--Personal Breaking Points in Leaving the Mormon Church

Based on both my own individual experience and my general observation of others, it is clear that many individuals end up leaving Mormonism for a combination of reasons: personal, emotional and intellectual—-but that it is often the negative personal experiences that tend to crystallize, focus and propel them to take the final step of actually disassociating from the LDS Church.

These personal experiences can take many forms, including:

--marital stress with a TBM spouse or with other family members;

--the discovery of acts of hypocrisy or other inappropriate conduct by formerly trusted and respected Church members and/or leaders;

--a sense of personal betrayal or abusive treatment at the hands of Church authorities; and

--conflicts with Church leaders who misuse their authority in heavy-handed efforts to control one’s individual life and decisions.
_____


--My Intellectual Path Toward Jettisoning Mormonism

For years leading up to my ultimate decision to resign from Church membership, I had been actively investigating several basic issues of Mormon doctrine, history and practice, including:

--the "historicity" of the Books of Mormon and Abraham;

--the “translation” of the fraudulent Kinderhook Plates;

--the Masonic origins of the Mormon temple ceremony;

--the rewriting and altering of Mormon Church history;

--the question of consistency within Mormon doctrines;

--the racist and sexist teachings of Mormon scripture; and

--the reversal and denial of official Mormon teachings

The more I studied in these areas (reading many sources from both “pro” and “con” perspectives), the more I developed an intellectual resistance to, and eventual disbelief in, bedrock Mormon claims. In fact, I had reached the point of intellectual rejection of most of the above areas some time before I formally withdrew from the Mormon Church.

Devout Mormons who tried to persuade me to remain in the LDS Church would often tell me that I hadn't read enough "pro-Mormon" literature. My reply was that the apologetics produced by Mormonism's defenders simply could not stand up to the factual and historical rigor provided not only by honest non-Mormon critics but by honest Mormon historians. Therefore, the "equal-reading" plea was not applicable since the evidence against Mormon Church claims clearly out-weighed the arguments made by their faithful supporters.
_____


--Breaking from Activity

Even in the final stages of my growing intellectual disenchantment with Mormonism, I nonetheless remained active, as I struggled up to the last moment attempting to reconcile my growing doubts with my continued, but declining, activity.

Ultimately, however, the rift between the two became so wide that I found it necessary to put my Mormon Church participation on hold, without actually yet resigning my membership.

For instance, when I concluded that there was no other reasonable explanation to account for the obvious connection between the LDS temple rituals and the rites of Freemasonry, I stopped paying tithing, discontinued temple attendance and quit wearing the Mormon garments.

When I reached the point where I could no longer accept the Book of Mormon as an authentic historical document, I notified my bishop that I could not, in good conscience, continue teaching my Aaronic Priesthood class that it was a genuine ancient artifact. I did, however, offer to continue instructing the young men under my charge, on the condition that I be allowed to focus on issues of human character development and general moral behavior--but not on the Book of Mormon. My bishop found this offer unacceptable and released me.

I eventually discontinued my hometeaching duties and requested that the hometeachers assigned to our family stop making their monthly visits.

I turned down a calling from the stake president to be ward mission leader.

In short, I needed time and space to deal with the steadily growing gap between what I had been taught was true about Mormonism and what I was discovering was, in reality, false about Mormonism.
_____


--My Own Personal Experiences: The Basis for My Ultimate Break from Mormonism

As important as my intellectual awakening to the falsity of Mormon claims was to my eventual decision to leave the LDS Church, the most powerful influence in that ultimate decision took the form of personal experiences, from youth to adulthood, which served to raise growing doubts in my mind about the LDS Church’s claims to divine and singular authority over my life.

What made these personal experiences even more powerful to me in certain ways than the intellectual arguments was their direct and obvious effect on my individual life, as brought on by people I knew and had contact with in the Mormon Church--from family, to teachers, to Church leaders.

The cumulative effect of these personal experiences led me to make the final decision to leave the Mormon Church. The intellectual reasons served to reinforce and validate that decision.

What follows is a list of the personal experiences, in cumulative order, that formed the underpinnings for my decision to resign my membership in the Mormon Church. These included:

--the failure of a priesthood “healing” blessing, given to me as a young boy while hospitalized for pneumonia, to have any discernable effect on my recovery;

--the false promise made to me in my patriarchal blessing that I would return from my full-time mission to find things just about the way I left them. Contrary to the blessings assurances, my girlfriend, whom I wanted to marry, died barely six weeks into my mission. Within a year, several members of my LDS seminary class, along with their instructor, were killed or injured in a tornado while returning from a Church trip to Nauvoo;

--the failure of “the Spirit” to register positively when I heard a flamboyant youth fireside speaker reveal to us the Masonic origins of the Mormon temple ceremony (including garment wearing), even though many of my peers in attendance were moved to "Holy Ghost"-inspired tears;

--my family’s discouragement of me from making any public reference to struggles I had experienced on my mission with my own testimony, insisting to me that I, in fact, possessed a testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel and that it was my duty to set an example for others in the Mormon Church to follow;

--unjustified perks and privileges provided family members of high-ranking Mormon Church leaders, including free passes to General Conference that were expressly off-limits to non-family members; reserved seating in the Tabernacle for relatives of Mormon Church leaders; and access to special lunches for the kin of General Authorities during Conference proceedings;

--the effort of my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson (after being solicited to intervene by my parents), to stop my planned marriage. He did so by inappropriately invoking his authority as President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles in order to exact my compliance—-commanding me that I should defer to parental “inspiration” and seek family peace, rather than make my own decision on whom I should marry;

--the refusal of a trusted BYU professor to answer my growing doubts about Book of Mormon historicity, saying that I needed to put them on the shelf and accept LDS scriptures on faith;

--the on-the-spot demand of another BYU instructor (in a private interview into which he called me) that I bear him my testimony of the atoning sacrifice of the Savior (I felt intruded upon and left the encounter in tears);

--the efforts by my grandfather and other family members to stop me from completing an undergraduate BYU research paper on the Mormon Church’s official position on the theory of organic evolution, fearing that it would be critical of Mormon leadership and undermine faith and testimony in the Brethren;

--the refusal of Mormon Church leaders (including President Spencer W. Kimball, Apostles Bruce R. McConkie and Mark E. Petersen, Correlation Committee Director Roy Doxey, Kimball’s personal secretary Arthur Haycock and my grandfather Ezra Taft Benson) to give me direct and straight-forward answers to my questions on the subject of organic evolution; combined with the LDS Church’s refusal to honestly acknowledge to its members the actual history of the official LDS position on organic evolution on the grounds that to do so would be too controversial;

--the extremist political views personally conveyed in our home by my grandfather and other family members, including that the U.S. civil rights movement was Communist-inspired; that President Eisenhower himself may have been a Communist; that political liberals (such as LDS apostles Hugh B. Brown and Neal A. Maxwell) could not be good Church members; that the John Birch Society was the most effective organization (outside the Mormon Church) in fighting Communism; and that the Beatles were Kremlin understudies groomed to sow revolution in America;

--the attitude in certain quarters of the Benson family, conveyed to me as a 4th-grader on the day he was assassinated, that President John F. Kennedy deserved to be killed;

--the preaching of racist religious and political doctrines in my home and/or in the LDS Church—-including opposition to school integration; support of segregationist George Wallace’s presidential platform as being more in line with those of the Founders than that of either the Republican or Democratic parties; spiritual discrimination against those of African and Native American descent on the basis of their skin color supposedly indicating a sinful legacy; opposition to my participation in demonstration marches urging the passage of a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday in Arizona; and the refusal of the Mormon Church to officially endorse passage of a King holiday in Arizona;

--efforts by an anonymous Mormon Apostle, local Arizona LDS Church leaders and LDS political authorities to silence my Mormon-related public cartoon criticism of LDS governor Evan Mecham--including direct contact from the state regional representative of the LDS Church with me, a phone call to my stake president from H. Burke Peterson of the Presiding Bishopric and complaints from a Mormon state senator—-all which led to my eventual removal from the stake high council; this combined with efforts by local Mormon Mecham supporters to have me excommunicated for my opposition to Mecham, whom they claimed had been elected by God’s will;

--a warning from my hometeacher that if I did not stop asking critical questions about the Book of Abraham, I would be excommunicated;

--personal meetings with my stake president about my growing disillusionment with Mormon Church doctrines and practices, followed by his personal letters to me, in which he accused me of being consumed with pride and in the grip of Satan, and in which he also warned me to cease my public cartoon criticism of unequal treatment of women by the Mormon Church;

--criticism by a local Mormon male stake youth leader of my then-spouse's Sunday School lesson to a joint young men’s and young women’s class, in which she taught that during the last days of Jesus’ life, his female friends were more faithful and brave than were his own apostles (a criticism that was, in typical Mormon sexist fashion, relayed to me by the stake leader, rather than directly to Mary Ann);

