do the GA's know?

[elder_nomo]

i was catching up on some of the earlier posts and came across a link to "20 truths of mormonism". WOW. it made me want to start attending church, just so i could quit all over again! ;)

it got me wondering, do you think the general authorities know that it's all a crock? are they just going along so as not to upset the apple cart?
[so hard for "regular" members to leave, imagine the difficulties for a GA.]

or do you think they are sincere, but afraid of "anti" thoughts and books, like most other TBMs?

[dogzilla]

My opinion, and I call it the "I am not a crook" theory, is they are all well aware. They probably spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to spin things just to keep "the man behind the curtain" back there. Avoiding the Totos of the world, if you'll stick with my metaphor.

Also, the higher the rank, the stupider the GAs would look if they decided to leave the church. The whole empire could crumble if just one leaves and happens to be vocal about it, or hold a press conference, or ... you see what I mean. It's the same reason Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman," and the same reason Nixon said, "I am not a crook." To admit personal fallacy at that level of authority discredits the entire organization. I think it goes much deeper than upsetting the apple cart.

And then there's the giving up power and authority thing. How many men do you know who would willingly give up years of accumuated power and authority without a fight? Not many...

[miss taken]

My opinion, and I call it the "I am not a crook" theory, is they are all well aware. They probably spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out how to spin things just to keep "the man behind the curtain" back there. Avoiding the Totos of the world, if you'll stick with my metaphor.

Also, the higher the rank, the stupider the GAs would look if they decided to leave the church. The whole empire could crumble if just one leaves and happens to be vocal about it, or hold a press conference, or ... you see what I mean. It's the same reason Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman," and the same reason Nixon said, "I am not a crook." To admit personal fallacy at that level of authority discredits the entire organization. I think it goes much deeper than upsetting the apple cart.

And then there's the giving up power and authority thing. How many men do you know who would willingly give up years of accumuated power and authority without a fight? Not many...

I dunno, about this one. It seems to me that the GA's are extremely sincere, and are totally devoted and loyal to the church. That is why they are where they are. Their loyalty is unquestionable.

Mary

[shamdiel]

I dunno, about this one. It seems to me that the GA's are extremely sincere, and are totally devoted and loyal to the church. That is why they are where they are. Their loyalty is unquestionable.

Mary
Yes, but remember the question is do they know it is a crock. I believe that they do. It is much like being a sales man for a shady used car business. A person may be dedicated to the job even if they know they are not being honest, The things like money, prestige, power, auhtority... being more important then honesty.

With all the contreversy spinning around the Church's history and the character of Joesph Shith and Bring um Young, this present batch has to know more about it than any of use could ever find out. They can get into the Church Archives for Gauds sake!

They are the ones that had the papyrus scrolls that were supposed to prove to the world that the Book Of Abraham was true and that Old Joe did have the power to translate. When they had it translated, themselves, it turned out to be nothing but a standard prayer that was put in all the mummy coffins. They all knew that!!!! :eek: But what did they tell the church members? NOTHING!!!

I would have loved to be in their temple meeting when they discussed that little snafu!! :cool: Bet it went something like this; GA#1 "But this proves that JS made up the story of The B of A. It means he probably did the same with the B of M !!! That would mean he WAS a story teller and it IS all made up!! The Church would not be true and from God but the fabrication of a very creative person, a charlatan!!" Pa.. H. Du.. "Well, the Church may not be true but the corporation is. Our authority over the Corporation is and that is worth protecting. As long as the people believe, and we give them no reason to not believe, we will be secure and the corporation will prosper...." HIDE EVERYTHING!!!

That is how I believe it went. They know they have a very large and very wealthy corporation and they will do anything to protect and promote it!!!

[Jeff_Ricks]

I dunno, about this one. It seems to me that the GA's are extremely sincere, and are totally devoted and loyal to the church. That is why they are where they are. Their loyalty is unquestionable.

Mary

"Extremely sincere" doesn't quite work for me but I can swallow that in general they tend to be sincere, but I think it's a sincerity mixed with a heavy dose of willful rationalization and wishful thinking.

