The Mormon Curtain - STEVE BENSON

Containing 5,403 Articles Spanning 369 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Online Since January 1, 2005

PLEASE NOTE: If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page (the one you just landed on) is an archive containing articles on "STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10". This website, The Mormon Curtain - is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can read The Mormon Curtain FAQ to understand the purpose of this website.

⇒ CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.

STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10
Total Articles: 25
Steve Benson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning U.S. editorial cartoonist for The Arizona Republic. Benson is the grandson of former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and LDS prophet Ezra Taft Benson.

Spencer W. Kimball, The Lds Church And Organic Evolution: Personal Correspondence With Mormonism's Prophet Of Fraud
Monday, Mar 6, 2006, at 07:25 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Introduction: Faithful, Searching Inquiries to a Fraudulent, Slippery Church

While a BYU undergraduate student in the late 1970s, I decided to do a term paper on the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. In the course of my research, I sent letters to President Spencer W. Kimball asking him to explain the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. My grandfather and then-president of the Quorum of the Twelve, Ezra Taft Benson, strongly encouraged me in this effort and, in fact, helped facilitate my contact with Kimball.

During this time, I was an active, believing member of the Church. My letters to Kimball--written in the language of faith and obedience--reflected my unquestioning, indoctrinated devotion to Mormonism at that time in my life. Still, I had a keen interest in science. I was confident that Mormon prophets would be clear and forthcoming in explaining to me the truth of the physical and spiritual worlds. I was mistaken in that confidence.

What follows is the complete record of correspondence I had with LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball--including his replies and those of his office spokesman--on the subject of the official LDS position regarding the theory of organic evolution.
_____

First Letter to Kimball

On 16 November 1978, I sent a letter to Kimball, via Ezra Taft Benson, with the following attached cover letter to my grandfather:

November 16, 1978

President Ezra Taft Benson
777 East South Temple, Apt. #15D
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102

Dear Grandpa:

Enclosed is a xeroxed copy of the letter I would like to sent to President Kimball regarding the theory of organic evolution and the position of the Church concerning it. The actual letter is also enclosed in an envelope addressed to the Prophet. If possible, I would appreciate it if you could forward the letter to him.

I have spent several hours researching this question, including a good deal of time in consultation with Brother Reid Bankhead of the [BYU] Religion Department and Brothers Harold Miller, Hal Back, and Duane Jeffery, all of the Biology Department.

I have also taken your advice and sought the Lord for guidance on the matter.

The result of all this is a letter to President Kimball, which I feel addresses the issues with which I am concerned. I have attempted to present the material to the Prophet in as clear, concise, and fair manner as possible, while leaving to President Kimball the decision as to whether or not a response is appropriate or necessary.

If you feel so inclined, I would sincerely appreciate hearing your comments regarding the approach and contents of the letter.

Love,

[signed]

Stephen Reed

P.S. Keep up that good healing job on that leg of yours!” [He had recently broken his leg in a horse riding accident].
_____

My grandfather informed me that he thought the letter was appropriate and forwarded it on to Kimball. That letter from me to Kimball read as follows:

November 16, 1978

President Spencer W. Kimball
50 East North Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

I am currently a student at Brigham Young University and have been attempting for some time to resolve within my own mind an apparent problem regarding some of the teachings I receive here on campus. If possible and appropriate, I would greatly appreciate whatever insight you might feel to give.

During the course of my religious instruction, I have been taught that the theory of organic evolution (in which, science claims that man has developed to his present physical state through natural processes originating in a common and lower form of life and extending over millions of years) is neither compatible with the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ, nor with statements made by the General Authorities of the Church, especially those of the First Presidency body.

In support of such instruction, I have frequently been referred to a formal pronouncement, entitled “The Origin of Man,” released in November, 1909, by the First Presidency of the Church (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon L. Lund). At the time this statement was issued, the First Presidency declared it to be “the position held by the Church,” and I have been told that, since then, there has been no change in the Church’s stand. Essentially, the First Presidency stated that a belief in the development of man’s physical body from a lower form of animal creation was a theory of man only, and that, because the Lord had declared Adam to be “the first man of all men,” the First Presidency was duty bound to regard him “as the primal parent of our race.”

Knowledge of this pronouncement notwithstanding, I have also been taught by other professors–whose sincerity and conviction I have no reason to question–that the Church, in fact, has not made an official statement on the subject of organic evolution. These instructors tell me that the First Presidency regards organic evolution as a scientific theory that is subject to and undergoing periodic modification. With scientists themselves differing in their interpretations and views of the theory, it is claimed that the First Presidency believes the wisest course to be [is] in suspending judgment until either the Lord speaks directly on the matter, or until scientists are able to arrive at an ultimate understanding of the truth.

In support of this analysis, my science professors have referred me to an editorial found in the April, 1910, issue of the Improvement Era. The President of the Church, Joseph F. Smith, and Edward H. Anderson were the editors at that time. In answer to the question of several priesthood quorums regarding how the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve came into existence, the editors stated that these inquiries had not been “fully answered in the revealed word of God.” Specific mention was made of three possibilities to account for the existence of the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve: (1) The human body had evolved through natural processes under God’s direction and power (2) Adam and Eve’s bodies had been transplanted in an immortal state from another sphere to this earth, where they subsequently became corrupted through sin and the consumption of natural foods (3) Adam and Eve were actually born on this earth, in the same way that all human beings enter mortality. The editors noted that the Lord had not yet shed full light on the truthfulness of such explanations.

These science professors also referred me to an address by you, President Kimball, in the March, 1976, Ensign, entitled ‘Speaking Today,’ where you are quoted as saying, ‘We don’t know exactly how their [Adam and Eve’s] coming into this world happened, and when we’re able to understand it, the Lord will tell us.’ Such reference is used by some to imply that the First Presidency has not taken an official position on the theory of organic evolution.

Here, then, is what seems to me to be a perplexing situation: On the one hand, some BYU professors claim that the Lord has indeed spoken directly to his prophets concerning the theory of organic evolution and that this revelation has been reflected in a statement by the First Presidency they consider to be an unequivocal denunciation of the theory as false. On the other hand, some instructors on campus assure me that the Church has not taken an official stand, either for or against, organic evolution, where the term is defined as the ascension of all living things, including man, from a common and lower form of life and involving natural processes that have taken millions of years to occur.

It is not my desire to create disharmony or to undermine faith and testimony by claiming that leading authorities of the Church have made statements which conflict with each other. I sincerely believe that, under the proper guidance, these statements can be reconciled and interpreted in the true spirit in which they were given. I do not believe that the Lord speaks in contradictory terms when instructing His children.

I fully support the leaders of this Church as the rightfully ordained mouthpieces of God and desire to follow their counsel. As I search for truth in my academic and religious pursuits I look to the scriptures, the Holy Ghost, and the living prophets for guidance in interpreting the truthfulness of what is taught me. After much thought and meditation, I feel comfortable in approaching you with this subject. If it be pleasing to the Lord, I would be grateful if you could offer some further insight regarding the matters outlined in this letter.

May the Lord’s blessings be with you always.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601
_____

First Response from Kimball

Kimball replied to my letter roughly five weeks later, as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City Utah 84150

Spencer W. Kimball, President

January 26, 1979

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

Dear Brother Benson:

In your letter of November 16, you partially quote a statement by the First Presidency of the Church in your third paragraph.

I am not familiar with that particular quote and wonder I you could give me the reference where it can be found. I will await your reply.

With kind wishes.

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
(President}

[P.S. in Kimball’s handwriting]: Please quote it
_____

Second Letter to Kimball

I wrote back a week later:

February 2, 1979

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple Street, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Thank you for your letter of January 26th. As you requested, the source from which I selectively quoted the First Presidency in the third paragraph of my letter is cited below. A copy of the complete text, entitled, ‘The Origin of Man,’ and published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910 [sic, 1909 was the actual year], pp. 75-81, is also enclosed for your reference. The following portion from that article represents what is often quoted as the Church’s official stand against organic evolution:

‘Inquiries arise from time to time respecting the attitude of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints upon questions which, though not vital from a doctrinal standpoint, are closely connected with the fundamental principles of salvation. The latest inquiry of this kind that has reached us is in relation to the origin of man. It is believed that a statement of the position held by the Church upon this important subject will be timely and productive of good . . . (p. 75)

‘It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon the earth, and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declares that Adam was ‘the first man of all men’ (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race. It was shown to the brother of Jared that all men were created in the beginning after the image of God; and whether we take this to mean the spirit or the body, or both, it commits us to the same conclusion: Man began life as a human being, in the likeness of our heavenly Father.

‘True it is that the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ or embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.’ (p. 80)

If it may be of some benefit, I have also quoted in more detail a few additional statements attributed to the Prophet and/or the First Presidency, with appropriate sources. These statements were alluded to in my original letter.

Instructors at BYU who maintain that even the First Presidency statement of November, 1909, (just cited) does not constitute an official denunciation of the theory of organic evolution have referred me to a priesthood quorums’ table dealing with the origin of man, published in the Improvement Era, Vol. 13, 1910, p. 570. The complete text, edited by President Joseph F. Smith and Elder Edward H. Anderson, is enclosed with this letter. Below, however, are some extracted highlights:

‘”In just what manner did the mortal bodies of Adam and Eve come into existence on this earth?” This question comes from several High Priests’ quorums . . . .

‘Whether the mortal bodies of man evolved in natural processes to present perfection, through the direction and power of God; whether the first parents of our generations, Adam and Eve, were transplanted from another sphere, with immortal tabernacles, which became corrupted through sin and partaking of natural foods, in the process of time; whether they were born here in mortality, as other mortals have been, are questions not fully answered in the revealed word of God.’

This article then concludes by referring the reader ‘for helpful suggestions’ to the statement by the First Presidency in 1909, entitled ‘Origin of Man.’

Those who view the above priesthood quorum article as an attempt by the Church to remain essentially non-committed on the question of organic evolution also point to a letter signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency, dated May 3, 1960, and addressed to BYU Professor of Geology, Harold J. Bissell. A copy of what is said to be the original letter is enclosed for your examination. The following is an excerpt from that letter:

‘In your [Professor Bissell’s] letter you ask for a statement from the First Presidency that you might read to honest, inquiring students regarding the question of “organic evolution” . . .

‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of “organic evolution” . . . They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would met the problems of today . . .

‘We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change.’

Elder Anderson then refers Professor Bissell to the statement by the First Presidency–at that time President Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, and Anthon H. Lund–which Elder Anderson identifies as ‘the position of the Church as of that time,’ from which ‘there has been no change.’

Despite this further reference to the 1909 First Presidency statement, certain BYU instructors continue to sincerely question whether the position of the Church is a definite one, especially in light of another letter, said to have been written by President David O. McKay to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of the Cornell University Medical College, on February 3, 1959. A copy of what is claimed to be the original letter is enclosed for your reference. The following are a few highlights:

‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of organic evolution . . .

‘While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’

Finally, an additional letter is cited, dated February 25, 1959, written to Dr. Armin J. Hill, Dean of the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences at BYU, and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson. A copy of the text of the letter, which is admitted not to be from the original, is enclosed. Below is a short excerpt:

‘I am directed to say to you that, as you will perceive on a little reflection, until either the Lord speaks directly upon the mater [of the earth, its age, creation, etc.] or until the scientists are able to say they have the ultimate truth covering these matters, it would only be confusing for the First Presidency to make any statement regarding such things.’