--efforts by Mormon Church General Authorities and members of my own family to discourage me from speaking the truth about the LDS Church’s deliberate misrepresentations of my grandfather’s actual physical and mental health, combined with the threat from my own family that if I continued to speak out publicly about his health, I would be barred from seeing my grandfather; this last warning was issued to me in the name of protecting God’s prophet from enemies in the press (of which I happened to be a member); and, finally,

--admissions by LDS apostles Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks in private conversations with my former spouse and myself in their Church offices just prior to us leaving Mormonism, which included discussion of what they themselves regarded as problems with Book of Mormon historicity; failed prophecies of Mormon Church presidents; contradictory accounts of the First Vision; Joseph Smith’s inconsistent behavior in the wake of receiving the First Vision; difficulties with Smiths’ alleged Book of Abraham translation; the role of FARMS in protecting the Quorum of the Twelve from criticism; the actual means by which revelation is received by Mormon prophets; public lies made by Oaks about LDS apostle Boyd K. Packer’s inappropriate involvement in a Salt Lake City excommunication case; the nature of Maxwell’s and Oaks’ own testimonies of the Gospel; their obsessive concern for secrecy concerning our conversations with them; and their compulsion to pry into our personal lives regarding our individual worthiness to ask them questions in the first place.
_____


--Conclusion: Leaving the Mormon Church Because of Negative Personal Experiences, Not Merely Because of Intellectual Arguments

Many questioning Mormons harbor serious intellectual doubts about the claims of the LDS Church. These concerns are real, valid and substantial.

But it is often the grinding effect of jarring, personal, negative experiences in their own lives with Mormon Church authority, family pressure, leader and member hypocrisy, individual betrayal and a feeling of suffocating control that leads many of them to finally make their escape from the captivity of the Mormon gospel gulag.

That certainly was the case for me--and, judging from the wrenching personal stories many others have shared with me--also the case for many others.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2013 12:32PM by steve benson.

I'm so intrigued by your last reason for leaving.. what was the nature of Oaks and Maxwell's testimonies? They admitted that there were major problems but still believed? What lies did Oaks tell about Packer? I've always wondered what the higher ups think about all the history of the church.

In September 1993, I held private conversations behind the closed Salt Lake City LDS Church office doors of Maxwell, in which I asked both Maxwell and Oaks the following question:

"What personal spiritual experiences have you had which gave you your testimonies as special witness for Christ?"

In response, Oaks summoned up memories of his days as a college student at the University of Chicago. Back then, he said, he though he "knew a lot" about the gospel. He admitted, however, that he had "questions about the Church"--although he did not elaborate for us exactly what they might have been.

Oaks said a local LDS Institute teacher helped him work out the answers.

Maxwell hearkened back to his days as a boy, when he said he observed his father give a healing "priesthood blessing" to his sibling, whom Maxwell thought was dead.

This, was the sum total of their answers--answers that I did not need to travel 700 miles to Salt Lake to hear. I could have saved everyone a lot of time and trouble if I had just stayed home, gone to the next fast and testimony meeting at our local ward and listened to regular members bear personal witness to the same kind of experiences.

There was no testimony bearing from these modern-day Peters and Pauls of personal visits, in the Flesh, from the Father or the Son.

There was no telling of any "road to Damascus" story

There was no recounting of angelic visitations.

There was no description of rushing winds or flames of fire.

In short, there was "no there there."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2013 02:25AM by steve benson.

Paul Toscano, an outspoken support of independent thinking, served to expose the intellectual and moral dishonesty of Mormonism's highest leadership.

Moves by Mormonism's pyramid-perching leaders to discredit and discipline Toscano for his fiercely-individualistic views eventually led to the public disgracing of Oaks and Packer--men who, behind the scenes, had sought to have Toscano muzzled and humiliated, then lied on the record about their efforts to do so.

Oaks' and Packer' plottings against Toscano were ultimately unmasked within the larger context of the Mormon Church's 1993 crackdown on dissidents (notably, the so-called "September Six").

Oaks confessed his participation in the efforts to club and then conceal the ecclesiastical clubbing of Toscano in two private meetings I had with Oaks and his fellow apostle Neal Maxwell, in Maxwell's Church office during September 1993.

In those confidential meetings, Oaks confessed to the actual circumstances surrounding the excommunication of Toscano, then expected me to cover for him after he lied in public about what we had privately talked in this regard.

In an on-the-record interview with a newspaper reporter, Oaks blatantly misrepresented the truth about Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Toscano who, among other things, had caught the scornful attention of Church apostles by suggesting that Church members need not perpetuate a Cult of Personality by standing up when General Authorities walked into the room.

Oaks privately owned up that Packer had inappropriately injected himself into local Church action against Toscano--and, in the process, violated Church disciplinary procedures and opening the Church up to a possible lawsuit from Toscano.

Referring to Packer as the source of these headaches, a frustrated Oaks told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear." When subsequently asked by the media about rumors that Packer had worked behind the scenes to get Toscano excommunicated, Oaks claimed ignorance and denied that Packer could ever do such a thing.

Had I remained silent in the face of these lies, I would have been an accessory to Oaks' falsifications. Oaks had demanded that I not talk about the conversations we had about the Toscano/Packer affair. Oaks had then prevaricated on the record about what we discussed. Finally, once the cat was out of the bag, Oaks had expected me to cover his keister by covering my mouth.

A question I posed to Oaks and Maxwell concerned reports that Packer had been behind the excommunication of Toscano.

To understand the context of the question, it is necessary to review events at the time, as reported in the press.

Packer's suspected entanglement in the excommunication of Toscano became a subject of extensive media coverage in the fall of 1993.

Toscano was excommunicated from the Mormon Church on September 19,1993, "for writing and speaking publicly about church doctrine, feminism, the state of the faith's leadership and other issues."

At the stake high council disciplinary hearing that ultimately sealed his fate, attention was focused on a Sunstone symposium speech Toscano had recently delivered, entitled, "All Is Not Well in Zion: False Teachings of the True Church," in which Toscano was alleged to have made derogatory comments . . . about general authorities." ("LDS Apostle Denies Ordering Dissident's Excommunication," Associated Press, 11 October 1993, sec, D, p. 1ff; and "Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy," Sunstone, November 1993, p. 66).

With the Mormon Church having recently disciplined the infamous "September Six" for activities relating to scholarship and feminism, speculation was rampant that Packer had been "behind the church's recent crackdown on dissidents."

That assessment proved to be well-founded.

Five months earlier, Packer had warned a gathering of LDS bureaucrats that some Mormons "influenced by social and political unrest are being caught up and led away" by "the gay-lesbian movement, the feminist movement, as well as the ever-present challenge from the so-called scholars or intellectuals." ("Cartoonist Says Oaks Lied To Protect Fellow Apostle," Vern Anderson, Associated Press, in Salt Lake Tribune, 12 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff; and Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to the All-Church Coordinating Council," transcript, 18 May 1993, pp. 3, 4)

Packer, however, vehemently denied that he had been behind the banishment of Toscano.

Specifically, he insisted he had not directed Toscano's stake president, Kerry Heinz, to convene a disciplinary council against him.

While admitting to having met with Heinz to discuss Toscano, Packer assured the press, "We talked doctrine and philosophy. I absolutely did not instruct him to hold a disciplinary counsel and did not then, nor have I ever, directed any verdict. By church policy, that is left entirely to local leaders. When he [Heinz] left, I did not know what he would do." ("Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," Paul Brinkley-Rogers, The Arizona Republic, 10 October 1993, sec. A, p 1ff)

Packer further revealed to the Church-owned Deseret News that his decision to meet with Heinz had been made through a lower-ranking Church middleman.

Contrary to Oaks' claim to me in our September 24th meeting that Packer had independently strayed outside approved channels of authority, Packer insisted that, in fact, he had been advised by "the brethren" to meet with Toscano's stake president.

Said Packer, "Even though general authorities of the church are free to contact or respond to local leaders on any subject, I felt there may be some sensitivity about his request. The brethren felt I could not very well decline to see a stake president. I therefore consented." ("Packer Says He Was Concerned by Request for Meeting, But Apostles Endorsed It," Associated Press, in Salt Lake Tribune, 17 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff)

Toscano was not persuaded by Packer's explanations.

Reacting to Packer's admission of meeting with Heinz, Toscano said, "I knew all along that Boyd Packer was behind it. He's behind all this." ("Grandson of President Asks To Be Removed From LDS Church Rolls," Jennifer Skordas, Salt Lake Tribune, 11 October 1993, sec. D, p. 1ff)

In my meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, I specifically asked if Packer had, in fact, been involved behind the scenes in the excommunication process against Toscano.

Oaks confirmed that Packer had.