On the other hand I've heard of a few bishops and even one stake president that admitted that the Church has some problems with it's history and other things that it tries to cover up and therefore can’t be ‘true’. But they think it’s a good church otherwise so they play the game. I'm sure there are some GA's who think the same way.

Jeff

[nate]

"Extremely sincere" doesn't quite work for me but I can swallow that in general they tend to be sincere, but I think it's a sincerity mixed with a heavy dose of willful rationalization and wishful thinking.

On the other hand I've heard of a few bishops and even one stake president that admitted that the Church has some problems with it's history and other things that it tries to cover up and therefore can’t be ‘true’. But they think it’s a good church otherwise so they play the game. I'm sure there are some GA's who think the same way.

Jeff

Yes, this is definitely a case where you cannot use a blanket statement. I'm sure that in the ranks of the GA's there are those that fit every scenario listed here. Think about it. For those who still have TBM family or parents, or know TBM bishs or SPs, many DO sincerely believe, many don't, many simply can't or will not admit their own doubts. For many, acknowledging their own doubts would be akin to admitting their life is a lie, so they don't. There are probably many that fit both ends of the spectrum, just split between their unconscious and conscious minds.

Nate

[tjohnson]

I dunno, about this one. It seems to me that the GA's are extremely sincere, and are totally devoted and loyal to the church. That is why they are where they are. Their loyalty is unquestionable.

Mary

True... but don't you think the Prophet has to know that he isn't speaking to God? What do you think he did the first time he went to "ask of God" and the red phone didn't ring with the answer? :Puking

[free thinker]

I think many know of the problems in church history. They are usually bright and educated.The church is large and very powerful. Like most large institutions it has a life of it's own. I think they justify it's perpetuation because they think coming clean would do more damage than good!!

From time to time GA's are excommunicated, disfellowshipped etc. Remember George P. Lee? We never seem to find out why though. I wonder if they have done some reading, and made the same conclusion that we have!!

I found Steve Benson's interview with Maxwell and Oaks quite revealing. As he said, " there is no there, there".
I was very surprised, and very disappointed by Oaks' dissembling! They are only men though after all!!

Free Thinker

[miss taken]

I think many know of the problems in church history. They are usually bright and educated.The church is large and very powerful. Like most large institutions it has a life of it's own. I think they justify it's perpetuation because they think coming clean would do more damage than good!!

From time to time GA's are excommunicated, disfellowshipped etc. Remember George P. Lee? We never seem to find out why though. I wonder if they have done some reading, and made the same conclusion that we have!!

I found Steve Benson's interview with Maxwell and Oaks quite revealing. As he said, " there is no there, there".
I was very surprised, and very disappointed by Oaks' dissembling! They are only men though after all!!

Free Thinker

I watched the interview Gordon B had with ? on TV (Iforget his name but his wife is LDS), and I believe Gordon when he says that HE believes it. I believe he believes it because I once believed it totally myself, and could see how he would be absolutely committed and devoted. It is not too far to jump to get into that position.

I am sure however, (most of the GA's that I have seen, not that many) that the GA's are unquestionably intelligent men who have made a stand that they accept the church as truth. They then need to work around every piece of information that comes up with that perspective in mind, it isn't that hard to do, and the many LDS apologists sites indicate the type of reasoning they do in order to keep that perspective.

I would be interested in Steve Bensons talk with Oaks et al? What was its main thrust?

Mary

[lsands]

This is a post from the exmo board from Steve on this subject.

Introduction: What Do the General Authorities Know and How Do They Know It?

A sometimes-asked question on this board [www.exmormon.org] is whether the General Authorities of the Mormon Church genuinely believe the Church is true.

They may believe it; they may not.

But do they know it?

I cannot, of course, speak for them. But I can, perhaps, provide a few glimpses into their thinking on this question--based upon my personal contact with some of them and what they told me in conversation and letter.