All of these quotes are but a few of many cited by BYU instructors in an effort to prove to inquiring students their claims that either the Church has denounced organic evolution as a false theory or has remained relatively neutral on the subject. Whether or not the letters mentioned above are authentic or were even meant for general consumption, I had little way of knowing when obtaining them. They were simply given to me by a BYU instructor who claims they support his contention that the Church has taken no official stand on the theory of organic evolution.

As a student striving to increase my knowledge, I am somewhat confused and concerned by the antagonism that often seems to arise among instructors themselves and with students when this topic is discussed. In all sincerity, I do not wish to put words in the mouth of the Lord’s prophets, by proclaiming to others what I may think is the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution–whether it be one of opposition or of neutrality. My real desire is to know the truth. If it be the Lord’s will, I would be very grateful to receive some illumination from His prophet. If the truth is not yet to come, according to the Lord’s own timetable, I will wait for the day when I am ready to receive it.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601
_____

Second Response from Kimball

Kimball did not answer back for nearly four months. When he did, he replied as follows:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Spencer W. Kimball, President

May 24, 1979

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
824 East 560 North
Provo, Utah 84601

Dear Stephen:

I have been a long time in answering your letter of February 2, 1979, pertaining to the life of man.

I am wondering if you have ever read the book of Henry Eyring, ‘The Faith of the Scientist.’ Undoubtedly this book will be found in the library at BYU.

I would be glad to hear from you concerning this matter.

With our kindest wishes,

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
President
_____

Third Letter to Kimball

Kimball then took ill and was hospitalized, so I postponed replying for two months:

July 24, 1979

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple Street, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

Dear President Kimball:

I am very happy to hear that you have been released from the hospital and are resting comfortably. My prayers have been with you, as have those of Church members everywhere. May the Lord continue to bless and preserve you as you fulfill your responsibilities in His Kingdom.

Thank you for your letter of May 24 in response to my inquiries regarding the official Church position on organic evolution. As you may recall, you recommended that I read Dr. Henry Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist. Fortunately, my grandfather had given me a copy some years earlier; therefore, I took your advice, eagerly read it again, and have since referred to it frequently.

In your letter, you indicated your interest in hearing my opinion concerning his writings. I am glad to be able to explain my feelings in this regard and will do so briefly.

I was very impressed with Dr. Eyring’s thoughtful and penetrating insights concerning the reconciliation of what some see as contradictory principles of science and religion. He expressed his belief that true science and true religion are dedicated to the same goal–that of honestly and eternally seeking knowledge of all things, in earth and in the heavens.

With the purpose of science and religion in their proper perspective, Dr. Eyring claimed that both disciplines are actually of service to each other. Both are guided by the spirit of inquiry, of reaching out for truth. Thus, science serves to strengthen religion, as Dr. Eyring says, by ‘assisting in sifting the grain of truth from the chaff of imagined fable.’ Likewise, religion–with its great fundamental principle of eternal progression made possible by the Savior’s atonement–provides impetus to science to constantly seek for truth.

Of particular concern to me in my science and religion classes at Brigham Young University was the often-heard claim that if I would but interpret the scriptures correctly, I would find no justification for even considering that God may have used organic evolution as the tool for creating the earth and all life upon it, including, perhaps, the physical body of man. The scriptures, I was told, clearly spoke of an earth only 6,000 years old and of no physical death before the fall of Adam. Yet, the scientific data seemed to indicate overwhelmingly that the earth was, in fact, millions of years old and that examination of rock strata revealed life and death processes had been occurring long before Adam’s earthly advent. Moreover, ancient fossil records seemed to indicate that life had advanced from simple to complex forms over eons of time and that man’s physical body was a product of this evolutionary ladder. How, I thought, could these discoveries be explained in light of the scriptural account of creation? Surely God would not have placed age-old fossils in the earth to deceive us.

Reading Dr. Eyring’s philosophy concerning such questions was of great help to me in reconciling these apparent contradictions. Scripture, he said–whether written or spoken–should be accepted for what it is–a divine message of inspiration and hope to struggling humanity. It records God’s dealings with His prophets and is ‘as accurate as He, in His wisdom, requires.’ This last observation by Dr. Eyring led me to wonder, ‘How scientifically accurate is the creation story, as recorded in Genesis and Moses?’ I then recalled an addressed you delivered to the Relief Society General Conference in October 1975 (reprinted in the March 1976 Ensign). In it, you declared that God had indeed created man in His image. You then added that ‘the story of the rib, of course, is figurative.’ (p. 71) Concerning the processes by which Adam and Eve came into the world, you said, ‘We don’t know exactly . . . and when we’re able to understand it the Lord will tell us.’ (p. 72)

As I reflected on your words and the words of Dr. Eyring, a common message seemed to emerge: Questions involving pre-Adamic men and organic evolution are interesting and important, but the truthfulness of the Gospel does not hinge on them. At present, they seem to be a source of contradiction between religion and science; yet, such differences will always exist as long as man’s understanding remains incomplete. Therefore, I need not worry about discovering the ultimate answers immediately, since the Church is dedicated to discovering truth, wherever its source–whether it be in the scriptures, astronomy, or in the rock strata of the earth. Only as I come closer to understanding the mind of God will these apparent conflicts disappear. To expand my knowledge of such things is, in fact, part of my eternal progression and will continue in the life to come. In the meantime, I must continue to search for a balanced, truthful view of these questions, by weighing all the evidence carefully. Moreover, I must concentrate on obeying the fundamental principles of the Gospel that bring exaltation. If I do this, then some day I will know. In light of these conclusions, it appears as if the Church is refraining, at least for the time being, from adopting an official position either for or against the theory of organic evolution.

These have been my impressions on the matter. It is very significant to me that, in answering my inquiries concerning the official position of the Church on organic evolution, the living Prophet, Seer, and Revelator saw fit to direct me to Dr. Eyring’s book. I hope I have interpreted Dr. Eyring’s words correctly and in the spirit in which you recommended them to me.

I am in the final stages of organizing a paper concerning the questions addressed herein. The paper meets the requirements for both a religion and biology class. I am attempting to have it finished, if at all possible, prior to my graduation from Brigham Young University on August 17 of this year. Could I, with your permission, refer in this paper to the correspondence you have sent me? I sincerely believe it would provide great insight into a proper understanding of these questions. I would be happy to send you a copy of this paper, if you wish.

Thank you for your time and wise advice. I have benefited much from your counsel.

May the Lord continue to watch over you.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1543 South 320 West
Orem, Utah 84057
_____

Phone Call to Kimball’s Office

Over a month passed, with no response from Kimball.

My grandfather suggested that if a written reply from Kimball seemed improbable or delayed, that I should call Kimball’s office and talk to his personal secretary, Arthur Haycock. My grandfather indicated that Haycock might be able to make an authoritative decision concerning my request. Since Kimball was, at the time, recuperating from a bout with dizzy spells and had recently been treated and released from the hospital, I took my grandfather’s advice.

On 28 August 1979, at 4:30 p.m., I telephoned Kimball’s office in Salt Lake’s Church Administration Building, from BYU's Harold B. Lee Library in Provo.

I placed the call seeking permission to include in my research paper on the Church’s official position regarding organic evolution the correspondence Kimball had sent me concerning the matter. The letters in question were those from him dated 26 January 1979 and 24 May 1979.

After several unsuccessful attempts to reach Haycock, I asked his office to, if possible, have him return my call. I left word that I could be reached at the Lee Library, where I was doing research for my paper in the Special Collection Archives. Haycock returned my call and we made contact.

I explained to Haycock that I had previously written Kimball regarding the official position of the Church on organic evolution and had received responses from him which were in reply to my questions. Haycock told me he has seen my letters to Kimball.

Haycock then inquired into the reason why I writing the research paper. I informed him that it constituted a project designed to meet the requirements for a religion and biology class at BYU.

Haycock asked if I was planning to make it clear in my paper that I was expressing my own opinions and conclusions regarding the Church’s official position on the question of organic evolution. I answered that such was my intent. Haycock replied, ‘You know that President Kimball’s [24 May 1979] letter was non-committal.’

Haycock then asked me to read to him the letters I had received from Kimball which I desired to include in the paper as source material. I replied that I did not have the letters in front of me, although I could recite, nearly verbatim, the contents of the 24 May letter (which was not difficult to do, since it was so brief). Haycock said that recitation of the letter from memory would be sufficient.

I repeated the words of the 24 May letter as closely as I could remember them, essentially telling Haycock that Kimball had asked me if I had ever read Eyring’s book, The Faith of a Scientist, and that he would be interested in hearing my feelings concerning its contents.

I did not recite the 26 January letter from Kimball, since in it Kimball had simply informed me that he was not familiar with the November 1909 First Presidency statement, "The Origin of Man," which I had partially quoted to him in earlier correspondence, and concerning which he asked me to send him the full text. Furthermore, Kimball’s letter of 26 January clearly implied that a more definitive answer would be forthcoming in later correspondence from him, given that he told me that he would await my reply to his request. At any rate, Haycock did not seem to think that the 26 January letter was of great significance, since he had informed me that Kimball’s letter of 24 May was the one of concern.

After listening to me describe the contents of the 24 May letter, Haycock asked if my research paper would be strengthened by the inclusion, verbatim, of Kimball’s correspondence. As Haycock put it, would it be best to “take a picture of it,” or would it suffice to simply mention Kimball’s letter in the paper? I replied that making a photocopy of the 24 May letter and including it in an appendix would be the ideal course and would add strength to the paper. Haycock responded that, in such case, there would be no objection to me doing so, as long as I made it clear that the conclusions reached were my own.

Our conversation was cordial and Haycock thanked me for having called.
_____

Fourth Letter to Kimball

I still wasn’t satisfied, however. I was hoping for a more definitive answer from Kimball and still believed it was possible to get one. So, my professors granted me an extension past my graduation to continue searching for more answers and working on the paper, which I did for several more months.

During that time, I had many private conversations with my grandfather about the Church’s official position on the theory of organic evolution. (His private views on the subject, by the way, were often more moderate in both tone and substance than those he expressed in public).

I also had an extended, face-to-face conversation with Bruce R. McConkie at McConkie’s home on the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution.

While both my grandfather and McConkie had significant theological problems with organic evolution, McConkie’s were more radical in their opposition than were my grandfather’s.

Armed with notes from my discussions with both men, I again wrote to Kimball:

July 20, 1980

President Spencer W. Kimball
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Given your responsibilities of a much more important nature, you have been extraordinarily gracious in the past in taking time to correspond with me regarding the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. For your thoughtfulness and concern I am sincerely appreciative.

I am therefore somewhat hesitant in again approaching you on this subject, for fear that I will unnecessarily divert you away from more pressing duties. I am also a bit anxious that you may perceive me to be ‘bogged down’ with matters not pertinent to the essential doctrines of salvation. Nevertheless, I hope that you can understand that the topic addressed herein is of sufficient concern to me that I would be truly indebted if you would indulge me this one last time.