Oaks told me he was "distressed and astonished" over Packer's decision to meet with Heinz, even though he said Heinz was the one who had called Packer and asked "for the meeting." Oaks said it was "a mistake" on Packer's part to have agreed to meet with Heinz, the latter whom Oaks described as "an old seminary man." (Packer had come up with Heinz through the ranks of the Church education system).

Oaks told me that, by meeting with Heinz, Packer had gone outside the bounds of his assigned responsibility.

Oaks said one of his own areas of expertise was in legal affairs. Maxwell noted that one reason Oaks had been brought into the Quorum of the Twelve was to help rewrite the manual on Church disciplinary procedure.

Oaks expressed concern that Packer's involvement with Heinz might lead Toscano "to sue the Church" over violation of his ecclesiastical procedural rights.

In the end, Oaks, with a note of resignation in his voice, said of Packer, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."
_____


On the heels of my meetings with Oaks and Maxwell, I then accompanied Arizona Republic reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers to Salt Lake City in early October 1993 to assist him in making contacts with LDS leaders, spokesmen, educators and critics for a story on the recent purge of Church dissidents, notably, the "September Six."

On October 1st, Brinkley-Rogers met for a prearranged, on-the-record, taped Q&A session with Oaks in his Salt Lake City Church office to discuss, among other things, recent Church action against the dissenters.

I had not arranged the interview and did not join the reporter in it, as I did not think it would be appropriate for me to do so. Moreover, prior to the interview, I did not speak to Brinkley-Rogers about what Oaks and Maxwell had told me concerning the Packer/ Toscano matter in my meeting with them on September 24th.

At the conclusion of the interview, I picked Brinkley-Rogers up outside the Church Administration Building and asked how it went. He put the tape into the rental car cassette deck and pushed the "play" button. What I heard astounded--and angered-- me.

Much of what Oaks had dished up for public consumption directly contradicted what he had told me in private.

I was immediately aware of the bind that Oaks had put me in. He had lied to a reporter about events which he had described to me in much different terms. I had no choice but to tell the reporter at that point that Oaks was attempting to pull a fast one on him.

So, there in a rental car in Salt Lake City, for the first time, I revealed what Oaks had shared with me in our September 24th meeting, pointing out the contradictions to what I had just heard on the tape. (see "Cracks in the temple: Mormon unity in peril," Paul Brinkley-Rogers, Arizona Republic, 11 October 1993, sec. A, p. 1ff)
_____


During the next five days, I privately struggled with how to publicly deal with Oaks' blatant dishonesties. I was torn between remaining quiet (thereby preserving a confidentiality agreement) or setting the record straight (thereby exposing Oaks' act of calculated deception). I spoke at length with my wife, friends, and colleagues--seeking advice and weighing my options.

I wish I could say it was an easy decision--that I saw the road brightly ahead of me from the moment I was confronted with Oaks' deceit--but that was not the case. I was troubled and, frankly, even a bit frightened by the possible consequences of speaking out. I did not relish the prospect of being accused of breaking a promise; at the same time, I could not stand by silently, given what I knew.

Most of all, I resented the fact that Oaks had put me in this position in the first place.

I finally decided to follow my gut--and my conscience. Oaks' misrepresentations--indeed, his out-and-out lies--prompted me to fax him a letter a few days after the interview. It read as follows:

"6 October 1993
Elder Dallin Oaks
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

"Dear Elder Oaks:

"I wish to share with you my concerns relative to our private conversation in the office of Elder Maxwell on September 24th, in relation to your subsequent comments to Arizona Republic reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers on October 1st."

"In our September 24th meeting, I asked you if Kerry Heinz, Paul Toscano's stake president, had had any contact with, or received any instruction from, Elder Boyd K. Packer during the time leading up to Paul Toscano's excommunication. According to my notes taken during our discussion, you acknowledged that Elder Packer met with President Heinz prior to the rendering of judgment by the stake disciplinary council. You said that President Heinz was 'an old seminary man' and friend of Elder Packer during their days together in the church seminary system and that President Heinz 'called and asked for a meeting' with Elder Packer."

"You told me that you were 'distressed and astonished' that Elder Packer met with President Heinz. Referring to Elder Packer, you observed that 'you can't stage manage a grizzly bear.' You opined that 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting."

"You further acknowledged that you later talked directly to Elder Packer and told him that you felt it was wrong and violated church disciplinary procedure for Elder Packer to have been in contact with President Heinz. You said that Elder Packer had no authority or responsibility to participate in such contact and you told me that you strongly urged Elder Packer not to engage in such contact in the future. You added that you fully expected Paul Toscano 'to sue' the church over this breach of procedural authority. "

"In contrast to what you told me in private, your public statements concerning the Toscano excommunication process and any participation of Elder Packer in it presented a far different picture. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers asked you: 'In the case of Toscano . . . do you have any evidence that Elder Packer [was] involved in any way in the decision-making process in the disciplining of [him]?"

"You responded: 'As for Elder Packer, Elder Packer does not have a specific responsibility for any area in the church . . . So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz, it is outside the normal channel. That's all I can say. I have no knowledge of whether he did. But if he, and if he gave a directed verdict or anything like that, that is contrary to policy, it is irregular and it's contrary to what I know of Elder Packer and the way he operates. Elder Packer is not the least bit inclined to shrink from saying things like in the talk you saw [to the All-Church Coordinating Council, 18 May 1993]. He is a forthright, plain-spoken man, but Elder Packer is far too sophisticated and sensitive a man to call a stake president and tell him what he has to do in a church discipline case. I just don't believe that. What's possible is that a stake president might think he had heard such a thing; nobody can dismiss that possibility . . . that kind of slippage happens in communication. But Elder Packer has no, Elder [Loren C.] Dunn has a natural communications link, though an outdated one; Elder Packer does not. So, that's all I know about that at this point."

"Frankly, I find the differences between what you told me and what you told the press to be irreconcilable and ethically troubling. First, by couching your answer to the question of Elder Packer's conversation with President Heinz in the hypothetical, you falsely imply, it seems to me, that you do not know whether he did talk with President Heinz. Second, contrary to what you told me, you explicitly said to the reporter that, in fact, you were not aware if any conversations took place between Elder Packer and President Heinz. Third, your assertion that for Elder Packer to have talked with President Heinz goes against your knowledge of Elder Packer's modus operandi is contradicted by your admission to me that you knew that Elder Packer had talked to him and that you later talked with Elder Packer about it. Fourth, your blanket denial of knowing anything beyond what you told the reporter is completely undermined, I feel, by what you told me."

"In other words, you have told the truth in private about the Packer-Heinz meeting, while denying the truth in public."

"When you asked that I keep our conversation confidential, I assumed that anything you might subsequently say for the record on the matter would be at least honest, if not complete. However, what you said in public varies significantly from the facts as you laid them out to me. It appears that you have asked me not to publicly divulge our conversation in your hope that my initial agreement to remain silent would keep the accuracy of your public utterances from being challenged."

"I have concluded that to remain silent is unacceptable. It would be a cowardly and dishonest act. It would be analogous to having an individual come to me and say, 'Just between us, I killed my wife,' then turn around and tell the press that the next-door neighbor did it. I would have the clear moral obligation to set the record straight, since refusal to act would do violence to the truth and make me an accessory to the crime."

"I will not be a party to a cover-up. Your request for confidentiality, I believe, has been superceded by the fact that you have lied in public, contrary to the facts as you know them, and that your hope of confidentiality rests on maintaining the deception. It has been observed that 'a lie is like a blanket of snow. It may cover unpleasantness for a time but, sooner or later, must melt, exposing that which was hidden."

"To participate in this fraud would only serve to erode trust and destroy relationships."

"I would hope that you would feel it right to publicly set the record straight. Mr. Brinkley-Rogers' phone number is 602-271-8137. If you choose not to do so within the next 24 hours, I will have no choice but to undertake that obligation myself."

Sincerely,

[signed]

"Steve Benson"
_____


Hell hath no fury like a cover blown.

Oaks responded quickly, calling my home the same afternoon he received the fax, in an attempt to reach me. Our daughter, Audrey--six years old at the time--answered the phone, as Mary Ann simultaneously picked up the line on the other end and listened.

"Is your father there?" asked Oaks, in a stern, angry voice.

"No," Audrey replied meekly, "He's at work."
_____


Oaks did not have my office phone number but he had the reporter's, since I had given it to him. (Oaks needed to do his explaining to the person he had lied to in the interview, not to me).

Oaks left a message with Brinkley-Rogers, who returned the call that evening, reaching Oaks at home through the Church switchboard operator (CSO).

Below is the full transcript of the ensuing conversation between Oaks (O) and Brinkley-Rogers (BR), taped by Brinkley-Rogers (which he later allowed me to audio-copy and which copy is currently in my possession). It is reported here with permission of Brinkley-Rogers.