Ezra Taft Benson

My grandfather's testimony of Mormonism, as expressed to me repeatedly over the years in personal discussions and correspondence, was rooted in two basic beliefs:

(1) The Book of Mormon

He fervently believed that the Book of Mormon was the revealed word of God and an actual historical document. From what I was able to observe, he never, ever questioned its authenticity.

That said, however, I never heard or saw him analyze or critique the Book of Mormon in any real depth on issues relating to its alleged historicity or reliability.

Ezra Taft Benson did admit to me in private that even though he insisted the Church was not neutral on the question of organic evolution, one could argue for or against it from the same Mormon scriptures. In other words, for all his pulpit-pounding confidence in the Book of Mormon, in this particular instance he was not nearly as emphatic or confident in private as he appeared in public about the surety of LDS scripture.

Nevertheless, that seeming qualifier was not enough to shake his unbending faith in the gold plates. To my grandfather, they were without question the translated word of God, serving as a pillar of unshakeable, personal, testimonial faith.

Ranking second only to revealed Mormon scripture in fighting godless Communism, he told me, were the publications of the John Birch Society.

(2) The ranking leaders of the Mormon Church

My grandfather unquestioningly believed, and simply accepted, that the highest leaders of the Church--specifically, the President and his counselors, along with the Quorum of the Twelve--were inspired by God in leading the affairs of the Mormon Church. He insisted that all must follow the Brethren devoutly--and without skepticism.

For example, when he called me one snowy, wintry day in Provo to tell me to break off my engagement to Mary Ann, he introduced himself by saying, "Stephen, I'm not calling as your grandfather, but as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve."

He did, however, privately acknowledge to me that these Church leaders were human, that they made mistakes, that they did not always agree among themselves on doctrinal matters and that some of what they disagreed on was not necessary to one's eternal salvation.

Still, he told me that obedience to the General Authorities--even if what they claimed to be true was, in fact, wrong--constituted a fundamental principle of the Gospel. He assured me that God would bless those who followed the Brethren, even when the Brethren were in error.

My grandfather also told me that he did not want me to publish anything that would undermine faith or testimony in the leaders of the Mormon Church.

In short, he seemed at times more committed to principles of obedience than to principles of truth.

My grandfather never claimed to me (or anyone else that I am aware of) that he had personally seen God, Jesus Christ or other divine beings. He did, however, tell me that he had had an experience in the Salt Lake temple (regarding the announcement by President Kimball on Blacks and the priesthood) that was too sacred to talk about. This supposed experience he would not delve into at all, even though I requested that he do so.

He also informed the Benson family that there were other matters which he was not at liberty to discuss.

He was never specific with me in revealing any particular personal experiences of his that formed the basis for his testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism--other than to bear witness to knowing that truth through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.


Bruce R. McConkie

In a lengthy one-on-one conversation I had with McConkie at his home while doing a BYU research paper on the official Mormon Church position on the subject of organic evolution, McConkie strongly emphasized what was an obvious and fundamental basis for his belief in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church.

That foundation was that the Standard Works of the Church served as the ultimate authority in determining truth.

McConkie said that the canonized LDS scriptures superceded anything that the living presidents of the Church had declared, or might declare. He said that the Standard Works served as the final test--the pre-eminent standard of measurement--in ascertaining the validity of any claim made by Church leaders, including teachings of both living and dead presidents of the Church.

Otherwise, McConkie told me, these scriptures would not be known as the "standard" works.

In making this claim, McConkie specifically criticized two Church presidents whom he said had made uninspired pronouncements while serving as Church president. Their pronouncements were false, he argued, because what they said was clearly contradicted by the LDS Standard Works:

--The first was President Brigham Young, for his teachings on the Adam-God doctrine.

--The second was President David O. McKay, for his advice to BYU students that they study the theory of organic evolution and the geologic history pointing to an ancient earth.

McConkie did not admit to having made any doctrinal errors himself. In this area, his testimony seemed to rest on his own sense of doctrinal infallibility.