Recently, I had the distinct pleasure of discussing at length with two members of the Quorum of the Twelve some questions I have concerning the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. [The two were Ezra Taft Benson and Bruce R. McConkie]. Since I do not wish to appear to be pitting these brethren against each other–both of whom I wholeheartedly sustain in their divine callings–perhaps a discretionary course would be to refrain from mentioning names.

Both of these brethren told me that the Church has, at least ostensibly, adopted a ‘middle-of-the-road’ approach in regard to its official stand on the theory of organic evolution, although both had their own opinions as to why the Church had chosen this position. Moreover, both do not expect the Church to issue any official statement on the theory of organic evolution in the foreseeable future. Both also share a personal belief, with one Apostle [McConkie] appearing more completely wedded to the idea than the other [Benson], that the theory of organic evolution is completely inharmonious with revealed scripture, particularly as related to the fall of Adam and the atonement of Christ. In addition, both indicated to me that you are decidedly not neutral in your personal assessment of the theory, but share a belief akin to their own.

One Apostle [McConkie] maintains that unless scientists someday discover there was no death before the fall of Adam, they will be unable to bring to light any new scientific evidence which will harmonize the theory of organic evolution with the revealed word of God. The Apostle, in fact, is convinced that the Church has clearly taken at least a doctrinal stand against the theory of organic evolution, that this stand is unquestionably found in the scriptures, and that the Church therefore need not issue an official statement on the matter, since the official position of the Church is readily available in the scriptures for those who truly seek to know it. He emphasized in this regard that the Church is not required to submit to its membership for a vote any proposed position on the theory of organic evolution in order for an official stand to be taken. That stand, he said, has already been taken by the revealed scriptures.

He [McConkie] also told me that attempts by Church members to obtain authoritative statements from the President of the Church on the theory of organic evolution will not solve the problem, since Church presidents can differ–and actually have differed–on certain doctrinal questions and, at times, have even contradicted themselves. (As evidence of this, he mentioned President Brigham Young, saying that ‘you can quote Brigham Young against Brigham Young.’ He also noted that President Young’s belief in the Adam-God theory has been denounced by subsequent Church presidents, including yourself).

Furthermore, the Apostle [McConkie] told me that, in his opinion, if a President of the Church contradicted what he (the Apostle) believed to be the doctrinal stand of the Church against the theory of organic evolution as found in the scriptures, the President would be wrong. For instance, when I mentioned to him that President McKay, in speaking to BYU students, referred to organic evolution as a ‘beautiful theory of the creation of the world,’ he [McConkie] told me that again, in his opinion, if President McKay meant what he said, his words were inharmonious with scripture on the subject, and therefore President McKay was ‘uninspired.’ (President McKay’s address, entitled, ‘A Message for LDS Youth,’ was delivered at BYU on 10 October 1953 and printed in BYU Extension Publications; see pp. 6-7, in particular)

The reason he [McConkie] said, for the absence of an official statement by the Church on the theory of organic evolution is not because the Church has allegedly adopted a neutral position, but because the Church sees wisdom at this time in restraint–in imparting, as Alma said, ‘only according to the portion of [the Lord’s] word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.’

The current desire of the Church, maintains the Apostle [McConkie], is not to drive out of its ranks those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution; rather, he sees the Church, to use his words, as simply ‘temporizing’ the weaker elements of its membership, much as the Apostles of the primitive Church attempted to avoid alienating recent Gentile converts who still falsely believed that circumcision was essential to salvation.

He [McConkie] also suggests that perhaps the Church, by refraining from making any official pronouncement on the theory of organic evolution, is allowing the wheat and the tares (i.e., those who put their complete faith in the truths of revealed religion vs. those who believe the false scientific religion of organic evolution) to grow up together until the time of the harvest, when the tares will be bundled and burned and the wheat gathered into the barn and saved.

The second Apostle [Benson] with whom I discussed this matter seemed to me to take a somewhat more moderate approach. While he, too, personally finds much of the theory of organic evolution to be incompatible with revealed scripture, he acknowledges that there is evidence on both sides of the question–in scripture and science. Moreover, he notes that there are some things about which we as a Church do not yet completely understand. The Lord, he says, may not have yet revealed enough on the theory of organic evolution to create unanimity among the Brethren. He also observes that all scientific theories are subject to change as new discoveries are made. He sincerely hopes that the Lord will see fit to reveal at some future date the full answer on the theory of organic evolution; in the meantime, however, he feels that organic evolution should be taught as what it is and nothing more–a theory. In particular, he is concerned that teachers of science in Church educational institutions may present the theory to their students as an immutable fact and, in doing so, undermine the faith and testimony of young people in the revealed word of God. This, he says, is, of course, ‘not pleasing to the Lord.’ If the theory of organic evolution is to be taught at all in Church schools, this Apostle [Benson] believes that such instruction should be accompanied by the solemn testimony of the science teacher regarding the truths of the restored Gospel.

On these last points, this Apostle [Benson] appears to be advocating an approach to education of LDS youth that was strongly encouraged by President McKay. Permit me, if you will, to again quote from the same BYU address mentioned earlier. President McKay told his student and faculty audience:

‘There is a perpetual design permeating all purposes of creation. On these thoughts, science again leads the student up to a certain point and sometimes lead him with his soul unanchored. Millikan is right when he says, ‘Science without religion obviously may became a curse rather than a blessing to mankind.’ But, science dominated by the spirit of religion is the key [to] progress and the hope of the future. Evolution’s beautiful theory of the creation of the world offers many perplexing problems to the inquiring mind. Inevitably, a teacher who denies divine agency in creation, who insists there is no intelligent purpose in it, will infest the student with the thought that all may be chance. I say that no youth should be so led without a counterbalancing thought. Even the skeptic teacher should be fair enough to see that even Charles Darwin, when he faced this great question of annihilation, that the creation is dominated only by chance, wrote: “It is an intolerable thought that man and all other sentient beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long, continued slow progress” . . . The public school teacher will probably, even if he says that much . . . go no farther. In the Church school the teacher is unhampered. In the Brigham Young University and every other Church school, the teacher can say that God is at the helm.’

The approach of the second Apostle [Benson] also seems quite similar to that of President McKay in at least one more respect. During his administration, President McKay deliberately avoided issuing any official Church statement either condemning or supporting the theory of organic evolution; instead, he seemed content to describe it only as a theory and leave it at that. Forgive me for again quoting, but the attitude of President McKay on the subject seems to closely reflect the thoughts of this latter Apostle [Benson], and therefore may be of some interest to you. In a letter dated 3 February 1960 to Dr. A. Kent Christensen of Cornell University’s Medical College, President McKay wrote:

‘The Church has issued no official statement on the subject of the theory of
evolution . . . .

‘Evolution is a theory. You say that biologists would agree on the general lines of what happened, although there may be less agreement about just how it happened. While scientific people themselves differ in their interpretations and views of the theory, any conflicts which may seem to exist between the theory and the truths of revealed religion can well be dealt with by suspending judgment as long as may be necessary to arrive at facts and at a complete understanding of the truth.’

Similarly, in a letter dated 3 May 1960 and signed by Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency during President McKay’s administration, Professor Harold J. Bissell of the BYU Geology Department was told:

‘The Brethren feel very sure that serious reflection on the matter will persuade you of the problems and resulting difficulties that would come to the First Presidency from any announcement that they might make on this matter of ‘organic evolution.’ You will appreciate that any statement they might make on this subject would be presumed to meet the problem as it is now understood by the scientists and the people. They feel sure that you will also appreciate that the problem as it now exists under the theories of present scientists might well not be the problems that will exist 50 or 100 years from now any more than that an explanation made to meet the theories of 100 years ago would meet the problems of today. As the Brethren understand, science must never accept any alleged solution of the problems of science (and they are many and in different fields), as the final truth . . . We seem to be in an age of such great and fundamental scientific readjustments on many matters, which age we have come to speak of as the nuclear age, that to attempt to harmonize the spiritual truths of the Gospel with the scientific theories would be futile, not because spiritual truths are not truths, because they are, but because the theories are admittedly largely hypothetical and subject to change. The Brethren sometimes say that this harmonizing of which so much is sometimes said should be harmonizing of science with spiritual truth, and not the harmonizing of spiritual truth with science, which latter can be accepted only when science comes to the ultimate truth, and nobody knows when that will be.’

(If it may be of some assistance, complete photocopied texts of the above letters were provided in my earlier letter to you, dated 2 February 1979).

I am acutely aware that in quoting Church authorities I have perhaps adopted the approach which the first Apostle [McConkie] said would not lead me to the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. Moreover, I realize that President McKay’s insights were provided specifically for the people of his day and therefore his words may not apply to people living at the present time. Yet, I feel compelled to mention them because they seem so strikingly similar to the views of the second Apostle [Benson] with whom I spoke. If I have correctly interpreted the words of this latter Apostle, the clear implication, at least to me, seems to be that because the Church has issued no official position statement on the theory of organic evolution and because it has not, to my knowledge, referred the Church membership to the scriptures for an official doctrinal answer as to what that position is or is not, the Lord apparently has not yet seen fit to reveal it to His Church. Hence, again in my opinion, the Church seems to be leaving the matter open for the time being, until the Lord judges the membership ready to receive further light and knowledge, according to their faith.

If I have been accurate in this interpretation, then it appears to me that, notwithstanding their common skepticism of the theory of organic evolution in general, the views of the two Apostles, at least on this point, are at odds. One Apostle [McConkie] tells me that the Church has definitely taken a doctrinal stand, as recorded in the scriptures, against the theory of organic evolution, and that this is therefore the official position of the Church. On the other hand, the second Apostle [Benson] suggests that the Lord may not have yet defined for His Church a final position on the theory, doctrinal or otherwise, and that therefore the question remains open.

May I emphasize, however, that this seeming divergence of views between the two brethren does not, by any means, diminish my faith or testimony in their divine callings as prophets, seers and revelators. It simply appears to me that on this question they may well entertain somewhat differing opinions, which I certainly accept as their individual right to do.

Nonetheless, neither view seems to be leading me to a clear and proper understanding of what, in actuality, is the official position of the Church at this time concerning the theory of organic evolution. Both Apostles told me what they personally considered to be the official position of the Church and the reasons behind that position, but neither pretended to be speaking for the Church in an official capacity on this subject. I therefore feel it necessary to approach you, President Kimball, for the insight which I believe only you can give as the Lord’s living mouthpiece for His Church. Without reservation, I sustain you as the sole earthly spokesman for the Restored Church of Jesus Christ, through whom is made known the will of Heaven for all people living in this day and age. I honestly and sincerely have the faith to accept whatever enlightenment you may feel impressed to give me, even if you were to tell me that my conclusions up to this point have been completely wrong. If indeed such is the case, I would like to know where and how I should correct my thinking.

These matters have become of genuine concern to me as I search for truth in the world provided by a loving Creator. I have always enjoyed a keen interest in the biological and earth sciences, and I would be less than candid if I did not tell you that the theory of organic evolution, in its scientific attempts to explain the wonders of nature, has opened up to me new areas of fascinating and adventurous study.

However, I still regard organic evolution as a theory only, no matter how intriguing or even plausible it may seem, and am sincerely attempting not to become unnecessarily dogmatic in passing judgment on something about which I still know relatively little.