CSO (choir music in the background): "LDS Church Offices."

BR: "Yes, good evening. Uh, this is Paul Brinkley-Rogers calling from Phoenix."

CSO: "Yes."

BR: "Concerning Dallin Oaks' call. He asked me to call the switchboard."

CSO: "Yes. Just a moment, please, while I"--

BR: "Thank you. Thanks a lot."

CSO: "Go ahead, please."

BR: "Thank you."

O: "Hello, Mr. Brinkley-Rogers."

BR: "Good evening, Mr. Oaks. How are you?"

O: "Thanks for calling back."

BR: "Well, thanks for calling me."

O: "Let me put the robe on and go in another room, where I can be comfortable."

BR: "OK, sure."

O: "Thank you for calling back."

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "Somebody has called me a liar and I don't like to (inaudible) to that on a charge like that."

BR: "Oh, all right. How did that happen?"

O: "Uh, well, let me explain. I received a very disturbing letter from Steve Benson."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "He compares what I said to him in a confidential setting, relating to Church issues, with a transcript of the interview that I had with you"--

BR: "Yes."

O: --"and accused me of lying."

BR: "Hmm."

O: "And I'm a truthful man and I care for my integrity and, uh, and I, I take no, uh, no little, uh, concern for something like this."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "Before I talk with you about it, let me ask you a question"--

BR: "Sure."

O: --"so you'll understand why I need to ask that before I speak about this."

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "What I would like to know is the relationship between you and Steve Benson in this matter. Specifically, was Steve on a reconnaissance for you when he asked about two weeks ago for a Church interview and came into an interview, in an ecclesiastical setting, which is the occasion of this comparison?"

BR: "No, I, I had no idea that he even did that."

O: "I didn't think so."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "Uh, let me ask a follow-up question."

BR: "Sure."

O: "Uh, is, are you involved in any kind of an effort that Steve is now making to extort information from me--and I use the word 'extort,' uh"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"advisedly."

BR: "Yeah."

O: --"to extort information from me in behalf of you?"

BR: "No. I'm not aware of any such thing."

O: "Now, he had, the reason I had to ask that is that he had the manuscript that was our interview."

BR: "Yeah."

O: "And he was comparing that with notes he'd made earlier when he had a conversation"--

BR: "Oh, I see. No, I played the tape for Steve of, uh, our interview, you know, after the interview and I noticed that he looked sort of surprised by it."

O: "OK, well, then, I, I take that at face value."

BR: "All right."

O: "And, and you, what I'm going to tell you why, I, uh, oh, why I was aroused by this."

BR: "Uh-huh."

O: "Now, I assume, as I told you at the time, that you're a professional journalist"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "I assume, I take The Arizona Republic at, at face value. Uh, uh, it seems to me like it's been very professional and, and I deal with you in that light."

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "And I assume that neither you nor The Republic want to be used in Steve's grievances against, and controversies with, his Church"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"that are rather considerable, uh, uh, controversy with his Church."

BR: "Uh-huh."

O: "I was trying to do, to deal with that in having a confidential interview with him."

BR: "OK."

O: "And now he, he has drawn in this letter to me, he's drawn these two things together"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "And I'd rather deal with you separately"--

BR: "You mean this conversation with you, uh, compared"--

O: "His conversation with me"--

BR: --"compared with the tape?"

O: "Compared with the tape, and that's, uh, what I'd like to do, is deal separately with you."

BR: "OK."

O: "And I assume that you don't want to get involved with Steve's controversies with his Church."

BR: "No."

O: "I assume that that's part of your professional approach to this and if I, if I can deal separately with you, independent of Steve Benson"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"then it's, then it's much easier for me to (inaudible) my problems."

BR: "All right, so let's go ahead on that basis."

O: "OK, good. Now, when (cough) I received this letter from Steve, which was, uh, a very accusatory letter"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"and, uh, I presume that you don't know about its contents"--

BR: "Right."

O: "But when I received this letter, which I did this afternoon about 5 o'clock"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"I got the transcript out and reviewed it very carefully, the transcript of my interview with you."

BR: "Yeah."

O: "When I did that, I saw one sentence in my interview with you--and only one sentence--that I would say overstated the truth."

BR: "OK."

O: "And that sentence I want to correct."

BR: "All right, sir. Fine."

O: "And I am sorry for it, but in a, in a, our, our interview was 60 minutes long and, you know, I was shooting from the hip (inaudible) along"--

BR: "Yeah."

O: --"and it was one of those things, which called to my attention, is inaccurate and I want to correct it."

BR: "All right."

O: "The, the, the only thing I can see that I want to correct."

BR: "OK, sir."

O: "And this is a, is a, uh, oh, about one-fourth of the circumstances that, uh, that, uh, Steve cites in his letter, because I looked, uh, I looked at the others and, and, uh, I think that, uh, I, I don't, uh, feel any necessity under my commitment to integrity to make any change in what I said."

BR: "OK."

O: "But in this one instance, I do."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "The sentence is, is toward the end of the interview."

BR: "Yeah."

O: "It is the, the last paragraph of the interview."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "I'm looking at the transcript that was made from the recording when made here."

BR: "Yup."

O: "It's, uh, it's in this talk about the Kerry Heinz matter"--

BR: "All right."

O: "And the sentence is this, about having a conversation: 'So, if Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz'"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"'it is outside the normal channel'"--

BR: "Yeah."

O: --"'that's all I can say. I have not'–"my transcript says that. It must be 'no'"–'I have no knowledge of whether he did.'"

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "That's the sentence that should be stricken."

BR: "OK."

O: "If you'd just strike out, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"then I'll stand by the transcript of things that I said to you, but that statement, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did'"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"was, uh, as I looked back on the transcript, I think that's inaccurate and I want to withdraw that."

BR: "All right. Now, um, I guess my question is, do, do you have knowledge that he did that, in that case?"

O: "Now"--

BR: "Is that what we're getting to here?"

O: "Let me just, uh, let me just say this"--

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "Uh (clears throat), when I met with Steve Benson"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"Uh, I was trying to help Steve Benson in a matter, a Church matter, that does not concern the subject of our interview."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "In the course of doing that, I spoke to him confidentially and in a privileged relationship"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"and, uh, I think his letter and the things he says in his letter, abuse that privileged relationship, uh, in a really, uh, well, I'll stop there."

BR: "OK."

O: "And, and I, uh, [Steve] also says some things in his letter which he may share with you, I don't know"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "But he, he claims to have notes of things that I've said in the, in the conversation with him"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "I don't affirm his notes."

BR: "OK."

O: "If he shows you a copy of his letter"--

BR: "Uh-huh."

O: --"I certainly don't affirm his notes"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"and I'm not either admitting or denying things that I, I was speaking there in a privileged relationship and I don't think that it's fair for Steve, uh, nor is it fair for me"--

BR: "Yup."

O: --"to go into a privileged relationship"--

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: --"and for me to affirm or deny his notes, so I, I simply stand silent on what he claims took place"--

BR: "Right."

O: --"in a privileged conversation and, as a journalist, you'd understand the privilege."

BR: "Uh-huh."

O: "I think his notes are quite self-serving, but that's, that's simply my, my perspective."

BR: "OK."

O: "But what I am saying is that I just don't choose to go, uh, I don't choose to be–what's the word I'm looking for?–leveraged"--

BR: "Hmm."

O: --"into saying anything more than I said to you in the interview by Steve Benson's use of privileged information."

BR: "Hmm-mm."

O: "So, to answer your question, I'd say that I just don't choose to affirm or deny."

BR: "OK."

O: "But I do wish to withdraw a sentence which, as I read it on the transcript, is inaccurate."

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "So, I, if you will do me the favor of striking out that, you do whatever you want with what remains."

BR: "All right, sir."

O: "And I'm glad to defend whatever remains, but I cannot defend that sentence."

BR: "All right. Well, it's clear to me."

O: "All right. And I appreciate that and I appreciate the opportunity of being able to speak to you as a, on a professional basis and I, I must tell you that I make this phone call because it distresses me when somebody claims that I lie."

BR: "All right. Well, all right."

O: "Because I don't do that."

BR: "OK, sir."

O: "Well, I appreciate the opportunity to visit with you and thank you for calling."

BR: "Thanks for calling me."

O: "OK."

BR: "Bye-bye."

O: "Bye-bye."
_____


I was not immediately informed by the reporter of the details of the above conversation, being initially told only that Oaks had called to clarify the record. Assuming (as it turned out, naively) that Oaks had come completely clean, I faxed him a letter the next day, which read:

"7 October 1993
Elder Dallin Oaks
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

"PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: SECOND TRANSMISSION"

"Dear Elder Oaks:

"I want to personally thank you for calling the Arizona Republic reporter, Mr. Brinkley-Rogers, to clarify your earlier statements.