In fact, McConkie told me that his claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was true, even though this assertion was edited out of the second edition of his book, Mormon Doctrine. McConkie insisted that it was removed not because it was not true, but because it was too difficult for many people to accept.


Spencer W. Kimball

During the course of my BYU research paper on the LDS stand regarding organic evolution, I corresponded with Kimball, who was then Mormon Church president.

Throughout the course of our exchanges, I had a difficult and frustrating time obtaining direct and clear answers from him.

One thing, however, was obvious:

Kimball did not know much about what other Church presidents had said on certain, important doctrinal matters. By logical extension, therefore, whatever faith Kimball had in the truthfulness of Mormonism was not based on official Mormon positions--enunciated by the president of the Mormon Church--about which he admittedly knew nothing.

For instance, on the question of previous First Presidency statements on the physical origins of humankind, Kimball informed me that he was not familiar with the ones I had cited in my initial correspondence with him.

On the subject of faith, the only direction Kimball gave me was to read Henry Eyring's book, Faith of a Scientist, in which Eyring asserted that science and religion both served as tools in the search for truth: the former in helping people avoid myth; and the latter in directing people toward God.

When I subsequently asked Kimball to provide me his views on Eyring's book, Kimball remained stone silent.


Mark E. Petersen

In conducting my research on the question of the official Church position on organic evolution, I also corresponded with Petersen.

Petersen revealed a lack of firm belief in the seemingly official pronouncements of even unsigned editorials in the official LDS publication, the Church News.

When pressed, Petersen admitted to me the following:

--that the editorials written on the subject of organic evolution he had authored himself;

--that they represented his own opinion; and

--that official statements on Church doctrine came only from signed First Presidency statements.


Dallin H. Oaks

In a conversation I had with Oaks shortly before leaving the Mormon Church, he told me that the basis for his personal testimony about the truthfulness of Mormonism took the form of a warm spiritual witness which he felt in his heart.

This witness apparently had particular meaning for Oaks with regard to the truthfulness of official Mormon scripture.

Oaks admitted to me, for instance, that critics of the Book of Abraham seemed at the present time to have favorable arguments against its authenticity. Oaks told me, however, that the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham ultimately came through a personal, spiritual witness.

Oaks further said that the Book of Mormon could neither be proven or disproven by evidentiary examination, but in the end, also had to be accepted on faith.

In admitting that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon could not be empirically proven, Oaks even acknowledged that portions of the Book of Mormon--albeit insignificant,in his opinion--might have potential problems with plagiarism.

Despite that admission, Oaks informed me that he had received a spiritual witness that served as the basis for his personal testimony that the Book of Mormon was true.

Oaks's testimony regarding Mormonism's prophets was both illuminating--and conditional.

He did not seem particularly impressed with the antics of even fellow members of the Quorum of the Twelve, notably his senior, Boyd K. Packer. After it became public knowledge that Packer had improperly involved himself in the excommuncation of Paul Toscano, Oaks in referring to Packer told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

He told me that he would steadfastly stand by the president of the Church, with one notable exception:

He would not defer, he said, to the president of the Church if the president were to come out and declare that the Book of Mormon was not true. If that should happen, Oaks said he would look to the Quorum of the Twelve for a vote as to whether what the president had said about the Book of Mormon deserved support.

Oaks also did not seem completely certain as to the reliability of prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets. He told me that Church members should not be keeping track of which prophecies had been borne out and, further, that prophecies made by Mormon prophets were for private, rather than public, application.

Oaks noted, as well, that the basic Church doctrines were revealed by Joseph Smith early in the history of the Church. He said that the more modern approach of Church governance has been, since the time of President Joseph F. Smith, to "beseech his counselors in the First Presidency to help him, to watch over him, so that they could together make the right decisions that God wanted them to make."

Oaks also downplayed the prophetic role of Mormon Church prophets by asserting that prophesying was only a minor responsibility of prophets. Their major role, he declared, was to testify of Jesus Christ.