Yet, if the theory is, as some claim, patently false, devilish, and will most assuredly lead those who sympathize with or believe it away from Christ, I want nothing to do with it. If, on the other hand, the Lord has not seen fit to condemn it, I desire to now more about the theory, to see if perhaps it can provide me with a better understanding of man’s physical origins and of the world in which he lives.

My ultimate desire, though, is to know and do what is right, to be a builder of faith and testimony in the Creator, in His living prophets, and in His scriptures, not to be a destroyer or a cynic. I honestly hope that my studies in both religion and science will aid me in these efforts. I want to live the teachings of the Gospel, for I know that only through adherence to them, not through devotion to the theories of men, can I understand my relationship to my Father in Heaven and, as His son, someday become like He is, to experience the true joy and knowledge that comes only through obedience to His laws. If I achieve that goal, then I will have eternities to learn how the Lord made the physical world and perhaps have the opportunity to fashion a few worlds of my own.

Nevertheless, while many questions the Lord has not yet seen fit to fully answer, there are a few that, if answerable, would do much to clarify in my own mind a matter which, up to this point, has only confused me. As you see fit, I would greatly appreciate any enlightenment you could provide me concerning the following specifics:

1) Does the Church have an official position on the theory of organic evolution which has been explained to the Church membership?

2) If the Church does, in fact, have an official position on the theory of organic evolution, does it condemn the theory as false, support it as true, or leave the matter ‘open-ended’?

3) If the official position of the Church either condemns or supports the theory of organic evolution, what are the reasons behind that position?

4) If the Church has no official position on the theory of organic evolution, or if that position is officially ‘open-ended,’ am I to understand this to mean that the Church has also taken no doctrinal stand for or against the theory?

5) If the Church has issued no official statement on the theory, does this mean that the Church is merely ‘temporizing’ those members who, because of their weak faith, believe in the false theory of organic evolution?

6) Does the absence of an official position or statement on the theory of organic evolution indicate that the Lord has not yet seen fit to reveal to His Church the full answer as to the truth or falsity of the theory?

Thank you very much for your time and patience in enduring this letter. Reading it, no doubt, must have been a rather laborious undertaking.

May the Lord continue to bless and sustain you in your great work.

Sincerely, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1677 Westwind Way
McClean, Virginia 22102
_____

Response from the Office of the First Presidency

In surprisingly short order, I received a response, albeit a puzzling one, from Francis M. Gibbons, Secretary to the First Presidency:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

August 1, 1980

Mr. Stephen R. Benson
1677 Westwind Way
McLean, Virginia 22101

Dear Brother Benson:

I have been asked to acknowledge your letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball and to inquire as a basis for responding to it whether you would have an objection if a copy of your letter, together with an answering letter, were to be sent to your bishop.

If you are agreeable to this, it will be appreciated if you will furnish his name and address.

President Kimball also asked me to extend his best wishes to you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Francis M. Gibbons
Secretary to the First Presidency
_____

Letter to the Office of the First Presidency

I did not know what kind of answer my bishop would be receiving, but by this point, I was willing to accept almost anything. So I wrote back:

September 19, 1980

Elder Francis M. Gibbons
Secretary to the First Presidency
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
47 East South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear Elder Gibbons:

Thank you for acknowledging my letter of July 20, 1980, to President Spencer W. Kimball regarding the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution.

I would certainly have no objection if a copy of that letter together with an answering letter from President Kimball, were to be sent to my bishop. His name and address are listed below:

Bishop David L. Allen
447 West Sunset Circle
Mesa, Arizona 85201

Thank you again, and please extend my best wishes to the President.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1455 North Alma School Road, #7
Mesa, Arizona 85201
_____

First Presidency Letter to My Bishop

A few days later, my bishop received the following letter:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Office of the First Presidency
Salt Lake City, Utah 84150

September 22, 1980

Bishop David L. Allen
Lehi 5th Ward
Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake
447 West Sunset Circle
Mesa, Arizona 85201

Dear Bishop Allen:

Enclosed is a copy of a recent letter from Brother Stephen R. Benson, who it is understood is a member of your ward.

As you will see, Brother Benson inquires about the attitude of the Church toward organic evolution. We shall appreciate it if you will contact Brother Benson and discuss this matter with him. To assist you in your discussion, we are enclosing herewith a copy of the statement issued by the First Presidency which appeared in the Improvement Era, Volume 13, pp. 75-81, on the subject of the origin of man.

Brother Benson has given permission for a copy of his letter to be sent to you.

Sincerely yours,

[signed]

Spencer W. Kimball
N. Eldon Tanner
Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

So, after nearly two years of playing mail tag with Kimball, I was back to square one. The Kimball First Presidency had sent to my bishop, without guidance or explanation, the 1909 First Presidency statement–the same one that I had originally sent, at his request, to Kimball after he told me he wasn’t familiar with it.
_____

Fifth Letter to Kimball

When my bishop received the letter from the First Presidency, he didn’t know what to do. He told me he didn’t know enough about organic evolution to give me any advice and wasn’t sure on how to properly interpret the 1909 First Presidency statement that Kimball and Company had sent along to him to aid in his consultations with me.

So, he suggested I write Kimball one last time:

November 7, 1980

President Spencer W. Kimball
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

Thank you for the First Presidency letter, sent through my bishop, regarding the attitude of the Church on organic evolution (22 September 1980, to Bishop David L. Allen, Lehi 5th Ward, Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake).

The following request for clarification of certain points in that letter is made on the recommendation of my bishop, with whom I discussed the letter at length. The bishop also recommended that this be my last inquiry (for which, no doubt, you are understandably grateful), and that I abide by whatever counsel you may see fit to give. This I am quite willing to do, knowing that your time is valuable and there are other topics of more importance to salvation that deserve our respective attentions. I will, therefore, be as brief and, yet, as specific as possible.

Thank you for enclosing in your reply a copy of the 1909 statement by President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors, entitled 'The Origin of Man.' I have read it often and believe it to contain many beautiful and eternal truths. Please do not interpret this as a spirit of boastfulness, but I have been aware of the 1909 statement for some time and, as you may recall, provided you with a copy of its complete text, as you requested, in February 1979.

Much of the discussion among Church members concerning the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution has centered on this very statement. Many divergent views have been expressed as to what allegedly is or is not the official Church position on the theory and to the connection between that position and the 1909 statement. Some members, for instance, claim that the 1909 statement definitely condemns organic evolution as false. Others say that it does not. Whatever claim is correct, such interpretations seem to be to be based largely on speculation.

Since the reply from the First Presidency to my bishop contained no explanation as to the proper interpretation to be applied to the 1909 statement, I remain, in all honesty, confused. Without an attendant explanation of how the 1909 declaration should be viewed, it is my feeling that it remains subject to the same kind of private and, perhaps, inaccurate interpretation that has often been the source of disagreement among Church members.

May I emphasize here that the above observations are mine alone and certainly may be subject to error. I do not wish to appear to be telling the First Presidency what to put in their letters or to be calling into question the wisdom of their replies. I simply feel that I have traveled ‘full circle,’ so to speak, without having obtained in my own mind a clear picture of the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. Only for this reason have I sought additional insight.

My bishop has acknowledged that I appear to be in somewhat of a dilemma. In our discussion, he told me that, in his opinion, many topics, including organic evolution, are speculative in nature, due to an absence of complete revelation from the Lord and that, therefore, such topics can be argued for or against, depending on which side, and even on which scriptures, one chooses to base a particular viewpoint.

Nevertheless, the bishop emphasized that these represented only his personal opinions and, therefore, thought it would be of value for me to approach you this one last time. I must admit that I agree with him on taking this step. So many individuals, President Kimball, have told me their various, and often contradictory, versions of what supposedly is or is not the official Church position on organic evolution, each invoking their own scriptures and Church authorities, that my attempts to sift fact from fiction have, more often than not, led to frustration and disappointment.

Would it be proper, then, for me to ask candidly if the 1909 statement should be regarded as officially condemning the theory of organic evolution, as some Church members claim it does, or is there perhaps some other conclusion that might be drawn? I would not even be disappointed to learn that, as a Church, we simply do not yet know the answer to that question, if such be the case. (In posing these questions, I am assuming, based on the First Presidency’s letter to my bishop, that the 1909 statement remains the official position of the Church. Enclosed for your reference, however, are copies of statements made since 1909, by President Joseph F. Smith in 1910 and 1911 and by the Grant First Presidency in 1925, all of which deal with the Church view on evolution).

I sincerely want to avoid any inaccuracies in my conclusions and would very much appreciate clarification on these points, if and how you see fit.

Thank you for your indulgence. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work, and I hope your legs feel better.

Respectfully, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson
1455 North Alma School Road, #7
Mesa, Arizona 85201

enc/srb

Kimball did not reply.
_____

Sixth(and Final) Letter to Kimball

I waited for three-and-a-half months for a reply. Hoping against hope that perhaps Kimball hadn’t answered because my letter had gotten lost in the mail, I sent him another copy of it with the following note:

February 24, 1981

President Spencer W. Kimball
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
47 East South Temple, #102
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

Dear President Kimball:

This inquiry is simply a follow-up to a letter mailed to you on November 7, 1980. Having received no response to that letter, I fear that perhaps it may have never reached your desk. If not, then this correspondence will serve as a substitute. If, in fact, you did receive it and have thought it best not to respond, please forgive me for sending yet another letter.

On September 22, 1980, the First Presidency kindly sent a letter to my bishop in response to my questions regarding the attitude of the Church on the theory of organic evolution (Bishop David L. Allen, Lehi 5th Ward, Mesa Arizona Lehi Stake).

Bishop Allen and I discussed the First Presidency's letter at length, and he recommended that I make the following request for clarification of certain points of that letter.

In response to my inquiries, the First Presidency sent to Bishop Allen a copy of the 1909 statement by President Joseph F. Smith and his counselors, entitled, "The Origin of Man." I have read it often and believe [it] to contain many beautiful and eternal truths. As you may recall, I provided you with a copy of its complete text, at your request, in February 1979.

Much of the discussion among Church members concerning the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution has centered on the precise meaning of the 1909 statement. Some members, for instance, claim that it clearly condemns organic evolution as false. Others say that it does not. Wherever the truth lies, such interpretations seem to me to be based largely on personal opinion.

Absent of official insight into how the 1909 statment should be viewed, it is my honest feeling that it will remain subject to the same kind of private and, perhaps, inaccurate interpretation that has often led to disagreement and confusion among inquiring Church members.

Please may I emphasize here that I do not wish to appear to be counseling the First Presidency as to what to include in their letters or to be calling into question the wisdom of their replies. From a personal standpoint, however, I simply feel that I have traveled "full circle," without having obtained in my own mind a clear picture of the official Church position on the theory of organic evolution. Only for this reason have I sought additional direction from the First Presidency.

My bishop has acknowledged what appears to be the dilemma of my situation. In our discussion of the First Presidency's letter, he told me that, in his opinion, organic evolution is still a speculative theory, about which the Lord has not yet seen fit to provide complete revelation. Therefore, my bishop concludes that the theory can be argued for or against, depending upon what evidence, including the scriptures, one chooses to base a particular viewpoint.