"May I emphasize that I came to you with no hidden agenda. My sincerity of motive, I believe, was evidenced by the fact that, given the problem I faced with reconciling your public and private comments, an opportunity was provided for you to set the record straight.

"Again, thank you.

"Regards,

[signed]

"Steve Benson"

I had spoken too soon.

When Brinkley-Rogers permitted me to listen to the full tape of the phone conversation between himself and Oaks, I realized I had been duped. Oaks had not come close to coming clean, as I had hoped and expected he would. His apology was cagey, hesitant, defensive and limited. He had lied by omission and commission, but somehow had talked himself into believing he had done the right thing. Moreover, Oaks' subsequent statements to the press in ensuing days were far from forthright.

I was not about to sit by and let him get away with it.

I went to the press, laid out the entire story and submitted my letter of resignation from the Mormon Church.

In the meantime, Oaks was dribbling out half-hearted confessions. Five days after the phone conversation with the Arizona Republic reporter, Oaks publicly admitted that he had not been truthful about his knowledge of Packer's involvement in the Toscano episode.

In an Associated Press wire-story appearing October 12th in The Salt Lake Tribune, veteran Utah reporter Vern Anderson wrote:

"Elder Oaks admitted late Monday he 'could not defend the truthfulness of one of the statements' about Packer, who is considered by many to be behind the church's recent crackdown on dissidents . . .

"Oaks told Arizona Republic reporter Paul Brinkley-Rogers on Oct. 1 that he had 'no knowledge' of whether Packer had met with Kerry Heinz, the local ecclesiastical leader for Salt lake lawyer Paul Toscano, before Heinz excommunicated Toscano on Sept. 19. Toscano was cited by Heinz, his stake president, for criticizing church leaders and acting contrary to the role and order of the church.

"However, in a 'personal and confidential' letter to Oaks on Oct. 6, Benson reminded the apostle that in a private meeting Sept. 24, Oaks had told Benson he was 'distressed and astonished' that Packer had met with Heinz.

"He quoted Oaks as saying of Packer, 'You can't stage manage a grizzly bear,' and added that 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting.'

"Benson also wrote that Oaks 'further acknowledged that you later talked directly to Elder Packer and told him that you felt it was wrong and violated church disciplinary procedure for Elder Packer to have been in contact with President Heinz.'

"Benson said he was making his letter to Oaks public because he was fed up with church leaders shading the truth. Last summer, he criticized the faith's hierarchy for claiming his 94-year-old grandfather was still involved in important church decisions.

"In an interview Monday evening, Oaks declined to confirm or deny most of Benson's assertions about a pair of private interviews the church prophet's grandson had in September with Oaks and Elder Neal Maxwell, another member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, a body that advises the church's presidency.

"However, Oaks, a former Utah Supreme Court justice, acknowledged that his single statement to reporter Brinkley-Rogers about having no knowledge of the Packer-Heinz meeting was one 'I could not defend. It was not a truthful statement.'

"Benson's letter to Oaks had warned the apostle that unless he set the record straight, Benson would feel under no obligation to honor the promise of confidentiality he had earlier given Oaks and Maxwell.

"Oaks called the Republic's reporter that night and retracted the 'I have no knowledge of whether he [Packer] did' statement. The Republic's story, minus the statement, appeared Sunday. It quoted Packer as admitting he had met with Heinz about Toscano's case, but he denied having pressured the stake president to excommunicate Toscano.

"Oaks did not retract other statements in the interview with Brinkley-Rogers that Benson had alleged--and Oaks denies--were false or deliberately misleading. Nevertheless, Benson faxed Oaks another letter Oct. 7 thanking him for having called Brinkley-Rogers to 'clarify your earlier statements.'

"Oaks said he had assumed by Benson's second letter that he was satisfied. He stressed that Benson at least three times had assured him and Maxwell that their meetings--initiated by a kindly letter to Benson from Maxwell–were confidential and would never be publicly discussed.

'I think that Steve Benson is just going to have to carry the responsibility for whatever he relates about a confidential meeting,' Oaks said.

"Benson said he felt acutely the moral dilemma of having promised confidentiality, but then having seen deliberate efforts to mislead the public about Packer's role in the Toscano affair. 'I had to decide to be a party to the cover-up or be faithful to my own convictions,' Benson said. 'I had to let Elder Oaks walk a plank of his own making.'

"Toscano, who is appealing his excommunication, said he loves the church, but doesn't confuse it with 'individual leaders who are kind of running amok in a vacuum.'

"He said that if Ezra Taft Benson were capable of managing the church today, his eldest grandson's plea would not have gone unheeded." ("Cartoonist Says Oaks Lied To Protect Fellow Apostle," Vern Anderson, Associated Press, in Salt Lake Tribune, 12 October 1993, sec. B, p. 1ff)

By now the fireworks were lighting up the Temple Square skyline. Rather than agitate Oaks even more, however, I tried a softer, more conciliatory approach--even as I again chided him for refusing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God.

In "an open letter" dated October 15, 1993, I wrote:

"Dear Elder Oaks:

"Given the events of recent days, I feel it important to communicate to you the reasons why I believed it necessary to speak openly about our conversations concerning the Packer-Heinz-Toscano affair.

"I understand your displeasure with the fact than an agreement of confidentiality was abrogated. I also understand your reasons for being upset that I went public after having expressed appreciation for your calling the press in an effort to clarify your earlier statements.

"Yet, even in your subsequent revision, you did not correct what I believe to have been other deliberate misrepresentations. I could not, therefore, in good conscience, let them remain unchallenged, when both you and I knew better. You were provided with an opportunity to set the record straight completely. You chose only to correct one of the three falsehoods. I do not consider myself responsible for your decisions not to be fully honest.

"As I noted in earlier correspondence, I feel you lost the benefit of confidentiality when you knowingly dissembled in public about what you told me in private. In so doing, I feel you violated the trust and faith between not only you and me, but between the church leadership and the members at large. I therefore felt it my moral obligation to break the silence that otherwise would have served only to perpetuate falsehood and false faith.

"I have done so because I see so many people in the church hurting under the crushing heel of ecclesiastical abuse. It is time to lift the heel and start to heal.

"The scriptures tell of another apostle--a man of God and servant of the Master who, because of weakness and pressure--also lied three times. Yet, he admitted his mistakes, repented of them and became not only one of the Lord's mightiest witnesses, but an example to the rest of us imperfect souls of what It means to be honest and true in Christ.

"You now have the opportunity to shine your light in the darkness and warm us all through your spiritual courage. Please use the purity of your spirit, intellect and testimony to help us heal together.

"Sincerely,

[Signed]

"Steve Benson"

I didn't hear back from Oaks, except when I read what he was now saying to the press.

Oaks next went to the Church-owned Deseret News to air his grievances. On October 16, 1993, the following article appeared:

"Sitting in his office in the LDS Church administration building, Elder Dallin H. Oaks carefully reads a news report that says he admitted to 'falsely telling' a journalist he had no knowledge of an event involving the excommunication of a church member.

"'Life isn't fair,' Elder Oaks said. 'Somebody said that time heals all wounds. But it's also true that time wounds all heels.' he added in jest.

"But in a serious tone, Elder Oaks, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' Council of the Twelve, said he feels 'wounded' by an Associated Press story that he said dwelled on his admission that he made a statement he couldn't defend, and downplayed his efforts to promptly correct his unintentional error.

"'It impugned my integrity and seriously distorted the account of the facts as it was presented,' Oaks said in an interview this week.

"The apostle said he didn't willfully mislead a news reporter. He explained that he had misspoken during an hour-long interview and when he was notified of that he called the reporter to retract a 'statement I could not defend.'

"The story was published four days later in the Arizona Republic newspaper, without the statement.

"Meanwhile, in Phoenix, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Steve Benson expressed frustration over what he sees as high-ranking church officials twisting the truth and deceiving members.

"'I'm tired of playing this little game,' he said in a phone interview from his office at The Arizona Republic. 'The church needs to respect its members . . . It wants to muzzle its members.'

"Benson, a sixth-generation Mormon and grandson of church President Ezra Taft Benson, wants no longer to be a 'muzzled' member. On Sunday he announced he had requested his name be removed from the rolls of the Mormon Church. The next day, he disclosed to the Associated Press details of confidential conversations and correspondence between him and Elder Oaks.

"The subsequent news story published locally in Tuesday's Salt Lake Tribune was the latest episode in a saga surrounding recent disciplinary action taken against six prominent Mormon scholars and feminists. Five of them--one who was disfellowshipped and four who were excommunicated--said they were disciplined for apostasy and are victims of an orchestrated purge.

"Earlier this month, Elder Oaks spoke with an Arizona Republic reporter about the recent string of disciplinary councils. During the interview, they discussed whether Elder Boyd K. Packer, also a member of the Council of the Twelve, talked with local stake president Kerry Heinz, who later presided over a disciplinary council that excommunicated church critic Paul Toscano.