When I asked Oaks to share with me his personal testimony that served as a basis for his apostolic calling as a special witness for Christ, Oaks recounted his days as a college student at the University of Chicago, where he said he had questions about the Mormon Church. He did not detail the nature of those questions but said a local LDS Institute teacher helped him find answers.


Neal A. Maxwell

Maxwell was together with, and participated in, the same conversations I had with Oaks.

Maxwell seemed equally unsure as to the evidentiary proof for the Book of Mormon. He told me, for instance, that God would not provide proof of the Book of Mormon until the end--thereby implying that such proof did not presently exist.

Maxwell also told me that one of the purposes of F.A.R.M.S. was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics.

As to how he personally regarded the pronouncements of president of the Church, Maxwell said it was his duty to be loyal to the Church president. Maxwell added, however, that he not agree with everything President Benson had to say on political matters. This was particularly interesting, given that Ezra Taft Benson had earlier declared that God's prophets could speak authoritatively on all matters, including those of a political nature.

Maxwell, like Oaks, warned me against keeping "box scores" when it came to tallying up which prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets turned out to be turned--and which ones turned out to be false.

He further reminded me that prophets spoke as prophets only when they were acting as prophets--but that the teachings about moonmen attributed to Joseph Smith were probably misreported.

Maxwell instructed me as to how revelation for the Mormon Church was actually received. He said that Joseph Smith's role as unilaterally revealing doctrine in behalf of the Church was a practice not continued by subsequent Mormon prophets. Maxwell claimed there are four levels of fundamental Church doctrine:

(1) those doctrines revealed by the prophet speaking alone;

(2) those doctrines revealed by the prophet in conjunction with his First Presidency counselors;

(3) those doctrines revealed in First Presidency statements, with the words of the First Presidency assuming "a special status;" and

(4) those doctrines revealed by official declaration.

(By the way, both Oaks and Maxwell asserted that what the president of the Mormon Church said must be in compliance with the Standard Works of the Church. They also said that that when Brigham Young taught what Oaks called the "false" doctrine of Adam-God, it was because he was a young prophet who was in need of the help of some good counselors).

When I asked Maxwell to share with me his personal testimony as to his apostolic calling as a special witness of Christ, he told me about the time when, as a young boy, he witnessed his father give his sibling a healing priesthood blessing.


Conclusion: Pulling Back the Curtain

The above statements by Mormonism's supposed prophets, seers and revelators speak for themselves.

There are no wizards behind the curtain--only men.

They are men who speak in loud voices, issue solemn warnings, pull lots of levers, blow plenty of smoke and attempt other feeble special effects.

But in the end, they are mere mortals--not godly portals--who possess only human powers, perceptions and feelings. Despite what they may claim in public, they are not the beneficiaries of any special divine witness.

In sum, they are most decidedly not prophets of God.


I met Steve and Mary Ann when I lived in Arizona, and Mary Ann is one of my closest friends. I have heard them relate their story both publicly and privately. Will post more later.

Laraine

[miss taken]

This is a post from the exmo board from Steve on this subject.

Introduction: What Do the General Authorities Know and How Do They Know It?

A sometimes-asked question on this board [www.exmormon.org] is whether the General Authorities of the Mormon Church genuinely believe the Church is true.

They may believe it; they may not.

But do they know it?

I cannot, of course, speak for them. But I can, perhaps, provide a few glimpses into their thinking on this question--based upon my personal contact with some of them and what they told me in conversation and letter.


Ezra Taft Benson

My grandfather's testimony of Mormonism, as expressed to me repeatedly over the years in personal discussions and correspondence, was rooted in two basic beliefs:

(1) The Book of Mormon

He fervently believed that the Book of Mormon was the revealed word of God and an actual historical document. From what I was able to observe, he never, ever questioned its authenticity.

That said, however, I never heard or saw him analyze or critique the Book of Mormon in any real depth on issues relating to its alleged historicity or reliability.