The bishop, however, reminded me that this was only his personal opinion and recommended that I approach you for final clarification. So many individuals, President Kimball, have offered me various and even contradictory versions of what they believe is or is not the official Church position on organic evolution. Many have invoked a mixture of the scriptures, statements from Church leaders, and scientific data to bolster their arguments. My attempts to sift through they offer as proff has often led to frustration and disappointment.

It is not my intent to "prove" or "disprove" the theory of organic evolution. Whether or not the theory is scientifically "proveable" is really not by concern. I only desire to know what the official position of the Church is on the matter. Would it be proper, then, for me to ask candidly if the 1909 statement should be regarded as an official denunciation of the theory of organic evolution, or is there perhaps some other conclusion that might be drawn? Whatever the answer may be, it certainly will not shake my testimony in the truthfulness of the restored gospel. Yet, some clarification of the 1909 statement would be very much appreciated, if it is your inclination to provide it.

Thank you for your indulgence. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work.

Respectfully, your brother,

[signed]

Stephen R. Benson

2011 East Cornell
Tempe, Arizona 85283

P.S.--Enclosed for your reference are copies of statements made since 1909 by the President of the Church: President Joseph F. Smith in 1910 and 1911, and President Heber J. Grant, together with his counselors, in 1925, all of which deal with the Church view on evolution.

enc. (original emphasis)

No reply.

Kimball died five years later.
_____

Conclusion: Lengthen Your Runaround

As a devout member of the Mormon Church at the time of my correspondence with Kimball, and as someone who was seeking direct answers to honest questions, I had tried every conceivable way to pry any light and knowledge out of Kimball on the LDS Church’s official position concerning the theory of organic evolution.

In the end, however, I found myself no further ahead than when the process had begun 27 months earlier. Despite my assurances to Kimball that none of this would lead to me questioning my faith in Mormonism, I admittedly came away beginning to wonder, “If the Church could not--or would not--give me honest answers to my inquiries on matters of science and faith, what else could I trust it to give me answers on?”

A few years later, with my faith completely shattered, I had my name removed from the membership shackles of the Mormon Cult.

Who Among Us Had The Wondrously Wacky Experience Of Learning/squirming At The Feet Of Byu Religion Teacher Reid Bankhead?
Monday, Mar 6, 2006, at 07:47 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Or, should I say "Bunkhead"?

The guy was such a nut. By comparision, he made my uncle Reed (and Bunkhead's partner in poppycock) look like Isaac Newton.

Or was it Fig Newton?

Scientifically illiterate and religiously zealous (always a dangerous combo), Bunkhead would show Christian fundamentalist filmstrips in his Book of Mormon 421 and 422 returned missionary classes, contending that Noah's Flood, along with the supposedly instantaneous freezing of Siberian woolly mammoths, was caused by an icy astroid being pulled into Earth's orbit a few thousand years ago (which also, by the way, suddenly created the world's major mountain ranges, due to this spacey invader's strong gravitational pull on our planet).

These absurdities were rooted in a book of bombastic bamboozlement--meaning, of course, that it was highly touted by Bunkhead (despite opposition from some outspokenly peeved students in his class who actually knew something about science). Authored by Donald Patton, it was entitled The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch and, when it came to woo-woo science, was Bunkhead's Bible.

(So, you can forget all about that Plate Tectonics thing--it's just a tool of the Devil).

http://biblesearchers.com/catastrophes/catastrophes1.shtml
_____

Bunkhead also used to admonish his classes to give him the right answer by rubbing his chin, as he paced back and forth at the front of the room, shaking his head and muttering, "Now, elders . . . "

On his exams, we had to answer the questions in Book of Mormon scripture language--otherwise, he said, he could weed out the pretenders among us from those who really knew the Word.

Speaking of which, walking through the old Joseph Smith building one day with him and my uncle Reed, he vowed to "smoke out" evolutionists on campus and force them, he declared, to choose between Charles Darwin and the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In that Salem-era witchtrial mentality of his, Bunkhead published a pamphlet entitled, "The Fall of Adam, the Atonement of Christ and Organic Evolution"--which purported to represent the official Mormon position on the subject.

Actually, it was nothing more than a clunky, selective, cut-and-paste propaganda piece, composed of wacky statements from wacking GAs that agreed with Bunkhead's wacky ideas about things scientific.

http://cgi.ebay.com/LDS-MORMON-RARE-FAL...
_____

Word has it that Bunkhead eventually retired to his personal bunker complex in the foothills of Levan, Utah, where he died and is currently buried until the morning of the First Insurrection.

Daniel C. Peterson: Master Mason Of Attack And Evasion
Monday, Mar 13, 2006, at 06:33 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Introduction: In the Mouth of Secret Sources, Shall Daniel C. Peterson's Word Be Established

As we on the Recovery from Mormonism board are well aware (and as the ever-agitated Mormon apologist Daniel C. Peterson has amply demonstrated and admitted), he lurks here, smirks elsewhere and shirks opportunities to openly offer evidence for his counterfeit claims.

As noted recently on this board, Peterson asserts that my accounts of what transpired during private conversations that my wife and I had with LDS apostles Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell in September 1993 are, well, full of lies.

In response, let us review what Peterson (in league with his faithful, FAIR-minded minions) have had to offer as proof of Peterson's claims.
_____

Peterson’s Original and Empty Charge

Roughly two years ago I was advised on the RfM board that Peterson had claimed personal access to an unidentified source who supposedly was knowledgeable of the contents of private conversations that myself, my wife Mary Ann, Oaks and Maxwell had in September 1993, in Maxwell’s Church office in downtown Salt Lake City, dealing with matters of LDS history, doctrine and practice.

Peterson, I was informed at the time, had declared to receptive apologists' ears that he had, in essence, a Deep Throat disciple (whose identity Peterson did not reveal) who supposedly told him that my version of events did not synchronize with the claims of Peterson's Mystery Mormon Man.

As I recollect, Peterson reportedly had leveled this accusation in a Mormon apologist forum (where else?)--where, even there, his claim remained vague and imprecise.

Offering evidence that Peterson did, in fact, make this claim to inside counterintelligence, a RfM poster recently reported that a Peterson defender on the FAIR Messages Board had announced that Peterson at one time declared my description of the Oaks/Maxwell meetings to be duplicitous:

This . . . reminds me of a part of my weekend spent posting on a thread I did at FAIRLDS.org.

When I dared to bring up Steve Benson's privately held encounter with Maxwell and Oaks, the countering FAIR poster actually retorted quite confidently, and as if it made all the sense in this world (loosely quoting):

’I know about that meeting and I also know it is completely misrepresented because Daniel Peterson said that Steve Benson lied about most of the details.’

( “My recent experience with the fog,” by “Noggin,” Recovery from Mormonism board, 8 March 2006, at http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora...)
_____

Peterson’s Mormon Defenders Attempt To Explain Away His Failure to Produce Proof of His Claim

Taking issue with the aforementioned faithful FARMS follower of Peterson, another Peterson defender calling himself “Jimbob” (and speaking in the giveaway language of a defensive true-believing Mormon), took a different tact.

First, “Jimbob” suggested that even if Peterson had access to the inside scoop of what really transpired in those meetings, he might have chosen to ignore requests for proof of his claim because Peterson (who has never been reluctant to personally and venomously attack ex-Mormons) doesn’t like (be still my heart) being called names:

Perhaps he's turned off by your incessant name calling. I know I am.

(Well, boo-hoo, “Jimbob.” This isn’t about what “Jimbob” does and doesn’t like. It’s about what Peterson does and doesn’t say).

But, "Jimbob," ever sensitive to other people's feelings, persisted in excusing Peterson's silence:

Perhaps DCP isn't answering because you argue like an eight-year old: lots of mean things to say, little on analysis.

Then, following his own advice to oft speak kind words to each other, "Jimbob" proceeded in the next breath to compare me to the Unibomber.

“Jimbob” offered yet another possible explanation as to why Peterson may have chosen not to put up the proof, declaring that the RfM is not a demilitarized zone for decent discussion (as if FAIR, where Peterson regularly runs to pout and post, is?):

. . . [M]aybe he [Peterson] doesn't see this [RfM] as a neutral ground (what with the tendency to make arguments, but hide behind the sad banner of ‘recovery’ whenever arguments are returned).

In continued defense of the Mormon Cult, “Jimbob” also suggested that, contrary to the above FAIR poster’s assertion, Peterson may have never actually ever claimed to have had an inside source which slipped him the truth about what took place in my two encounters with Oaks and Maxwell in September 1993 (encounters that lasted a total of approximately four hours):

Perhaps he [Peterson] never made the comment. I mean you're quoting a source that is quoting a source that is quoting a source. Not exactly bullet proof.

Then, in a typical and desperate apologist effort to divert attention away from the damning behind-the-scene confessions of Oaks and Maxwell, "Jimbob" proposed:

Or is this simply a protectionary measure you're taking knowing nothing will come of it? After all, if your story about your brief encounter with a couple of apostles on your way out isn't in reality all that important, you kind of lose your celebrity with these folks, right? And then what would you have? You'd just be another guy that left the church angry. How prosaic.

No, "Jimbob," how pro-Mormon of you.

( “Re: Put Up or Shut Up, DCP: Daniel C. Peterson’s flimsy claims about my meetings with Oaks and Maxwell,” post by “Jimbob,” 9 March 2006, at http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora... ; and idem, "Re: Without evidence to back up his hero DCP, Jimbob the latest Mormon Troll comes here cowardly to introduce himself. :) nt," ibid., at http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora... )
_____

Whatever the reasons may be for Peterson to keep quiet, he has strangely yet to cough up any vitals concerning who he supposedly talked to about our meeting and what this secret source of his claimed was actually uttered during my conversations with Oaks and Maxwell.

In the meantime, there was natural speculation on the RfM board as to who may have been Peterson’s source, with suggestions being made as to it being either Oaks or Maxwell. (It most likely was not anyone else, since the only other person to enter Maxwell's office during our first visit with him and Oaks was an office staffer who brought us cans of 7-Up, then made herself scarce. No one other than Oaks, Maxwell and myself were in the second meeting).

Peterson claims to have the facts about what was said in our encounters but refuses to produce them.

In contrast, I have in my possession physical evidence pointing to the matters about which I privately spoke with Oaks and Maxwell.

They include:

--an original, personal letter to me from Maxwell, agreeing to meet with me to talk about my areas of concern

This letter was sent to me by Maxwell after my father, Mark Benson, had earlier asked Maxwell if a meeting could be arranged in my behalf. Maxwell agreed, then subsequently requested a list of questions from me outlining the topics I wished to address with him, for his pre-meeting review and preparation. I have a copy of those questions in my possession, which formed the basis for my inquiries to Oaks and Maxwell--copies which were also provided to both men.

--Copies of Maxwell's Church-published talks on the subjects of recording history and the role of LDS women, which Maxwell gave to me and my wife during our conversations with him and Oaks

--Copies of Church-published articles attempting to explain the various accounts of the First Vision, provided to me by Maxwell during our conversations

--An original fax from FARMS (originally sent to Maxwell at Maxwell's request, that he then passed to me during our conversations) which attempted to explain away the bogus translation of the Book of Abraham

--Printed-out references to pro-Mormon claims concerning the method of Book of Mormon translation, provided to me by Maxwell during our conversations

--Contemporary notes made by both my wife and myself during our first meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, combined with a tape recording we later made the same day upon returning from the first meeting--a recording that was based upon fresh note-to-note, memory-to-memory comparisons, as well as later supplemented with my additional notes which I made during a second private meeting with Oaks and Maxwell.

