On one hand, the system selects for ultra compartmentalized thinking and Kool Aid intoxication.

On the other hand, the stakes are high enough that the top guys would be clued in early to avoid surprise apostasy issues.

I’m thinking that they know because there’s no attempt to clarify, update, or improve the basic doctrine. If anything, they dumb it down and make it more boring. To me this shows a basic contempt for believers. They could make it good if they cared to.

Or some of them believe but don’t get to be prophet. GBH? I don’t think so, but he put on a good show. Tommy? He loved the job and the church but believed “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Russell doesn’t believe that. Maybe he knows it’s broke.

Another reason I think they don’t believe is how their addiction to power overwhelms their responsibilities. No prophet ever abdicates when they’re too old for the job.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/09/2019 04:57AM by babyloncansuckit.

I bet at least some of them know, but have way too much to lose to come forward. (or so they think)

A lot of that written above could be true. I think however that they believe that what they decide as a group is gods will. They 'know' that what they decide as a group is what is 'true.'

Which is a strange thing to think that we can debate in a quorum and the consensus is Elohim's opinion too? And the more dominant personalities (the grizzly bear apostles) think they are closer to god than the rest, they are the more arrogant of the bunch. This creates a whole peculiar dynamic.

The boringness and repetitiveness of mormondom is the result of a combination of factors. One being that the GAs are trying to create a global church, so they are in process of getting rid or downplaying all the extra esoteric stuff such as pioneer history, Brigham Young, racism, polygamy.

The 2nd factor is that the junior GA's think it is their duty to be deferential to the senior statesmen. They'll take a bullet for the older guys. This creates a dynamic of beta males and things become stale.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A lot of that written above could be true. I think
> however that they believe that what they decide as
> a group is gods will. They 'know' that what they
> decide as a group is what is 'true.'

Your remark brings to mind AA's "Tradition #2." (The "12 Traditions" are the governing precepts for AA groups, just as the "12 Steps" are the program for individual recovery.

"Two – For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority – a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants, they do not govern."
>
> Which is a strange thing to think that we can
> debate in a quorum and the consensus is Elohim's
> opinion too? And the more dominant personalities
> (the grizzly bear apostles) think they are closer
> to god than the rest, they are the more arrogant
> of the bunch. This creates a whole peculiar
> dynamic.

If so, this is not very "peculiar." From playgrounds to board rooms, stronger personalities will seek dominance. It's human nature.

IMO, they all know the truth and know that once they are in, they are in; no turning back. Some of them probably find things out as soon as they are called to a position, like bishopric. My husbands' co worker/friend was made a bishop and 2 months into being the bishop, he stepped down and was out of the church. He told my husband that he was so angry about lied to about the church. Our SIL's brother was in a bishopric. As soon as he found out the truth, he stepped down, and now he and his wife and children are out. IMO,the leaders who have integrity get out and those don't, stay for the perks.

How many Cardinals of the Catholic Church believe in the infallibility of the Pope?

Did Billy Graham believe that the origin of his message was ghawd?

Did Ted Swaggert believe that he was called by ghawd to preach the gospel?

What motivated Mother Teresa?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
1)> How many Cardinals of the Catholic Church believe
> in the infallibility of the Pope?

RC doctrine is that the Pope is infallible only when speaking "ex cathedra," which is very rare. I believe the last time this occurred was 1854, when Piux IX declared, or affirmed, the "immaculate conception" (sinlessness from moment of conception) of Mary.
>
2)> Did Billy Graham believe that the origin of his
> message was ghawd?

I believe, or at least hope, that Graham believed the Gospel to originate with God, and himself as a messager (evangelist). See #4.
>
3)> Did Ted Swaggert believe that he was called by
> ghawd to preach the gospel?

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15). See also the Parable of the Tares & Wheat, Matthew 13:24-30.
>
4)> What motivated Mother Teresa?

"...for (God) knoweth the secrets of the heart" (Ps. 44:21b).

PS: I believe it's JIMMY Swaggart, and he's still goin' at it:

https://www.jsm.org/index.html

They all know darn well God has not communicated with them in any verifiable physical way except in their head and feelings.

At least JS lied and said God physically appeared to him. Even JS figured out anyone can say they are receiving messages from God and no one can dispute it. He tried to one-up that issue.

The gimmick of religion in general is to claim to know what God wants.

When I was at the MTC almost 40 years ago, I remember a GA coming to visit us for an ever so special witless talk and testiphony of Jeezus. He talked about being with "Elder McKonk-e-donkey" when his mother died, and how they were chatting away in some living room, when suddenly the departed mother of the GA appeared in the room, sitting dressed in white, next to Elder MCkonk-e-Donkey. She didn't say anything. It was a fireside of some sort, but she just smiled and nodded, etc. Even then, I thought, this sounds like pure unadulterated McKonk-e-Donkie bull shiz.