Ezra Taft Benson did admit to me in private that even though he insisted the Church was not neutral on the question of organic evolution, one could argue for or against it from the same Mormon scriptures. In other words, for all his pulpit-pounding confidence in the Book of Mormon, in this particular instance he was not nearly as emphatic or confident in private as he appeared in public about the surety of LDS scripture.

Nevertheless, that seeming qualifier was not enough to shake his unbending faith in the gold plates. To my grandfather, they were without question the translated word of God, serving as a pillar of unshakeable, personal, testimonial faith.

Ranking second only to revealed Mormon scripture in fighting godless Communism, he told me, were the publications of the John Birch Society.

(2) The ranking leaders of the Mormon Church

My grandfather unquestioningly believed, and simply accepted, that the highest leaders of the Church--specifically, the President and his counselors, along with the Quorum of the Twelve--were inspired by God in leading the affairs of the Mormon Church. He insisted that all must follow the Brethren devoutly--and without skepticism.

For example, when he called me one snowy, wintry day in Provo to tell me to break off my engagement to Mary Ann, he introduced himself by saying, "Stephen, I'm not calling as your grandfather, but as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve."

He did, however, privately acknowledge to me that these Church leaders were human, that they made mistakes, that they did not always agree among themselves on doctrinal matters and that some of what they disagreed on was not necessary to one's eternal salvation.

Still, he told me that obedience to the General Authorities--even if what they claimed to be true was, in fact, wrong--constituted a fundamental principle of the Gospel. He assured me that God would bless those who followed the Brethren, even when the Brethren were in error.

My grandfather also told me that he did not want me to publish anything that would undermine faith or testimony in the leaders of the Mormon Church.

In short, he seemed at times more committed to principles of obedience than to principles of truth.

My grandfather never claimed to me (or anyone else that I am aware of) that he had personally seen God, Jesus Christ or other divine beings. He did, however, tell me that he had had an experience in the Salt Lake temple (regarding the announcement by President Kimball on Blacks and the priesthood) that was too sacred to talk about. This supposed experience he would not delve into at all, even though I requested that he do so.

He also informed the Benson family that there were other matters which he was not at liberty to discuss.

He was never specific with me in revealing any particular personal experiences of his that formed the basis for his testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism--other than to bear witness to knowing that truth through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.


Bruce R. McConkie

In a lengthy one-on-one conversation I had with McConkie at his home while doing a BYU research paper on the official Mormon Church position on the subject of organic evolution, McConkie strongly emphasized what was an obvious and fundamental basis for his belief in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church.

That foundation was that the Standard Works of the Church served as the ultimate authority in determining truth.

McConkie said that the canonized LDS scriptures superceded anything that the living presidents of the Church had declared, or might declare. He said that the Standard Works served as the final test--the pre-eminent standard of measurement--in ascertaining the validity of any claim made by Church leaders, including teachings of both living and dead presidents of the Church.

Otherwise, McConkie told me, these scriptures would not be known as the "standard" works.

In making this claim, McConkie specifically criticized two Church presidents whom he said had made uninspired pronouncements while serving as Church president. Their pronouncements were false, he argued, because what they said was clearly contradicted by the LDS Standard Works:

--The first was President Brigham Young, for his teachings on the Adam-God doctrine.

--The second was President David O. McKay, for his advice to BYU students that they study the theory of organic evolution and the geologic history pointing to an ancient earth.

McConkie did not admit to having made any doctrinal errors himself. In this area, his testimony seemed to rest on his own sense of doctrinal infallibility.

In fact, McConkie told me that his claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was true, even though this assertion was edited out of the second edition of his book, Mormon Doctrine. McConkie insisted that it was removed not because it was not true, but because it was too difficult for many people to accept.


Spencer W. Kimball

During the course of my BYU research paper on the LDS stand regarding organic evolution, I corresponded with Kimball, who was then Mormon Church president.

Throughout the course of our exchanges, I had a difficult and frustrating time obtaining direct and clear answers from him.

One thing, however, was obvious:

Kimball did not know much about what other Church presidents had said on certain, important doctrinal matters. By logical extension, therefore, whatever faith Kimball had in the truthfulness of Mormonism was not based on official Mormon positions--enunciated by the president of the Mormon Church--about which he admittedly knew nothing.