--A taped phone conversation between Dallin Oaks and then-reporter for the Arizona Republic, Paul Brinkley-Rogers, made in October 1993, in which Oaks admits that what he (Oaks) had earlier told the reporter on the record about supposedly not knowing of Boyd K. Packer's involvement in the excommunication of Paul Toscano was not true. The conversation was recorded by the reporter himself, who then provided me with a copy of it, at my request.

As background, prior to this recorded phone conversation between Oaks and the reporter, Oaks had, in my second meeting with him and Maxwell, informed me of Packer's inappropriate involvement in the Toscano case.

He then subsequently lied about what he told me to the reporter.

Only after I contacted Oaks by fax--pointing out his lies and demanding that he set the record straight or I would do it for him--did Oaks then acknowledge in the aforementioned phone conversation with the reporter (whom Oaks contacted through the LDS Church switchboard) that he had, in fact, not told the reporter the truth. I have in my possession the original fax which I sent to Oaks.
_____

Peterson’s Most Recent Public Response to Demands That He Produce His Secret Evidence

Despite providing Peterson with my personal e-mail address (so that he can forward on the evidence in support of his contentions), Peterson has chosen not to comply, instead retreating to the friendly encampment of FAIR, where he has complained to his sycophantic followers just how brutally he is being mistreated on RfM.

Licking his wounds in a recent sniffy-sniff lament on the FAIR Message Boards, Peterson grumped that his trolling defenders on RfM (which he refers to as “the Compound”) are not allowed to ride to his rescue without being bounced from the premises as the unwelcome intruders that they are:

Some poor fellow (unknown to me) appeared on the "Recovery" board tonight to defend me against some really harsh attacks recently aimed my way by Steve Benson. This guy must have anticipated the nature of the response he would receive, because he signed his note "anon."

Sure enough, he was immediately branded a "coward," "insane," and "Daniel Peterson" by several of the recovering truth seekers there.

I bet with some of my fellow-lunatic friends that his post wouldn't survive an hour. I won. It was removed.

Disagreement is not tolerated within the Compound.

( Daniel Peterson, posted on Fair Message Boards, 10 March 2006, at
http://www.fairboards.org/index.php... )
_____

Daniel in the Lion's Den and Mormon Apologists for Peterson (His Non-Prophet Organization) Launch Their Own Attacks on Ex-Mormons

Displaying the well-rehearsed LDS persecution complex, Peterson has complained to his FAIR fans that he is the target of unwarranted attack, most recently at the dirty hands of RfM's very own Tal Bachman.

Whining like a good Mormon should, super-sensitive Peterson objects that Tal has created humorous make-believe Mormon characters at Peterson's expense:

"Garloy Hendricks" is a fictional Mormon 'apologist' invented by Tal Tale Bachman, and based, pretty clearly, on his skewed perception of me.

Bachman and some of his acolytes enjoy creating fictional journal entries for Garloy, which are designed to make me and others associated with FARMS look like contemptible idiots.

Garloy is a narrow-minded fool, an irrationalist, a paranoid, and a fanatic--among other things--just as Bachman believes me to be.

Tal's pernicous pokes have provided humor-impaired Peterson the excuse he needs to attack RfM ex-Mormons as, of course, being intellectually dishonest and cranially inferior to himself:

Dealing with straw men caricatures of one's own devising is far easier than engaging the actual positions of those with whom one disagrees. For example, one simply invents the evidence--a method that would cause you to be failed in a high school term paper but that is apparently quite acceptable on the ironically named "Recovery" board.

( Daniel Peterson, post on FAIR Message Boards, 10 March 2006, at http://www.fairboards.org/index.php... )
_____

Peterson's worshipful petal throwers have rushed to their hero's defense, lamenting that he is a victim of anti-Mormon hate crimes.

They do so, of course, without having the courage to directly confront their accusers on the RfM board:

Critics of the LDS Church hate Dr. Daniel C. Peterson. In fact, it seems from looking at certain places on the Internet that many of them have an obsession with Dr. Peterson. One wonders why the venom from these apostates? Can it be that they have got him "dead to rights?"

We resoundingly shout NO!

They are not close to telling you about the real Dr. Peterson, a man with incredible humor and kindness. This we know from first-hand experience with him. From our experience, critics like to insult and lambaste Dr. Peterson, but think he is mean when he responds to them calling them on their actions.

Further decrying what they see as the apostate politics of personal destruction, Peterson’s pom-pom squad engages in the very tactic they decry (don’t worry, I can take it):

Sadly, such semi-notables as Steve Benson [have] posted comments on the Recovery from Mormonism message board complaining about the mean and nasty Dr. Peterson. (If you are LDS don’t even think about posting there--your comments will be removed very quickly.)

So apparently it is okay for them to attack, telling lies and acting like little children, but if Dr. Peterson expresses his disgust at their techniques and lack of interest in the facts, then he is mean and nasty!

(from the Shields website, which is, itself, humorously billed as a “Scholarly and Historical Information Exchange for Latter-day Saints”)
____

Many nail-spitting Mormon trolls come to RfM swathed in their secret temple garments, so it is difficult to keep track of who infiltrates and where.

One anonymous Peterson defender--appropriately self-described as "Anon"--found his/her post promptly pulled after "Anon" surreptiously had gone in and changed, without knowledge or consent, a post I had made earlier, in which I had I defended Salt Lake Tribune reporter Peggy Fletcher Stack (whose reportage on Mormon-related matters has been a matter of lively discussion on this board lately).

Specifically, “Anon” had replaced Stack’s name with Peterson’s, in addition to switching out RfM poster “Deconstructor’s” name with mine.

This unprincipled theft in the name of the Mormon Cult apparently was not troublesome enough for Peterson to mention to his fawning fan base on FAIR.

(To view the original post in question, see: http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora...)
_____

Peterson himself demonstrates a vicious streak that, if his Mormon defenders were morally consistent, he would be taken to task for by them. Obviously, that is too much to ask for from a Cult that was founded on secret Masonic Cult threats of throat-slitting if you told the truth.

He has, for instance, assailed critics of the LDS Church as "anti-Mormonoids," a term which even fellow Mormon critic basher Louis Midgley admits is "a somewhat contemptuous label formulated by BYU Professor Daniel C. Peterson."

Peterson has saved some of his most caustic attacks for prominent critics of Mormonism Jerald and Sandra Tanner, singling them out as pre-eminent among "apostates and scandal-mongers and professional enemies of the Latter-day Saints."

(Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol. 5, pp. 20, 139, in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Mormon FARMS: Battling the Anti-Mormonoids," Salt Lake City Messenger, #90, May 1996
at http://www.utlm.org/new... )
_____

In a condescending letter to one of his Christian critics, Peterson has also displayed a nasty homophobic bent:

. . . [Y]ou predict that I will "eventually go the way of Steve Benson, Stanley Larsen [sic], Brent Medcalfe [sic], Sterling McMurrin, Michael Quinn, Samuel Taylor, and others!"

I am not sure why you think that I am going to become a practicing homosexual and be excommunicated like Mike Quinn. Have I ever given you any reason to expect something like that? Should I warn my wife?"

Then, twisting the minister's words, Peterson continues his mock effort at dialogue:

And why would you think that I am about to become an atheist or agnostic, as Benson, Larson, Metcalfe, and McMurrin have or did? And why would you, as a minister of the Christian faith, seem to think such an outcome desirable? Very puzzling. It is, of course, quite likely that I will continue to be active in the Church,
as, to the best of my knowledge, was Sam Taylor."

( Daniel Peterson, letter to John L. Smith of Utah Missions, Inc., at http://www.shields-research.org/Critic... )
_____

The Mormon Cult That the Peterson Cult Defends

While Peterson and his flock of faithfully FAIR hold themselves in holy high regard, others who are well-versed in the actual Mormon record reach a far different conclusion.

Observes RfM poster “Deconstructor”:

”As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.”

--Proverbs 26:11

There Daniel Peterson goes again . . .

From the Deseret News article on the FAIR conference (August 2004):

'[Daniel Peterson] said it is possible to make any religious faith look stupid, and he offered three principles for fairly dealing with other religions:

1) Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents.

2) Don't compare the best in your faith with the worst in the one you are criticizing. Keep a level playing field.

3) Always leave room for holy envy--what is it that this faith really does well? By following these principles, which Peterson adopted but did not invent, you can study other religions and really learn something beneficial, he said.

He's also convinced that LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions."

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/...

So Peterson is “convinced” that the LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions.

Is this the LDS lens he is referring to?

1 Nephi 14:10-11:

"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
_____

2 Nephi 10:16:

"Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."
_____

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"

--the Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
_____

". . . [A]ll the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."

--the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60
_____

What a wondrous and marvelous LDS lens Daniel Petersen has to gaze through.

Daniel Peterson and FAIR do [Mormon] church members a great service. They make such ridiculous claims; they end up pushing a lot of smart people out of the church. Only the fools don't see right through Peterson's folly.

FAIR and Mr. Peterson are terrible embarrassments to the Mormon Church. The more they talk, the better. . . .

There are countless teachings from [Mormon] church leaders, as well as in the Book of Mormon itself that FAIR and FARM apologists simply ignore or deny in order to make their excuses work.

Same thing with the Book of Abraham. Never mind what the [Mormon] church teaches or the book actually says, just come up with something that works for people who are desperate for theories.

But they aren't fooling most smart Mormons. When smart people go to FAIR and FARMS for answers, they recognize them for what they are.”

( “Daniel Peterson returning to his . . ., “ post by “Deconstructor,” RfM board, 8 August 2004; and idem, “You’re giving her way too much credit,” ibid., at “Mormon FARMS, Folklore and Daniel Peterson,” http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon365.htm , original emphasis )
_____

Responding to “Deconstructor’s” observations, another RfM poster noted in agreement:

It is funny how Peterson and the other apologists seem to ignore the scriptures and the teachings of their own prophets. I have to wonder just how church leadership feels about these guys.

(“It is funny,” post by “activejackmormon,” ibid.)
_____

Still another wrote:

Peterson says “Don’t go to a faith’s enemies for information. Got to its adherents” . . .

[W]hat this really translates into is "only interest yourself in biased information which is pro the religion, not information which might be biased against it.”

Also, there's an implicit assumption about being able to easily define who a faith's "enemies" are.

Neither of these provide a good lens for getting at the truth. Particularly since many of the so-called enemies of a Church have known more about the internal workings of the Church than the average adherent. It's like saying that one ought not listen to the "enemies" . . . of Jim Jones.

(“Peterson says ‘Don’t go to a faith’s enemies for information. Go to its adherents,” post by “Still active,” ibid., original emphasis)
_____

Another RfM contributor added:

I hate absurdities. If I thought it would do any good, I'd e-mail him [Peterson] and see what he thinks of my thoughts. . . .

Peterson says, “Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents.”

