Grant Palmer told us at the Exmormon Conference in October 2012 that he begged the GA’s not to excommunicate him for family reasons (no doubt would like to see his children and grandchildren married). He even promised to stop writing or responding to scholarly articles.
They excommunicated him anyway “as an example to others.”
Given the truth of the above, this reveals a shocking lack of moral conscience more reminiscent of a dictatorship than a religion based on the teachings of Jesus.
You wrote that "...this reveals a shocking lack of moral conscience more reminiscent of a dictatorship than a religion based on the teachings of Jesus."
That made me laugh so hard!
In the two decades since my brief entanglement with the Church, I have *never* even considered the possibility that Mormonism was "a religion based on the teachings of Jesus." The thought simply never crossed my mind (as funny as that may sound). Frankly, I'm shocked that anyone would even *suggest* such a thing!
The Church has, for most of its history except for the founding, been about the American West. Mormonism is a fascinating American frontier religion. I went into a Deseret bookstore with a friend in Phoenix once. He was incredulous that there were all sorts of books and paraphernalia about the early personalities in the Church, but scarecly a Bible--and certainly nothing about Jesus--to be found. I was at pains to explain that the Jesus story was entirely orthogonal to Mormonism. Mormonism has about as much in common with Christianity as Scientology does, if you listen to what people *actually* talk about: Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery, et al. (The mythical) Jesus was always talked about as a minor figure, if he was mentioned at all.
Of *course* Mormonism is a dictatorship. It never represented itself otherwise, in all fairness. The unspoken message was always consistent: "Obey, pray, and--most importantly, *pay*, or we will *nail* your ass!"
I still think I am going to see the church implode in my lifetime. This latest revelation (no pun intended) from Palmer just keeps feeding that idea. I think the church is going to look remarkably different in a few decades. Much of what remains of the mainstream religion I think will mostly exist in the Intermountain West as some sort of ethnic identity, like being Catholic.
I agree the church will have to undergo major changes (the lowering of the missionary age, a woman praying in Conference, etc. are only the beginning imo). They're recently re-released the scriptures and made a few changes too.
However, I don't think it will implode in our lifetime. Get smaller? Probably. But not completely disappear. It's almost impossible. I mean, there's people out there today that still worship Zeus and Poseidon.
I don't think that it's surprising at all that none of them believe in the founding claims of the Church. Everyone knows that Joey was a liar.
I think that the GA's interpret Mormonism symbolically to dissipate the cognitive dissonance. "Joey was a liar and slime ball, but God used him despite his flaws to communicate an *inner meaning* in the Book of Mormon, PoGP, D&C, etc."
The falsehood of the founding claims of the Church is not at *all* incompatible with the belief that the Church is (allegorically) true. It's just a matter of how you spin it.
so, it is not going to take church security long to find out who the GA and the ex Mission President are.
What do you think will happen to them?
I am thinking that the members 1st quorum of the 70 would generally be well aware of the million dollar award for apostles - that is quite likely part of its function. It would be a powerful performance incentive for them. Behave, and you have a 1 in 7 chance of making it big (maybe 1 in 10 given the apostles stay for life). Power AND money. Otherwise its emeritus status for you.
So the GA who has spoken to Grant Palmer is likely a man of principle who is truly trapped. He would have known he was rejecting any chance of apostleship when he arranged to meet GP. Security would have found out in the end.
I recall a talk that, IIRC, BKP gave about when he first became an apostle. He purchased a very very large house and the then prophet viewed the house and approved it before he purchased it. I always suspected the underlying story was that the house must have been purchased with a forgiveable loan. My suspicion was that apostles were 'bought' with forgiveable loans which might be called in if they apostatized. But outright massive gifts. Whew!
i hope we can keep this guys name under wraps, i wouldn't want him outed by the exmo community. i think he would be more use staying in than out.
Gay Philosopher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Church is going to *nail* the errant GA so > hard that the other GA's, and future GA's, won't > *dare* even *think* about doing anything like that > again. > > Mark my words: there will be utterly devastating > consequences to the GA for this. > > Steve
It's been reported that several decades ago, some of the General Authorities would privately go to Rulon Allred, previous leader to the Fundamentalist AUB group, to be sealed to plural wives. I don't think there have been any recently though. So some of them used to be closet fundamentalists. But I would think they are smarter than that now.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2013 02:46AM by DonQuijote.
Yeah, donquijote, there was a GA, actually I believe he was pres. of the quorum of 12, or near to it, who was exed for "adultery" during WW2. He had a long-standing relationship with a young lady not his wife. How he kept that secret from the others, I'll never know. Maybe some of them knew?
I suspect he was a closet polyg, likely sealed either in an LDS temple by a friend, or by a fundie HP. Thatcher, I believe his name was.
hello - that was Richard R. Lyman. His first wife decided after two children it was time to adopt celibacy. He was not in favor, so he took a second wife. This went on for many years until he was caught.
When a member of the seventy and a true believer is called to be an apostle, and some time later comes to the realization that the church isn't true, what must that be like for them? Is there some kind of professional vetting process done ahead of time to make sure they won't go postal? Is there some kind of threat of death?Does the money do all the convincing they need?
I certainly believe Grant Palmer's remarks for a number of reasons. He's a straight shooter. Have met him and seen what he's all about, and certainly as reliable source as I think one could hope for, he's calm and cool headed and highly intelligent. The other thing is that the 15, in their positions of "prophet seers and revelators" at some point must clue in that they have absolutely no contact with any supreme source any more than they did as a deacon. They receive no more revelation than the pope, or Billy Graham and certainly have no gift or power of translation or ever receive word for word revelations as did Joseph Smith. Plus the history of the restoration should be raise some red flags as well. The 15 aren't dumb. They're human. I just wonder what goes through their minds.
I can't for a moment think any of the top 15 don't at least have serious doubt's. They may bury them, but they are there none the less. If you think about it, what would be the one thing you would have to expect after being called as a prophet, seer and revelator as well as a "special" witness in (or of) Christ? If you didn't at least get an angelic visit you would have to think for at least a minute that it was all bullsh1t. Plus, what happens when your spiritual experiences are exactly the same when you are a special witness and revelator as they were when you were a deacon, or missionary, or elders quorom pres. Thats got to tip off any but the most deluded, mentally unstable type of person and I don't think they promote the mentall unstable because that in itself is a bigger danger than someone who just gets disappointed that they didn't see Jesus.
There are several reasons why I can't imagine many of them actually have strong testimonies. For one- just take a look at good old Tommy Monson. They HAVE to know that he is a mere prop at this point.
They know about the dwindling numbers. They know that the church is a multi billion dollar empire instead of an actual church. They know that the missionary program is just a way to entrench kids (and families, if they can get them to marry immediately) in the church.
So yes, I do believe most of them have a very good understanding that the church is a sham. How could they not?
For the GAs who stay in the church, many of them likely bought off by forgivable loans, there is one other area where corruption could be cut short if an issue is brought up and dealt with honestly. When a loan is forgiven, it becomes income by IRS standards for the one who's obligation to repay it was forgiven. It is irresponsible if not illegal that the church can give income to any GA without the GA having to pay taxes on that income like the rest of us have to do on our income. If the loan were to be repaid, the IRS would get their money from tax on the revenues that repaid the loan. The IRS could easily force payment of taxes in these cases if it's willing to pull the church's entire tax free status if they don't comply by either with-holding taxes up front on these loans, or paying the tax to the IRS from the church upon forgiving the loan. As a matter of right and wrong, if the church is giving out loans that they never intend to receive payment for, they should recognize up front that the taxes should be paid.