My point is, even if the GA were true blue when they became part of the illustrious Q15, they know that they witness NOTHING. No angels, no visions, no visits to the spirit prison, no glimpse of the Jeezus guy, no voice from Eloheim from Kolob, and no paranormal Mormon style activity of any means. What a mind blower this must be for them - an awakening - an epiphany if you will. I would imagine that they have to come to their own reckoning and self justification. Which is why I view them as fraction of men - little idy bidy turds at the bottom of the garbage pile of humanity.

"To me this shows a basic contempt for believers."

I don't think I've ever seen it to be so obvious as with Rusty and Wendy.

They know Rusty is God. There is no one else greater than Rusty.

My GA relative knew. He was in the First Presidency. He died when I was a teen-ager. (I was a BIC Mormon, until I became a single divorced mother.) Whenever I had a question about Mormon teachings, I would go to my relative--and he would answer my questions!

No--he never talked to Christ. He never saw Christ or angels or any apparitions. He never heard voices. He never had a direct revelation from God. None of the other presidency or apostles had any such experiences, either. He told me that they use their God-given intellect and wisdom.

He did not believe that Joseph Fielding Smith spoke for God. My relative was his cousin, and all their lives, he thought Fielding was sort of crazy, and full of himself. (For example, Fielding saying that man would never reach the moon.)

My GA relative opposed many of the reactionary, fundamentalist Mormon ideas. He was what would be considered a "liberal Mormon." He was a scholar, and didn't like the idea of oversimplifying the Gospel to accommodate the masses.

Even thought he was "liberal", sometimes, he would be very sad, to see Mormonism move its focus more and more towards big business. He would often get "out-voted", and the Big-15 would go in a different direction. In one instance, even the Prophet was overruled by the Quorum. I don't remember, but it was a business decision, but also a matter of values. In those days, I don't think The Prophet ever completely "ruled" the church, as Nelson seems to, now.

I know that my GA relative never believed that God commanded polygamy. He admitted that JS had faults. He had access to our Mormon ancestors' journals, and he knew everything I knew, from reading the journals. (These journals were later donated to the church, for safe-keeping, and have disappeared, completely!) He did not believe that polygamy was "God's way" for the hereafter, either. He reassured his wife that she would be the only one.

He had a fierce loyalty to the Prophet, and even when his health was failing, he would not quit working long, hard hours for the church.

I do believe that he kept working, until his death, out of love.
I believe that he honestly thought he was doing something good.

I believe that he was also motivated by the benefits his family received from the church. I still have some excellent stocks that he received from the church, which have doubled many times. I inherited some cash, which I put into an interest-bearing account, and later used to purchase my first house, and the next house, and the next. In this way, the church has provided part of the basis of my estate, even minus the 10% tithing. I was just one of about 150 relatives to inherit! That's a huge income!

My brother asked him how he could afford limousines, a mansion with servants, two cabins, boats, first-class flights all over the world, and cruises, if his church work was "unpaid." Our GA relative had quit his job around age 50. He answered, "Though I don't have a salary, per se, I'm paid in other ways." I suppose that explains his real estate investments, part ownerships of various businesses, positions on boards of directors, and all those valuable stocks.

Seeing first hand, and receiving first hand, it would be a great temptation to tell a few little fibs, and revise a few little snippets for history, and spin some scriptural interpretations, and leave out a few "not very useful" truths--for generations of great material "blessings"! Wow!

I'm sure my relative--a great speaker and a brilliant man--would have been able to justify all this, by telling himself the same fibs that his apostle peers were telling themselves and each others:

"We're working God's Plan, for the benefit of Mankind."

This self-delusion wipes out all the annoying, unimportant, contradictory, confusing factoids which are swirling around in their mental limbo. I don't think the Mormon leaders realize how much harm they are doing to others. They don't think of themselves as evil or even dishonest.

It's a mind game. It isn't insanity, because they know reality.

This was absolutely amazing...thank you for sharing such keen insight and experience. Do you agree that such sharing is cathartic? It really helps others who read. I am glad that you are out of the church (assuming) and living a full life.

But you are posting anonymously, which I understand. Your story will get much more traction if you can identify yourself, the GA, and other real persons.

This would make a powerful book. Give it some thought. You'd need legal and professional financial advice to protect your income and assets. You would have to think about the scandal, the shunning, the family controversy--count the cost, as the Biblical Jesus said. But the rewards would be psychologically and spiritually great.

Consider starting files, collecting journals, chatting family members about memories and things. Develop a timeline. "Scrivener" writing software is excellent for organizing your material and cross-indexing files, photos, internet links (such as newspaper archives), and so on. As the project develops, momentum and motivation may start carrying you. Think of it as your own spiritual genealogy.

Don't forget, a good book gets royalties!

And I don't blame her either. I'm fascinated and I tend to believe her. I think in the long term it is better for someone like her to keep her identity to herself as if she is attacked by members of the church or family, then others in her position won't feel like they can talk about it. I'd prefer to hear as many experiences from children and grandchildren of the mormon "elite" as we can.

Depends also on who you are in terms of your place in life at this time.