Any balanced view requires a look at both sides of the picture. Otherwise, there is no challenge to the veracity of any statement where such challenges are of paramount importance when you're investigating any idea, particularly when checking for facts.

”Don't compare the best in your faith with the worst in the one you are criticizing. Keep a level playing field.”

A fair statement. However, with religion, you have a slightly different view that needs to be taken simply because religion claims to have the power to A) strain out the pond scum and B) change the scum into non-scum.

In the secular world, you find that scum can exist very well within the walls of any organization and that it isn't necessarily a reflection of the organization itself. That includes religions. However, when you shine the religious light on religion, it constantly alludes to their power to overcome all of those human frailties.

And this at the same time they assert that their churches are perfect even if their people aren't. A major contradiction.

”Always leave room for holy envy--what is it that this faith really does well?”

ALL good organizations do good things. But they all step on some toes in the process. Again, Peterson's suggestion is an exclusionary thought, much like the thought of the first premise above.

If you're going to consider the good of an organization, you also have to consider the bad. The scales ALWAYS have two sides. Why on earth would you ignore one of the two sides? It simply doesn't make sense.

In fact, it's quite absurd. Here again there is a hypocrisy: The Morg repeatedly asserts growth and membership statistics but they continuously ignore depression med statistics, divorce rate statistics, suicide statistics, etc. etc. The bad things are ignored, per the advice of Peterson to the lifelong misery of its people.

The article states a belief of Peterson:

“He's also convinced that LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions.”

A truly arrogant point of view. Aside from the assertion that Mormonism is The Only True Church, what’s the reason to believe it could possibly serve as any kind of comparative research vehicle of their competitors, many of which have been around a LOT longer? . . .

[Again, from] Peterson:

“He said it is possible to make any religious faith look stupid.”

Actually, most faith's do that themselves. Which brings me full circle: Many or most religious adherents are good people, doing what they believe to be right. They are great people, great citizens, etc. etc.

But if you start looking at many of the religious groups themselves, you find the discord and the problems. I submit to you that it isn't The Church � which is perfect but the people. The lie that the church is perfect and the people aren't has been perpetuated WAAAAAYYYYY too long.

(“Holy Crap,” post by “Wag,” ibid.)
_____

Noted another RfM respondent, in reaction to Peterson's breathtaking duplicity:

This article is hilarious. I challenge anybody to follow his [Peterson’s] act of bravado in the face of the facts!

I guess if they don’t like the facts, they will take another look at the original [Book of Mormon]!

Yup. It’s possible to make any “faith look stupid.”

That is the funniest bunch of nonsense I have read in days!

(“Re: Holy Crap = ‘holy envy,’ post by “SusieQ#1,” ibid.)
_____

Conclusion: Funniest, Runniest Bunch of Nonsense, Indeed

Daniel C. Peterson launches his personal attacks against ex-Mormons, then runs and hides among his friends when evidence to back his accusations is demanded--and he realizes that, well, he just can't produce it.

There, safely tucked away in the rear lines among his Mormon chorus-line compatriots, Peterson enjoys their cover, their comfort, their condolences and their kudos.

Still, Peterson can’t help himself and before long he succumbs to his compulsion to venture out (under cover of darkness, of course) to furtively look in on Recovery from Mormonism, a trapped and anguished man at war with himself--and with nothing to back him up but his own desperate delusions.

You’ve got my e-mail, Dan: lobetrotter@yahoo.com

Let's have lunch sometime with you and your Deep Throat friend.

Drinks on me. :)

Behold!: Daniel C. Peterson Speaks Out On His Deep Throat Source(s) Regarding My Conversations With Oaks And Maxwell
Tuesday, Mar 14, 2006, at 07:37 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

The following was recently discovered and brought to my attention off-board. It is the voice of Daniel C. Peterson--from the past, not the present--but, hey, I guess we just have to do the best with what we've got. :)

He's talking about his inside sources, telling him the truth (or so he says) about what really transpired in private discussions my wife and I had with Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell back in September 1993.

One Mormon troll and Peterson defender recently stubbornly suggested on this board that Peterson had perhaps never made any such claim to privy information.

Wrote anonymous "Jimbob":

Perhaps he [Peterson] never made the comment. I mean you're quoting a source that is quoting a source that is quoting a source. Not exactly bullet proof.

("Re: Put Up or Shut Up, DCP: Daniel C. Peterson's flimsy claims about my meetings with Oaks and Maxwell," post by "Jimbob." Recovery from Mormonism board, 9 March 2006)
_____

Sorry to distress members of the fawning Peterson pep squad out there who slither over here to make excuses for him, but the evidence has now surfaced that Peterson did, indeed, make such a claim.

In his own words, even.

Back in December 2003, posting as “Freethinker” on a Mormon apologist website (a site which is apparently filtered on RfM), Peterson questioned the veracity of my account of behind-closed-door conversations my wife and I held with Oaks and Maxwell some ten years earlier, craftily suggesting that I may have been lying about it all.

Speaking sarcastically, he first noted:

Anyone who follows Steve Benson's posts on the Recovery from Mormonism board (including those about his own family), will recognize that his reminiscences are those of a disinterested, dispassionate man who has no ax to grind. They should be trusted completely, and there is certainly no other side to any of his stories.
_____

A fellow poster then asked Peterson/"Freethinker" if he thought I was prevaricating about those encounters with Oaks and Maxwell:

So focusing on those interviews, are you suggesting that he (and his wife) are lying about the conversations that took place?
_____

Peterson/”Freethinker” replied by slyly implying that I might have been and then--BEHOLD!--revealed that he had received counter-intelligence reports about the actual nature of my discussions with Oaks and Maxwell which led him to severely doubt my account:

No, although I suppose that's [meaning lying] a distant possibility in any such reporting.

I thought my actual implied position was fairly straightforward: Steve Bension [sic] is not dispassionate. That means that he has a strong position that may well filter what he hears and remembers and relates from situations in which his "passions" (using the term in the classical sense) are involved. (That is the effect, anyway, with ordinary mortals, and I have no reason to believe that Mr. Benson has transcended mortality yet.)

He is not disinterested, but has a particular position that he wishes to advance. This implies the same potential effects. Stories involving more than one person always have more than one "side" to them -- even in noncontroversial matters, but especially in cases where controversy and strongly opposed positions are involved. In such cases, the account of one controversialist should not automatically be assumed to be absolutely accurate and uncontestable.

There are plenty of reasons, far short of an accusation of lying, for suggesting caution in the acceptance of Steven [sic] Benson's account. And, in this particular case, I've heard partial reports that are dramatically at variance with his reminiscences, so I have solid reason, from my perspective, for reservations.

(bold emphasis added)
_____

Wow, heavvvvvy, man.

So, Danny Boy, who are your partially-reporting (and dramatic, no less) sources that have given you “solid reason” to doubt?

And, if they were either Oaks and Maxwell, then what were they doing violating the gag order they sought to impose on our discussions?

And, if your sources weren't Oaks or Maxwell, then who was hiding under Maxwell's desk during our chats taking partial notes--you?

Waiting . . . :)
_____

P.S.--Those wanting the weblink to the pro-Mo board on which this exchange took place can get it (no secret handshakes required) by e-mailing me at:

lobetrotter@yahoo.com

Mormonism And The Futile Cult Quest For The American Presidency: Mitt Getting Increasingly Hit
Monday, Mar 20, 2006, at 07:16 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

The drumbeat against Mitt Romney--possible presidential candidate and member of the wacko Mormon Cult--is beginning to sounder louder and louder as the days pass.

Below are excerpts from a few recent samples, indicating that Romney faces a serious (and quite likely insurmountable) problem with voters when it comes to his Mormonism:

Latter-Day Politics
Is Mitt Romney’s religion a problem?
Kathyrn Jean Lopez
National Review Online
20 December 2005

. . . Romney is Mormon. . . . [S]ome have suggested that his religion makes him a non-starter.

When asked about the religion thing by an Atlantic Monthly reporter profiling Romney earlier this year, Massachusetts Democrat Senator Edward M. Kennedy replied, "We've moved on. That died with my brother Jack."

Nice sentiment, Senator, but not quite. In fact, it was Ted Kennedy himself who, when Romney challenged him for his Senate seat in 1994, tried using Romney's Mormonism against him.

It was so bad that "Saturday Night Live" parodied it. Here's how the Boston Globe wrote it up:

"A 'Mitt Romney ad' opens with a very unflattering picture of Sen. Ted Kennedy, camera slowly zooming in on Kennedy's face, ending with an extreme close-up of his eyes and nose as the narrator says:

"On October 14th, 1978 Ted Kennedy is seen puking in the parking lot of the U.S. Capitol. On February 8th, 1983 Kennedy relieves himself on the leg of a Georgetown waitress. Three years later Kennedy passes out on the floor of the Senate – soiling himself in the process. Kennedy. He's a big fat drunk."

"A 'Kennedy response ad' opens with a picture of Brigham Young. Narrator: 'Mormon prophet Brigham Young believed that a man ought to have as many wives as he wants.' Young and Romney pictures appear side by side: Narrator continues: 'Apparently Mitt Romney agrees. After all, he's a Mormon.' Cut to picture of Kennedy with his new wife. Written words appear on screen: 'Kennedy. One wife at a time.'

. . . According to a 1999 Gallup poll, 17 percent of those surveyed said they would not support a Mormon for president (compared with six percent who would rule out a Jew and four percent a Catholic). . . .

[Kathyrn Jean Lopez]: "Do evangelicals specifically think of Mormonism as a cult? Is there something legit there?"

[Michael Cromartie, director of the Evangelical Studies Project at the Ethics and Public Policy Center]: "Most evangelicals do perceive Mormonism to be a cult and are deeply troubled by its theology. But this does not mean they would not vote for someone like Governor Romney. They admire his record and they agree with his conservatism on moral, social, and cultural issues. . . . [E]vangelicals know how to bracket aside their theological differences with the governor and would support him because of his positions on the social issues."

KJL: "Ted Kennedy used Romney's religion against him in 1994. Wouldn't people recoil a bit from it if it were tried again? Or is that wishful thinking?"

Cromartie: "While many religious conservatives may have qualms with aspects of Mormon theology, they have even greater problems with religious bigotry and intolerance. Any candidate that chooses to attack his faith in a personal fashion will surely run the risk of a backlash." . . .

KJL: Do you hear positive or negative or lukewarm things about Romney when you get into '08 conversations?

Cromartie: "I hear . . . very lukewarm comments about the governor when it comes to his religious tradition. Evangelicals admire the governor but find Mormonism to be a strange and baffling abberation of the historic Christian faith."

KJL: "What would you advise Romney deal with his religion when talking to groups, reporters?"

Cromartie: "Romney very much needs to do what John Kennedy did in 1960 in front of the Southern Baptists in Houston: Explain how he understands his faith and its application to his view of politics and public policy. He especially needs to articulate what the Mormon faith tradition's understanding of church and state is and how it applies to important issues of today. It is not at all clear that Mormons have views on church and state issues that are any different than the general understanding of most traditional Catholics and Protestants." . . .