For instance, on the question of previous First Presidency statements on the physical origins of humankind, Kimball informed me that he was not familiar with the ones I had cited in my initial correspondence with him.

On the subject of faith, the only direction Kimball gave me was to read Henry Eyring's book, Faith of a Scientist, in which Eyring asserted that science and religion both served as tools in the search for truth: the former in helping people avoid myth; and the latter in directing people toward God.

When I subsequently asked Kimball to provide me his views on Eyring's book, Kimball remained stone silent.


Mark E. Petersen

In conducting my research on the question of the official Church position on organic evolution, I also corresponded with Petersen.

Petersen revealed a lack of firm belief in the seemingly official pronouncements of even unsigned editorials in the official LDS publication, the Church News.

When pressed, Petersen admitted to me the following:

--that the editorials written on the subject of organic evolution he had authored himself;

--that they represented his own opinion; and

--that official statements on Church doctrine came only from signed First Presidency statements.


Dallin H. Oaks

In a conversation I had with Oaks shortly before leaving the Mormon Church, he told me that the basis for his personal testimony about the truthfulness of Mormonism took the form of a warm spiritual witness which he felt in his heart.

This witness apparently had particular meaning for Oaks with regard to the truthfulness of official Mormon scripture.

Oaks admitted to me, for instance, that critics of the Book of Abraham seemed at the present time to have favorable arguments against its authenticity. Oaks told me, however, that the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham ultimately came through a personal, spiritual witness.

Oaks further said that the Book of Mormon could neither be proven or disproven by evidentiary examination, but in the end, also had to be accepted on faith.

In admitting that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon could not be empirically proven, Oaks even acknowledged that portions of the Book of Mormon--albeit insignificant,in his opinion--might have potential problems with plagiarism.

Despite that admission, Oaks informed me that he had received a spiritual witness that served as the basis for his personal testimony that the Book of Mormon was true.

Oaks's testimony regarding Mormonism's prophets was both illuminating--and conditional.

He did not seem particularly impressed with the antics of even fellow members of the Quorum of the Twelve, notably his senior, Boyd K. Packer. After it became public knowledge that Packer had improperly involved himself in the excommuncation of Paul Toscano, Oaks in referring to Packer told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear."

He told me that he would steadfastly stand by the president of the Church, with one notable exception:

He would not defer, he said, to the president of the Church if the president were to come out and declare that the Book of Mormon was not true. If that should happen, Oaks said he would look to the Quorum of the Twelve for a vote as to whether what the president had said about the Book of Mormon deserved support.

Oaks also did not seem completely certain as to the reliability of prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets. He told me that Church members should not be keeping track of which prophecies had been borne out and, further, that prophecies made by Mormon prophets were for private, rather than public, application.

Oaks noted, as well, that the basic Church doctrines were revealed by Joseph Smith early in the history of the Church. He said that the more modern approach of Church governance has been, since the time of President Joseph F. Smith, to "beseech his counselors in the First Presidency to help him, to watch over him, so that they could together make the right decisions that God wanted them to make."

Oaks also downplayed the prophetic role of Mormon Church prophets by asserting that prophesying was only a minor responsibility of prophets. Their major role, he declared, was to testify of Jesus Christ.

When I asked Oaks to share with me his personal testimony that served as a basis for his apostolic calling as a special witness for Christ, Oaks recounted his days as a college student at the University of Chicago, where he said he had questions about the Mormon Church. He did not detail the nature of those questions but said a local LDS Institute teacher helped him find answers.


Neal A. Maxwell

Maxwell was together with, and participated in, the same conversations I had with Oaks.

Maxwell seemed equally unsure as to the evidentiary proof for the Book of Mormon. He told me, for instance, that God would not provide proof of the Book of Mormon until the end--thereby implying that such proof did not presently exist.

Maxwell also told me that one of the purposes of F.A.R.M.S. was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics.