I agree with CL2...

Recall that I've dabbled in the fiction of GA-ism, with my two fables about good ol' Plutarch Grant Dollinger, who became the head cheese after Rusty and Rusty's replacement.

For Anonymous GA Royal Child to do a tell-all, she would be calling her relative a "liar". A TBM could never write such a tale. And so the content is immediately suspect on the part of TBMs. Especially when she has to admit that he was a good man, just misguided.

She could assign to him his refusal to see the harm he was doing but would have to admit that he was genuine in his desire to do whatever good he could.

Only an exmo could list all the 'nasty' things the GAs do and would have to admit that it's the natural result of having a mormon point of view. I think there would be very little interest in the content of the book. TBMs wouldn't buy it and exmos already know that GAs are just ordinary men.

The only result would be the desecration within Royal Child's family of an honored (even by the exmo relations) man's legacy; a man who was doing what he thought best. I think the self-inflicted personal injury, viz a viz the family, would far outway whatever monetary emoluments might result.

Everybody is misguided to his or her critics. Some people even thing I'm full of crap!! The horror!!!

There would be costs and risks, but also benefits.

Honesty is the best policy. RC seems to understand GA's humanity, his flaws and virtues. From her snapshot view, he strikes me as a basically good man who found himself entrapped in a complicated situation, which involved both risks and benefits. The trick would be to keep the focus on TSCC as an institution, and LDS as a belief system, and show how GA (and RC herself) navigated that, one to stay in, the other to exit.

May I repeat my suggestion for Royal Child: start collecting files, clippings, memories, and conversations. Develop a timeline. Think, remember, research, keep thinking. At a certain point, the material and motivation for a book gain critical mass, and she'll just have to write it. Once that happens, she can consult with agents, editors, ghost writers (if necessary), and, eventually, lawyers. The book would be a peak behind the curtain, and would definitely have a market. But we'll never know unless it's written!

everyone, but look what he lost. It sounds to me like this person doesn't need the money that maybe she could get from a book.

She has to weigh what her losses would be. It is one thing for me to tell people who I am. I was a "nothing" in the lds church. Nobody cares. Well, for the most part. I do have those who like to drive me nuts--but very few. I can say my name here on RfM, but many can't. Just like with my "divorce," I had NO IDEA what the fallout would be and it has been much more significant than I ever thought it would be. I was going to say the "bleeding" has stopped, but then I remembered my kids. I can't necessarily say it is just a divorce for them either. It is a whole new ballgame when your father is gay.

Agreed. We don't know the costs she faces but they could be prohibitively high.

I do hope Royal Child will consider my suggestion to begin collecting and organizing material. Maybe she'll never write it, but it would help her organize her thoughts and come to terms with issues. It could lead to smaller products, such as magazine articles.

I agree with that: collecting the materials for future use if occasion arises, even for donating to a library with a stipulation that for some set number of years the materials will be sealed. I have often suggested that we ex-Mos, no matter how humble our personal stories, should keep our journals and other memorabilia lest the church succeed in relegating our history to the memory hole.

I defer to the author (any author) if she has reasons to refrain from doing this, but in general we should do all we can to preserve the truth.

Even if Royal Child decides to keep her powder dry.

Thank you for chiming in.

I think they know, they just don't want to lose their

jobs by telling the truth. Its a cushy job.

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think they know, they just don't want to lose
> their
>
> jobs by telling the truth. Its a cushy job.

Absolutely!

All their temporal needs are met. All they have to do is their appointed jobs and keep their mouths shut. Not too stressful so long as cash and other church provided perks build a lofty shelf. The rest of us church peons didn't have such luxury and found ourselves worrying about paying our bills and then taking guilt from turning down church assignments because we didn't have the time.

Do they think god is directly running the church? Probably not, unless they see it as god running it through them. I think they know they are making the decisions...and its not because god is telling them what to do directly in no uncertain terms. This works because they decide what to do, then they ask god its OK, then they all get a warm fuzzy going, and poof! God is running the church.

Do they think they communicate with god. Probably yes. My ultra TBM dad thought he did. He truly though god heard his prays and he that he heard god "speak" to him with replies of great wisdom. However, when I would call him out on what was spoken, what he heard, it always fell back to "impressions" and if all else failed his testimony. I think they think they "talk" to god and god talks back in this manner. Plus it sells better if you say "the lord spoke unto me and said...." than saying "I had an impression..."

Combine this with the fact they are literally running a corporation rather than a church, and there's the bottom line to think about.....they know they have to keep it going for a living. That's a motivator to not give in to your doubts.

So ultimately, I think they know it isn't exactly what they make it appear to be to the members, but they believe its real in various ways which keeps them doing what they do.

I was going to say doing what they do best, but none of them are any good at what they do....hence the massive attrition.

I could give millions of reasons why they know but don’t tell. A GA’s Boner

BYU Boner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I could give millions of reasons why they know but
> don’t tell. A GA’s Boner

Or, "millions of dollars..."