"In the interview, Elder Oaks said he had no knowledge of whether Elder Packer met with the stake president. According to The Arizona Republic story, Elder Oaks also said that if Elder Packer told the stake president what action to take against a church member, it would violate church policy and 'be contrary to what I know about Elder Packer and the way he operates.'

"Benson claimed that Elder Oaks told him a different story during their confidential discussions held two weeks earlier. Benson would not say why he had a private talk with Elder Oaks. But he said that during their talk Elder Oaks disclosed that Elder Packer and Heinz were old friends who did get together at Heinz's request and that such a meeting was a mistake.

"Benson added that Elder Oaks referred to Elder Packer when saying, 'You can't stage manage a grizzly bear.'

"Oaks declined to discuss what Benson said took place in their private discussion. 'Even though I could defend myself by affirming or denying those things, I don't feel free' to do that without violating a pledge of confidentiality, he said.

"The dispute over what Elder Packer said in a meeting with Heinz has attracted news media attention because some of those disciplined and their supporters had claimed Elder Packer was personally conducting a crackdown on church dissidents.

"In a statement issued Friday, Elder Packer said, 'In late June, President Kerry Heinz asked his regional representative if he could arrange an appointment with me. We had served together in the seminary program 35 years ago.'

"'Even though general authorities of the church are free to contact or respond to local leaders on any subject, I felt there may be some sensitivity about this request,' Elder Packer said. 'I, therefore, in a meeting of the Council of the Twelve Apostles raised the question of whether I should see him. The brethren felt I could not very well decline to see a stake president.

"'I therefore consented but asked President Heinz if he would feel all right about his file leader, President Loren Dunn, being present. He readily agreed,' Elder Packer said. The meeting was held Sunday, July 11, 1993.

"'We talked doctrine and philosophy,' Elder Packer said. 'I absolutely did not instruct him to hold a disciplinary council and did not then, nor have I ever, directed any verdict. By church policy that is left entirely to local leaders. When he left, I did not know what he would do.'

"In his interview with the Deseret News, Benson said what Elder Oaks told him didn't square with what was said to the reporter. So he transmitted a confidential letter to Elder Oaks pointing that out. Benson said he also warned that if the apostle did not 'set the record straight' he would no longer feel obligated to keep their discussion confidential.

"After receiving the letter, Elder Oaks said, he reviewed the transcript of his interview with the reporter and found he couldn't defend his comment about having no knowledge of Packer meeting with Heinz.

"'How do you make a statement like that? I can't give any better explanation than the fact that I was talking a mile a minute and I just said something that on mature reflection I (concluded), "I can't defend the truthfulness of that,"' Elder Oaks said. But he let his other statements stand 'because I could defend those,' he said.

"While Elder Oaks said he was glad to correct his misstatement, he didn't like Benson's methods. 'He has taken a confidential meeting where he had repeatedly assured me that he would never speak of subjects we were discussing . . . and now he has written me a letter using that confidential meeting to pressure me. And I deeply resent that.'

"Benson said he had no hidden agenda to corner a church authority. He said he wrote Elder Oaks before the story ran, thanking him for retracting a statement and explaining his intention was to give Elder Oaks a chance to set the record straight.

"But after later learning that Elder Oaks left intact the other comments that troubled Benson, Benson said he followed through on his threat to go public.

"In a followup letter transmitted Friday to Elder Oaks explaining why he decided to speak openly about their confidential conversations, Benson said, 'I feel you violated the trust and faith between not only you and me, but between the church leadership and the members at large. I therefore felt it my moral obligation to break the silence that otherwise would have served only to perpetuate falsehood and false faith.'" ("Elder Oaks says news story 'seriously distorted' facts, LDS apostle calls his error unintentional. (Cartoonist says church twists truth," Matthew S. Brown, The Deseret News, 16 October 1993, sec. A, p. 1ff)
_____


Oaks next turned to the Salt Lake Tribune, to further defend his honor. In a highly unusual commentary written for that newspaper, published on October 21, 1993, he declared:

"On October 12, 16, and 17, the Salt Lake Tribune gave prominent and extensive coverage to wire-service stories on cartoonist Steve Benson's charges that I 'lied' to an Arizona Republic reporter in an interview on current controversies over church discipline. I have no desire to prolong this controversy, but feel it necessary to set the record straight on some important matters omitted or obscured in this attack upon my integrity.

"My dictionary defines lying as being 'deliberately untruthful' and a 'lie' as 'a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive.' I did not 'lie' to the reporter and, contrary to the wire-service story printed in the October 16 Tribune, I did not 'admit' to 'falsely telling' the reporter something that was untrue.

"I withdrew one sentence I had spoken in a long interview, and I did so three days before the article was published because I realized when I saw the written transcript, that this single sentence was not 'truthful'(meaning 'accurate' or 'correct'). When a newspaper publishes something that it later realizes to have been incorrect, does it apologize to its readers for 'lying' or does it just print a correction? My statement to the reporter was corrected before it was published.

"The sequence and timing of various events is important.

"On Sept. 9 Elder Neal A. Maxwell and I met with Steve and Mary Ann Benson for about two and one-half hours to discuss their questions. Because he was a newspaperman, we sought and he gave solemn assurances that our discussions would be confidential. We continue to honor that confidence.

"On Sept. 10, Steve Benson wrote us a letter expressing gratitude for 'being able to talk freely in an atmosphere of trust,' reaffirming his commitment to 'honor completely the confidentiality of our conversation, in not speaking, or even alluding to, for the record anything said by either of you,' and asking for another meeting to deal with 'some follow-up questions.'

"On Sept. 24, we met again with Steve Benson for about an hour and a half.

"On Oct. 1, a reporter for the Arizona Republic interviewed me for about an hour on a wide variety of subjects pertaining to current controversies over church discipline. Though Steve Benson works for this paper, he did not arrange this interview and was not included in it.

"At about 4:30 p.m. on October 6, I received a 'personal and confidential' letter from Steve Benson. Relying on his personal notes of our confidential conversations, he charged that I had 'lied in public' in my interview with the reporter and stated that unless I 'publicly set the record straight' by calling the reporter within 24 hours, he would do so himself.

"I immediately studied the lengthy transcript of the Oct. 1 interview (16 pages single-spaced), received the previous day. I was distressed to find one statement to the reporter I could see was not accurate ('I have no knowledge of whether he did'). I am sure I did not speak that sentence with intent to deceive, but whether it was an inadvertence or a result of forgetfulness in the context of a long and far-reaching interview, I cannot be sure. But the important thing was that I could recognize that this sentence was not correct. (Three other statements challenged by Steve Benson required no correction.)

"That same evening (Oct. 1) I reached the reporter, advised him of the circumstances, and asked to withdraw the single sentence. He agreed.

"On Oct. 7, I received another 'personal and confidential' letter from Steve Benson thanking me for calling the reporter 'to clarify your earlier statements.' His letter did not even hint that he thought further clarifications were necessary.

"The Arizona Republic article appeared on Oct. 10. It made no mention of the sentence I had withdrawn. There was also a separate story about Steve Benson and his wife seeking to have their names removed from the records of the Church.

"On Oct. 11, Steve Benson sent a copy of his 'personal and confidential' letters of Oct. 6 and 7 to the Associated Press in Salt Lake City. He also gave TV and radio interviews on this subject.

"In summary, when I found that I could not defend the correctness of one brief sentence in a long interview, I immediately contacted the reporter and withdrew that sentence, doing so more than three days before the story was scheduled for publication. When the publication honored that correction and made no comment on it, Steve Benson accused me of lying in public and participating in a cover-up, and the wire-service coverage of this episode has inaccurately portrayed me as deliberately making false statements in public.

"My perception of this matter is simple. I have been the victim of double-decker deceit: 1. betrayal of promises of confidentiality, and 2. false accusation of lying.

"My heart goes out to all who have suffered from this painful sequence of events." ("Oaks: 'I've Been A Victim of Double-Decker Deceit," Dallin Oaks, Salt Lake Tribune, 21 October 1993, sec. A, p. 19)
_____


Faced with Oaks' full-court press aimed at damage control, I determined it was time to push back. Four days after Oaks' article appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune, my own commentary followed in the same newspaper, giving a somewhat different perspective on events:

"Mormons are admonished to be honest. Unfortunately, Apostle Dallin Oaks chooses to deny important truths relating to Elder Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Paul Toscano.

"On Sept. 9 I met with Elders Oaks and Maxwell. In a Sept. 10 letter, I promised them I would not speak on the record about the contents of that meeting. I have kept that pledge.

"On Sept. 24, we met again and confidentially discussed the Toscano excommunication. Confidentiality agreements are valid only when the parties involved remind truthful, whether publicly or privately. Oaks broke that ground rule, thereby releasing me from any obligation of silence in the Toscano cover up. All else on that date has remained confidential.