As to how he personally regarded the pronouncements of president of the Church, Maxwell said it was his duty to be loyal to the Church president. Maxwell added, however, that he not agree with everything President Benson had to say on political matters. This was particularly interesting, given that Ezra Taft Benson had earlier declared that God's prophets could speak authoritatively on all matters, including those of a political nature.

Maxwell, like Oaks, warned me against keeping "box scores" when it came to tallying up which prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets turned out to be turned--and which ones turned out to be false.

He further reminded me that prophets spoke as prophets only when they were acting as prophets--but that the teachings about moonmen attributed to Joseph Smith were probably misreported.

Maxwell instructed me as to how revelation for the Mormon Church was actually received. He said that Joseph Smith's role as unilaterally revealing doctrine in behalf of the Church was a practice not continued by subsequent Mormon prophets. Maxwell claimed there are four levels of fundamental Church doctrine:

(1) those doctrines revealed by the prophet speaking alone;

(2) those doctrines revealed by the prophet in conjunction with his First Presidency counselors;

(3) those doctrines revealed in First Presidency statements, with the words of the First Presidency assuming "a special status;" and

(4) those doctrines revealed by official declaration.

(By the way, both Oaks and Maxwell asserted that what the president of the Mormon Church said must be in compliance with the Standard Works of the Church. They also said that that when Brigham Young taught what Oaks called the "false" doctrine of Adam-God, it was because he was a young prophet who was in need of the help of some good counselors).

When I asked Maxwell to share with me his personal testimony as to his apostolic calling as a special witness of Christ, he told me about the time when, as a young boy, he witnessed his father give his sibling a healing priesthood blessing.


Conclusion: Pulling Back the Curtain

The above statements by Mormonism's supposed prophets, seers and revelators speak for themselves.

There are no wizards behind the curtain--only men.

They are men who speak in loud voices, issue solemn warnings, pull lots of levers, blow plenty of smoke and attempt other feeble special effects.

But in the end, they are mere mortals--not godly portals--who possess only human powers, perceptions and feelings. Despite what they may claim in public, they are not the beneficiaries of any special divine witness.

In sum, they are most decidedly not prophets of God.


I met Steve and Mary Ann when I lived in Arizona, and Mary Ann is one of my closest friends. I have heard them relate their story both publicly and privately. Will post more later.

Laraine

Laraine I have found this piece of writing one of the most interesting things I have ever read. I look forward to reading more.
Great stuff.
Mary

[tjohnson]

Here is another link with actual email discussions from Steve Benson to a TBM:

http://www.i4m.com/think/comments/Mormon_apologist.htm

[miss taken]

Here is another link with actual email discussions from Steve Benson to a TBM:

http://www.i4m.com/think/comments/Mormon_apologist.htm


Just spent 30 minutes reading these links. Very interesting. Thanks.
Mary

[free thinker]

I watched the interview Gordon B had with ? on TV (Iforget his name but his wife is LDS), and I believe Gordon when he says that HE believes it. I believe he believes it because I once believed it totally myself, and could see how he would be absolutely committed and devoted. It is not too far to jump to get into that position.

I am sure however, (most of the GA's that I have seen, not that many) that the GA's are unquestionably intelligent men who have made a stand that they accept the church as truth. They then need to work around every piece of information that comes up with that perspective in mind, it isn't that hard to do, and the many LDS apologists sites indicate the type of reasoning they do in order to keep that perspective.

I would be interested in Steve Bensons talk with Oaks et al? What was its main thrust?

Mary

I checked at ex-mormon.org for the original interview Steve Benson had with these men. I did not find it there. It contained direct questions to them from Steve Benson about sensative topics like the BofA, and Kinderhook plates etc. They gave their best answers with help form F A R M S, and their typical mormon doublespeak. I hope someone has it to post here. Mary I hope you get a chance to read it. It was the first thing I read that really set me moving away from mormonism. I had actually attended church the week before I read it. I never intend to go back!!

Free Thinker