roger is pretty materialistic and enjoys the moment. He’s a socializer and not really into the deep doctrine. I think he just happened to enjoy pursuing goals and objectives and enjoyed people he worked with in the church.

Since he has gay friends and worked with gays in LA the church being mean to gays was the breaking point. Seems lot’s of guests on Mormon stories have left the church to either being gay themselves or having gay family and friends. To them friendship and family mean more than their standing in the church.

Isn't he gay himself? Came to my mind when watching the videos.

I don't know about being a wolf in sheep's clothing, but I can say that I was a missionary under him and he was a grade AAA ass-hole. He was a high pressure sales pusher that only cared about numbers. We were to baptize at all costs. Many missionaries buckled under his pressure. Zone meetings were all about meeting goals and keeping our numbers up. Even as a TBM missionary, I hated the man. It is interesting seeing that dick talking so smugly to John.

Just about all Mission Presidents is about "numbers". Some are worse than others. Some "blink" when they hear their missionaries are fudging the numbers. I saw good "Elders" FUDGE their numbers all the time. ALL of my companions did except one. I never did. I was NEVER a Zone Leader, District Leader, senior companion. NEVER. Why? Because I never fudged the numbers.

The missionaries LIE to the Assistants. The Assitants LIE to the Mission President, and the Mission Presidents LIE to the Area Presidency, and the Area Presidency LIES to the Apostle over them. Everybody's happy. All is well in Zion!



Sperco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know about being a wolf in sheep's
> clothing, but I can say that I was a missionary
> under him and he was a grade AAA ass-hole. He was
> a high pressure sales pusher that only cared about
> numbers. We were to baptize at all costs. Many
> missionaries buckled under his pressure. Zone
> meetings were all about meeting goals and keeping
> our numbers up. Even as a TBM missionary, I hated
> the man. It is interesting seeing that dick
> talking so smugly to John.

It’s the church of lies. Lies are the fuel the church runs on.

Let me assure everyone reading this, and CES is full of Roger Hendrix'es (believe the Church is bogus but stay active for family and business reasons). BYU is even more full of them. Roger will NOT be excommunicated....because he is "faithful" (meeting attending/tithe paying). I really don't think the Brethren CARE that much anymore if you believe it or not. I think they CARE about ONE THING: the income stream! They are building a MASSIVE tax-free financial empire.

In the 1980s, if you believed in Adam-God, or if you were plowing your daughter at night, the Church EXED you and hit you with the door on the way out. NOW...not so. NOW...they first decide "Are you FAITHFUL?" (i.e. full and consistent tithe-payer) and "if" you are "FAITHFUL" they slap you on the wrist, say "No no, don't do it again" and shake your hand and keep it all quiet. THEY WANT THAT INCOME STREAM. That's it. The Church is a CORPORATION, that makes MONEY. Can't you SEE that?


Omyheck wrote:

Having been raised three blocks from BYU, I can tell you that "beautiful young women" are far outnumbered by sweet spirits and most missionaries couldn't attract a beautiful woman if they invented the internet like Al Gore."

Dear Omyheck,

I had a roommate who went to BYU for six years. He claimed during that time that "about 300" BYU girls gave him oral sex, over a period of six school years. Maybe he was exaggerating, but that is what he said. Not ONE of them was a "Sweet Spirit".

Beautiful girls at BYU do what beautiful girls all over the world do. If you gots the nicest horse, or the most cows, they'd gonna go after you. I have no doubt that Rich Mormon Males at BYU get more Mormon poon-tang than Huge Hefner at a pool party.

I know about the Sweet Spirits. BYU and the LDS Church is PLUMP FULL of them, for some reason. Those are the only Mormon girls who wanted to date me, which probably explains why I never married.

Was your roommate Wilt Chamberlain or Mark Hoffman?

I was in an apartment full of very fit jocks at BYU. It didn’t take long to discover there were plenty of girls at BYU who were willing to do something thrilling.

BYU was where I learned many people in the church just do what they want to do and really have no belief or take the church that seriously. They put on a show in public and do what they want in private.

I have not finished listening to the whole interview, but here are my initial thoughts with no opinions on Poon-tang or whatever.

1) Roger Hendricks seems to have grown up with a very different relationship to the LDS Church and its doctrine than most of us. John Dehlin did a good job of picking up on this and pointing it out to the audience. If one doesn't experience feeling out of sorts over not believing that the earth is 6,000 years old, doubting the accuracy of the Book of Mormon as history, or experience guilt over masturbation, then maybe you just don't get as angry at the LDS Corporation for its lies and other misdeeds.

2) The truthfulness of Joseph Smith's story doesn't seem to have ever been a question of much concern for him. Again, having grown up in the LDS Church in Utah the 1980's and 1990's, this blew my mind.

3) He seems to have gone a long way with the idea of progression and that "you don't have to believe anything that isn't true in this church." The former was an interesting approach, but doesn't bear much resemblance to day-to-day experiences of most LDS members. The latter was somewhat appealing to me, but ultimately unsustainable. You just can't go day after day hearing stuff in church that is flatly untrue with no ability to forthrightly and clearly respond to it without fear of church discipline, including excommunication, and think there's any substance to the idea that the church doesn't require you to believe anything that is untrue.

4) This is related to the previous point, but it's a commonality that I see among several other scholars on the margins of the LDS Church like Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, Greg Prince etc. They describe an alternative meta-narrative of Mormonism that is totally foreign to the experience of members. If you adopt their point of view, what do you do at church? At least before I left over a decade ago, it was still just a big McConkie/Fielding Smith doctrinal seminar every week. I have no reason to suspect that has changed. What are these scholars offering offering to doubting or skeptical members? Who can they talk to in their ward? There is no class that addresses these types of issues. In short, if you adopt these alternative approaches, so what? Your social environment remains a bunch of hard-core, anti-LGBT, prophet following, mind numb followers, who do what they are told--or at least try to--because it's purposely impossible to do it all.

Muddling through and waiting for the LDS Corporation to change is hopeless. Not because it's a certainty that the LDS Corp. will never change, but because one wastes so much time waiting for it to do so. It's about opportunity cost. What could I have been doing instead of jumping through LDS hoops?

At least Mormonism has the decency to punish you for your own bad taste in religions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/30/2019 11:07AM by babyloncansuckit.

I don’t know what world Hendrix lives in. TSCC is like being married to a psychotic high maintenance spouse. Maybe he’s overly nostalgic, but I know exactly why I left that crazy wench.

On those cold lonely nights it’s easy to remember the good old days, but I’m sure not hopping back in the sack with TSCC.

Durian fruit, especially the Vietnamese variety, is an expensive specialty food that some people really like. I can’t get past the smell. It was too much for even Anthony Bourdain. TSCC, the religious equivalent of durian, is an acquired taste. Maybe Roger likes it, but it stinks to high heaven.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2019 06:26AM by babyloncansuckit.