"In that meeting, I asked Oaks if Kerry Heinz, Toscano's stake president, had any contact with Boyd K. Packer prior to Toscano's excommunication.

"According to my notes taken during the meeting, Oaks admitted that Heinz 'called and asked for a meeting' with Packer. Oaks said he was 'distressed and astonished' that Packer agreed to the meeting. Referring to Packer, he said, 'You can't stage manage a grizzly bear.' He said that 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting.'

"(One wonders why the conflict between Oaks' surprise over the Packer-Heinz meeting and Packer's public statement that the Twelve authorized that meeting.)

"Oaks said he later talked with Packer and told him he felt Packer had violated procedure by meeting with Heinz, noting that Packer had no authority or responsibility in this area. He said he strongly urged Packer to avoid future such meetings, adding the he expected Toscano 'to sue the church.'

"On Oct. 1 an Arizona Republic reporter asked Oaks if Packer was 'involved in any way' in the disciplining of Toscano.

"Oaks replied: '. . . If Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz, it s outside the normal channel . . . I have no knowledge of whether he did. But if he did, and if he gave a directed verdict . . . that is contrary to policy . . . and it's contrary to what I know of Elder Packer and the way he operates . . . So, that's all I know about that at this point.'

"Oaks' answer contained several clear-cut falsehoods which point to a larger pattern of deception.

"First, by couching the Packer-Heinz meeting hypothetically, he falsely implied personal ignorance of whether it occurred. Oaks left this on the record.

"Second, Oaks said he had no knowledge that Packer met with Heinz.

"Commendably, Oaks later retracted this statement.

"Third, Oaks claimed that if Packer met with Heinz, it ran contrary to Oaks' knowledge of how Packer operated. Oaks left this on the record.

"Finally, Oaks claimed he knew nothing more. He left this falsehood on the record.

"Upon hearing Oaks' attempted cover for Packer, I was dismayed and faxed Oaks a letter on Oct. 6, detailing what he told me on Sept. 24, juxtaposed against what he told the reporter on Oct. 1. I highlighted his false on-the-record statements, so that there could be no misunderstanding.

"I informed him that our confidentiality agreement was void and offered him 24 hours to set the record straight, advising him that if he did not, I would.

"It is critical to understand that Oaks did not initiate any corrections for the record. Only after receiving my Oct. 6 letter did he contact the reporter to issue a limited retraction.

"Initially, I was pleased to hear from the reporter that Oaks had corrected himself. On Oct. 7, I faxed him a second letter, thanking him for taking the opportunity to clarify his earlier statements.

"That thank-you note proved to be premature, because I was unaware at the time I wrote it that Oaks had not retracted all his falsehoods. Upon discovering that he had left most of them intact, I concluded he had been provided ample opportunity to set the record straight and had not.

"When Oaks chose to publicly dissemble, he violated my trust and that of the church at large. May his heart go out, not only in love, but in reconciliation, to those who have suffered from this abuse of ecclesiastical power."

("Benson Replies, Charges Oaks With Dissembling," Steve Benson, Salt Lake Tribune, 25 October 1993, sec. A, p. 5)
_____


Oaks also took his "Battle of Wounded Me" to the Brigham Young University campus, where attention focused on keeping the hearts and minds of the rising generation in line.

The same day his defensive commentary ran in The Salt Lake Tribune, it also appeared up in the Church-owned campus newspaper, The Daily Universe. ("News reports distorted facts, Elder Oaks Says," Dallin Oaks, the Daily Universe, 25 October 1993, p. 3)

In the interest of equal time, I contacted the Universe and requested that my response to Oaks (the one also originally printed in The Salt Lake Tribune) also be published in the B.Y.U. student newspaper.

I was told by a Universe faculty adviser that Oaks' version of events had been published in the Universe at the direct request of the First Presidency.

He further informed me that the school paper was already having problems "up the road" with the Church. He said that if The Universe printed my reply, "the General Authorities might shut us down."

It was becoming clear that if Church members were going to get the truth on this messy affair, they couldn't depend on the Church for help.

I turned to an off-campus, supposedly independent student publication, Student Review, and spoke with its student editor, requesting that he publish a letter to the editor from me about the controversy. The editor replied that if the Review published my piece, it would be perceived as being a critic of the Church and "lose advertisers."

Still holding out hope, however, I faxed a cover letter, along with the letter to the editor, to Student Review, wishing for a change of heart. The cover letter read:

"October 29, 1993
TO: Brian Waterman
FROM: Steve Benson
RE: publishing the attached letter in Student Review

"Dear Brian:

"Thanks for the opportunity to talk with you yesterday. I appreciated your explanation of the current situation with Student Review. I sincerely hope that arrangements can be made to publish my letter in your paper.

"It would be unfortunate if the letter is killed for fear that your publication would somehow be considered 'anti-church' or that it would be bad for business. Truth is ultimately our best defense and the best way of doing business. Shying away from forthrightly informing readers on matters of public importance only guarantees that wrongs will be perpetrated and, in the long run, serves only to hurt the church.

"I would not object to having Elder Oaks' version of the events printed alongside my letter. In fact, that format might provide the best opportunity for readers to determine for themselves the facts of the case.

"Thanks for your consideration.

"Sincerely,

[signed]

"Steve Benson"

The accompanying letter to the editor read, in part, as follows:

"On October 25, the Daily Universe, reportedly acting on a request from the office of the First Presidency, published an article by Elder Dallin Oaks, claiming recent news reports had falsely accused him of lying about Elder Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Paul Toscano and alleging that I had broken a confidence in making that charge.

"In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I requested that The Universe provide me an opportunity to reply. That request was denied.

"The reason given by Universe staff was that opinions contrary to that of Elder Oaks would not see print, because of expected opposition from Salt Lake. Fear was expressed that if the Universe published contrary to the wishes of the Brethren, it might be shut down.

"Given these unfortunate circumstances, I approached Student Review, hoping that fuller access to the facts would allow readers to make informed and intelligent judgments.

"Those facts are as follows [the letter then covered ground already noted above, with these additional observations]:

"On Oct. 1, Elder Oaks gave a carefully-worded, tape-recorded interview to The Arizona Republic, where he was asked if Elder Packer was 'involved in any way' in the disciplining of Paul Toscano.

"Elder Oaks now admits that one of his answers to the reporter was untrue but blames it on 'inadvertence' or 'forgetfulness.' He insists that other challenged statements he made 'required no correction.'

"These explanations are simply not persuasive. Four of his on-the-record answers are quoted below, paired with contrary facts he provided me in the Sept. 24 meeting, during which I took notes. Examined together, they point to a deliberate pattern of deception.

"First, by framing his answer in the hypothetical, Elder Oaks falsely implied that he did not know whether Elder Packer had talked with Paul Toscano's stake president, Kerry Heinz. He told the reporter, 'If Elder Packer is having any conversation with Kerry Heinz, it is outside the normal channel.'

"In truth, Elder Oaks acknowledged to me that they had met, saying President Heinz 'called and asked for a meeting' with Elder Packer.

"Second, Elder Oaks falsely claimed ignorance of whether Elder Packer conversed with President Heinz. He told the reporter, 'I have no knowledge of whether he did.'

"In reality, Elder Oaks did know the discussion took place--as evidenced by the fact that he later retracted this statement.

"Third, Elder Oaks misleadingly insisted that for Elder Packer to have had contact with President Heinz ran counter to Elder Oaks' personal knowledge of both Elder Packer and his approach. He told the reporter, 'If he did . . . it's contrary to what I know of Elder Packer and the way he operates.'

"In actuality, Elder Oaks knew how Elder Packer operated and did not like what he saw. Speaking of Elder Packer, he told me, 'You can't stage manage a grizzly bear.' He said he was 'distressed and astonished' that Elder Packer met with President Heinz, noting 'it was a mistake for Packer to meet with Heinz and a mistake for Heinz to ask for the meeting.'

"(Elder Oaks may want to explain the contradiction between his claim of being surprised by the Packer-Heinz meeting and Elder Packer's claim that the Twelve gave prior approval for that meeting).

"Elder Oaks also told me he later spoke directly with Elder Packer, advising him that Elder Packer's meeting with President Heinz violated disciplinary procedure and that Elder Packer had no authority or responsibility in this area. He said he strongly urged Elder Packer to avoid such meetings in the future and admitted he expected Paul Toscano 'to sue the church' (This also contradicts Elder Packer's claim of prior approval).

"Fourth, Elder Oaks summarized his knowledge of the Packer-Heinz-Toscano case by once again falsely pleading ignorance. He told the reporter, 'So, that's all I know about that at this point.'

"As he admitted earlier to me, he clearly knew more . . .

"In conclusion, while Elder Oaks portrays himself as an innocent victim in this regrettable affair, he has (1) admitted privately the facts concerning the Packer-Heinz-Toscano case, (2) falsified publicly about those facts, (3) retracted one of his untrue statements under threat of exposure and (4) refused to disclaim other statements of his that are demonstrably untrue.

"This dispute has been a painful one. It could, and should have been avoided if Elder Oaks had originally told the truth . . .

"Steve Benson"

The letter was not published.
_____


Finally, I turned to Provo's community newspaper, The Daily Herald, hoping for a sympathetic ear. To the credit of its editor (who happened to be Catholic), the paper published the letter to the editor that Student Review would not touch, along with the following "Editor's note":

"News stories earlier this month dealt with the resignation from the LDS Church of Arizona Republic political cartoonist Steve Benson. Benson is a grandson of LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson.

"Following Benson's resignation from the LDS Church, he made charges that LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks was less than truthful in some statements made concerning Apostle Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Mormon dissenter Paul Toscano. There were several Associated Press wire stories detailing Benson's allegations and responses from Oaks.

"On Saturday, the Daily Herald printed, on the front page, the complete text of a letter from Oaks explaining his position and actions on the matters. On Sunday, Benson called this paper's managing editor at his home and requested the opportunity to respond to Oaks' letter. Benson's response follows."

("Benson responds to Oaks' letter," Steve Benson, The Daily Herald, 26 October 1993, sec. A, p. 1ff)

The above is an extensive account of events involving the Toscano-Packer-Heinz-Oaks affair. If only Oaks had told the truth, it would have been a lot shorter.

Mark Twain once observed, "Truth is the most valuable thing we have. Let us economize it."

Twain's words would be an appropriate replacement for the Mormon motto: "The glory of God is intelligence."

The whole thing is shocking, but I find the fact that Oaks was asked to be in the Quorum because of his legal expertise especially disgusting considering they claim inspiration.

You hit the ball right out of the park on this . It's almost like the entire membership has some sort of communicable disease with universal symptoms suffered by all . Everything you quoted fits in my personal experience to a tee . They have all penetrated into the forest too far to see the trees. It's truly a sad statement .

All I can say is this level of memory and record keeping blows my mind. Too bad for the church I wasn't the grandson. "What did grandpa's friend say? I don't remember, I had a tune running thru my head."

Who needs google glasses?!

lol - that is me too.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 04:16AM by steve benson.

I like the phrase "developed an intellectual resistance." That is such a good way to describe what happens over time as you study. Pretty soon you just can't stand feeling so stupid anymore.

+1

You have always been very detailed and concise in your posts here, but this one really hit home with me. I believe my process was reversed from yours - the emotional and interpersonal discord occurred first and served on the impetus for re-investigating the history of TSCC. Discovering the details and lies of church history with the shambles left from everything that happened before was the end of my involvement.

Thanks for a great post.

Steve I always appreciate when you share your personal observations and experiences. I would say you have done more to undermine and undercut the LDS religion then js and the modern day profits have done to perpetrate it...That is a pretty awesome legacy. Thanks for sharing. I know with your family ties that can not always be easy. You have endured a lot I'm sure!

You've pretty much nailed it on the head for me, Steve. I went inactive in the Mormon church because of a public humiliation (a common cult technique) that was - obviously - incredibly unacceptable.

I always thought I would return at some point to a different ward and continue being a Mormon. As the months turned into years and I still hadn't bothered going, I realized I didn't miss it one bit.

Later on, I did the intellectual studying on the subject and realized the church was false in every way.

In the end, I probably would have gone inactive anyway. My parents weren't very strict about it and I am a logical person who really doesn't need religion in their life in order to be happy.

But it all started with a negative, personal experience that drew me out initially.

A terrific read.

Wonderfully juicy.

Thanks.

+1

THANKS Steve for time, effort and thought in this posting. Your words brought up some raw emotions from my past that were hard, but probably worthwhile to revisit and unload.

My exit began with the intellectual--good ole Philosophy 101 in college, followed sometime later by Fawn Brodie's amazing book, "No Man Knows my History". Found many more wonderful books after that. Years later, the real clincher to my exit was personal. It concerned a child in a crisis with the church acting behind the parent's back. You see, we were temple married inactives and we, inspite of being loving and caring parents, did not deserve to be involved. A nightmare followed. I only wish I had had the wherewithal to have sued their @**#^ off!

. . . and just look at what it did to you, me--and the Mormon Church. :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2013 04:59PM by steve benson.

Great post. You are in a different league with so much GA contact. I really admire your personal integrity. You could have easily stayed in and probably cashed-in based on your pedigree.

For me it was mostly the intellectual, starting with science related issues - no death before the fall, absolutely no evidence of the book of Mormon, flood etc.

. . . a brain and decided not to let it go to waste in Mormon Fantasy Land.

Perhaps seeing how the sham works from the inside-out may have actually made it easier for me to decide to leave.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 04:23AM by steve benson.

Thanks Steve. It's good to have posts like yours to show that there are many reasons for leaving TSCC. And the fact most of us are well read and have taken time to research our decision. It is never an easy decision for anyone, no matter the reason one has to take the first steps out.

Thanks Steve, My route has been full of intense investigation like three huge notebooks full of documentation that tell the whole story in detail plus direct revelation that backs up everything and more of what I have found. I know you have turned to the Athiestic side which is your right. But the religious side where I am on is with full support of all your findings and mine which come to the exact same conclusions! The Lord knows S#$t when He sees it also. MY family also has seen it's share of abuse. I called two stake president's liars to their face - I had witnesses present to counter their lies. I cannot go near a LDS church without a huge urge to upchuck (Throw up!). By the way Steve I am nearly 78 years old.

Thank you for your personal story, Steve. I am from a GA family, and it was almost impossible to leave the Mormon church. I remained a faithful member, while I had all my experiences of abuse, lies, questions, doubts, creepy feelings,
depression,intrusions, judgments, imperfections, and unreasonable demands, etc, etc.

My aversion to Mormonism pervades every facet of my being. There are not a few reasons I left, but hundreds of reasons. I am more sure that the Mormon church is a cult, than I was ever sure it was an honest religion. (I had too many good non-Mormons in my life to ever believe it was the "only true church." Yeah, I have a lifetime of reasons....

I wound up out-thinking myself right out of the church.

I read a little of this, a little of that, but suddenly I had a bright idea:

I was at the stage of still wanting to prove things true, and I thought that one area I could look at was the first vision. While the event itself would be impossible to prove, it set in motion the whole chain of events, and did so from a young age.

I reckoned that Joseph Smith would have been too young to have planned out the whole deceit, and that if I could at least corroborate his claims of the first vision (which given the persecution he wrote about shouldn't have been hard), then I'd have something to show that he started the whole chain of events at an age where he likely was too young to be fabricating things whole-cloth.

Well, you know the rest, there is nothing to corroborate his claims, his own family didn't record a word regarding the events, all the scouring of all the historians has not turned up one scrap where even Joseph himself wrote a record of the event at the time it occurred, let alone anyone in the area. He invented the story well after the fact.

I thought I had found a nice clever way of assuring myself it was true enough, and came up flat. That was it for me, after that the house of cards fell completely.

Now I find myself a closeted exmo and a likely atheist. I don't find myself bitter or angry, it is what it is and I feel for those who are still mentally trapped and brainwashed. For now I bide my time and plant seeds of doubt with my wife when I can, and prepare myself for what will come when I come out and tell her I'm no longer a believer.

That said, I even remember bringing up fossil records with my mission president sixteen years ago, so it started early enough.

I also distinctly remember my Zone Leader, who shared an apartment with us, coming back from a ZL conference and relating (not realizing I was the subject) how the mission president had told a tale of an elder he had in his office who asked (and then apparently the missions president used a whiney mocking voice) "But what about the dinosaurs?!"

That right there ended my respect for priesthood authority, turns out they can be assholes like anyone else.

I started searching after packer's gay speech was edited in the ensign. I was in shock...and it was on in a big way. I started reading everything I could find...what I found was the one and only true church was anti-true history. I always thought something was wrong but I thought it was me that I must have been too evil in some way not to feel the church was 100% true. But I never researched the churches history on any anti sites because that would be searching things against god. What a crock. I am left with a TBM that won't read "this crap".

Our oldest has lettered out after a mission. Another is out but does not want to letter out... Just walked away after receiving an answer to a prayer in the celestial room to leave the church. The last is in limbo not wanting to hurt her mother with the news.

So I am free of the dogma...but I am anything but free. Yet
Still wear the pj's( I think it would push the TBM wife over the edge)to remind me to follow my own compass,to stay square with myself and to bow to no one. (I know, I am still sick from the church and it's infectious pus filled holy books of lies)

First post...on RFM and I am recovering from Mormonism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/07/2013 03:54PM by oldklunker.