"I believe the 'Mormon factor' will play a more negative role in the national, general election. But Governor Romney is a smart man and smart politician. I am sure he will address, early on, concerns about the 'Mormon factor.' In fact, I suspect that speech has already been written or is being crafted even as we speak."

http://www.nationalreview.com/lopez/lopez200512200833.asp
_____

Latter-day President?
A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right
James Tranto
Wall Street Journal
31 December 2005

[Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney's] office is equipped with a fireplace, making it a rarity in 21st-century politics: a smoke-filled room. Mr. Romney, a devout Mormon, abjures not only tobacco but also alcohol and coffee. . . .

Could Mr. Romney win the Republican presidential nomination? Three early primaries look promising: New Hampshire, where he is well known from governing the state next door; Michigan, where his family name has cachet; and Arizona, which has a large Mormon population. But these are not enough . . .

A crucial question will be whether Mr. Romney's religion is a handicap. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is indigenous to America, but many Americans view it with suspicion. In a 1999 Gallup poll, 17% of those surveyed said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, far more than said the same of a Jew (6%) or a Catholic (4%).

In 1994 Sen. Kennedy made an issue of the LDS Church's tardy embrace of racial equality (it did not allow the ordination of blacks until 1978). "I don't think that's the reason I lost to Ted Kennedy," says Mr. Romney, and he's surely right. . . .

Mr. Romney also says religion wasn't a problem for his father [George Romney]: "When he was running for president . . . he was the front-runner. His faith just didn't factor in. . . . His statement on Vietnam--that put him under, but certainly not his faith."

The trouble is that much of today's anti-Mormon sentiment is found on the religious right, a constituency that looms much larger in the GOP now than it did in 1968, or than it ever has in Massachusetts. Ask a conservative Christian what he thinks of Mormonism, and there's a good chance he'll call it a "cult" or say Mormons "aren't Christian."

Yet on the issues, Mr. Romney is largely in tune with the Christian right. "I am pro-life," he says, though he's not an absolutist. He favors a return to the status quo ante Roe v. Wade, when states decided abortion policy. In 2002, recognizing that Massachusetts is an "overwhelmingly pro-choice state," he campaigned only on a promise to veto any legislation changing the state's abortion laws, including a proposal, which Ms. O'Brien endorsed, to reduce the age of parental consent to 16 from 18. The Legislature never passed that measure. . . .

The governor . . . also has enforced a 1913 law making it illegal for out-of-state couples to wed in the Bay State if they cannot legally do so back home. "It's basically kept Massachusetts from being a Las Vegas of same-sex marriage."

How would he overcome anti-Mormon prejudice if he seeks the presidency? He doesn't answer directly, but cites his experience in Massachusetts: "As people got to know me . . . they accepted me for who I am, and religious doctrines didn't make much difference to them."

In the end, there's probably not much Mr. Romney can do about the "Mormon problem" other than put his faith in the American tradition of religious pluralism. "I think our nation needs people of faith in public service," he says. "My policies in the public sector are not a mirror image of any church's doctrines. But of course the respect I have for American values flows from the faith that I have." If Mr. Romney runs for president, it may test the proposition that the religious right is an issues-based movement as opposed to a sectarian one."

http://home.nyc.rr.com/taranto/romney.htm
_____

Is America ready for a Mormon president?
John H. Bunzel
The Boston Globe
19 February 2006

. . . [Mitt] Romney has a problem. He is a Mormon, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which, as Washington Monthly's editor Amy Sullivan points out, makes him unacceptable to evangelical voters who make up 30 percent of the Republican electorate. Their hostility to Mormonism is not some vague prejudice that some Americans have. It's a "doctrinal thing," based on their conviction that Mormonism "isn't just another religion," but a "cult" that they claim is "false," "blasphemous," and a threat to the Christian religion.

But Romney has an additional and perhaps even more serious problem. As taught by Mormon prophets from Brigham Young's day to the late 1970s, blacks have been regarded as "not equal with other races," an inequality (to quote Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie) that is "the Lord's doing based on his eternal laws of justice." Mormon theologians have justified this racial bias by asserting that the black race is descended from Cain, who was cursed and marked (supposedly with a black skin) and whose descendants continued to bear the mark and the curse.

In 1978, the ban against African-Americans in the Mormon priesthood was dropped, along with long-standing church doctrines that were used to bolster claims of black inferiority. However, critics of the church maintain that although the ban has been removed, the doctrine has not changed. "It's the linkage to Cain that so distresses Mormon African-Americans today," says California attorney Dennis Gladwell, who has been working with church leaders calling for change. "It places their spiritual lineage in shambles, since they are alleged descendants of a man who has come to symbolize evil on the same level as Lucifer himself."

One should not be surprised if--or when--the media press the governor on other issues, polygamy for instance, which the Mormon church no longer condones, and Romney says little more than that his belief in Jesus Christ and serving one's neighbor and community are widely shared values.

But didn't John Kennedy in 1960 prove that religion has nothing to do with a candidate's political qualifications to be president? Yes--for Catholics. However, 46 years later, a public declaration of one's personal religiosity is now required of all presidential candidates as evidence that they live by a deep-rooted moral yardstick confirmed by their religious faith.

This resurgence of religion underscores a powerful force in recent presidential races--namely, the rise of values politics framed as moral issues. . . .

At a time when the . . . Republican Party has made a presidential candidate's personal religious faith a test of his or her moral stature and authority, this very test could disqualify Romney in the eyes of many Republicans as the core tenets of his faith are circulated to bring out sharply the strong opposition of Mormon theology to Christian doctrine.

Or, to put it in evangelical terms (as Sullivan has done), "It might be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for Mitt Romney to win the Republican nomination."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/e...

From The Witness Box To The Mormon Cult: "You Want The Cartoon Truth? You Can't Handle The Cartoon Truth!"
Monday, Mar 20, 2006, at 07:24 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

In my career as an editorial cartoonist, Mormon Church leadership, from the top down, has attempted to silence and otherwise discourage me in my critical commentary on LDS buffoonery.

Here's a brief summary:

--Two of my bishops requested private meetings with me to review my cartoons taking to task Arizona's eventually-impeached, racist, criminally-indicted and incompetent used car salesman of a governor, Evan Mecham.

---A stake president released me from my position as a high councilman because of a cartoon I had done critical of Mecham's obnoxious misuse of Mormonism to advance his political/theological agenda. (He did so after receiving a phone call inquiring on the matter from H. Burke Peterson of the Presiding Bishopric, as well as after hearing from an Arizona Mormon legislator who told him that I should not be on the stake high council).

--This same stake president later informed me that, in his opinion, my cartoons had gotten better since he had released me from the high council--prompting me to write him back, informing him that he was not my editor and that I would do the cartoon again, as circumstances warranted.

--Arizona's point man for media matters took me to lunch to complain about my Mecham/Mormon-related cartooning and also wrote me a letter, comparing it to Christian evangelists who were radio broadcasting Mormonism's secret temple ceremonies.

--Another stake president phoned me at my work, demanding that I justify to him my cartoon criticism of local Mormon right-wing political extremists whom I had specifically named for their bigoted opposition to the establishment of an official Martin Luther King holiday.

--This same stake president wrote me again (on official LDS stationary) to instruct me to stop denigrating the Mormon Church for a cartoon I produced criticizing the Mormon Church for its opposition to equal rights for LDS women.

--He wrote me yet another official stake letter, comparing me to Korihor, telling me that the Devil would abandon me once he had finished using me for his evil designs and threatening to out me as an unbeliever.

--My grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson (then-president of the Quorum of the Twelve), both telephoned and wrote me (also on his high office Church stationary)--in response to a cartoon I had done critical of the LDS response to the Mark Hofmann bombings--commanding me (via, ahem, "suggestion") to go easy on the Mormon Church.

By way of description, the cartoon showed a stereotypical Mormon P.R. man, sporting a flat top and conservative business suit, on the phone to his secretary, wailing, "Mad bombers, white salamanders, forgeries, con men! Golly darn, Sister Jones, that does it! Get me a cup of coffee!"

In responding to the cartoon, my grandfather first called me, telling me somberly that he had a cartoon in front of him which he wished to read aloud to me. After repeating the punch line, he paused dramatically and asked, "Why?" I was tempted to respond with a "Why not?" but thought better of it. Instead, I tried to explain that one of the best defenses in the face of criticism is an ability to laugh at oneself. My grandfather replied, "I still love you. Just go easy on us."

He then followed up with the letter, making the same point.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/benson2.shtml

( For the contents of other personal correspondence sent to me by my grandfather, see: http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon419.htm )
_____

Jesus, Joseph and Jumpin' Mormon Jammies.

If the LDS Church can't handle little cartoons, how can one expect it to handle the really big stuff--like the utter bogusness of the Book of Mormon, the complete fakery of the Book of Abraham, the LDS Church's abuse of its tax-exempt status in pushing its political agenda and the non-prophetic antics of its cult-crusading leaders?

And that's just for starters.

The Kingdom of Almighty Whitey Elohim panics in the face of doodling done with a small brush and 15 cents worth of ink.

That should tell us something.

"A Legacy Of Deception:" The Monstrous, Manipulated Myth Of The Mormon Battalion
Wednesday, Mar 22, 2006, at 11:37 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Interesting and revealing information has been posted on this board recently, detailing some of the malicious machinations of Brigham Young in his devious dealings with the Mormon Battalion:

Originally posted by Mrs. Estzerhaus:

PBS showed the film "Battalion" last night. The film was not made by the Mormon Church, but tried to be historically accurate. Many of the stories were directly from diaries kept by the solders. The men were told by Brigham Young that they would not be killed by bullets, but many of them got sick and died.

The Mormon Battalion's journey officially ended in San Diego, but part of the group went to Northern California to settle a dispute that later forced Mexico to give California to the United States. These men were told by Brigham Young not to come to Utah to be with their families unless they had money or a job waiting for them. These men were able to get work with Sutter's Fort Mill where gold was first discovered while building the mill. The film didn't go into the fact that Mr. Sutter's land was overrun by gold seekers when the Mormons let the secret out.

With saddlebags filled with gold on their way home, the remains of the Donner Party were found. Some of the men were ambushed and killed by Indian arrows. In Utah Brigham Young used the money that the men's families were supposed to get to bring in more converts. This angered some, and they left the church. Others finally made it to Zion only to find that their families were still at winter quarters or dead.

My g-g-grandfather was a second lieutenant in company B. His experience in the battalion was the reason Brigham Young sent him to scout out Arizona for a Mormon settlement several years later. This wasn't in the movie, but it's something I'm proud of even now :o) But enough about me...did any of you have ancestors in the Mormon Battalion?

Mormon Battalion Roster: http://www.mormonbattalion.com/histor...

Here's the site for ordering the film and has a map of the trek taken: http://www.kued.org/battalion/netscap...

Battalion story told in the Ensign: http://www.wesclark.com/jw/mormon_bat...

Here are some more:

THE MORMON LIE

". . .[An] example of official deception by [Mormon] Church leaders has to do with the Mormon Battalion.

"[Mormons are] taught in Sunday School, seminary and priesthood meetings that . . . [in] 1846, the U.S. government demanded the services of 500 able-bodied Mormon men to help fight the war with Mexico.

"[Mormons are told that] [t]his cruel act, while the Saints were camped in Iowa on their way west [Mormons are told], caused great hardships and many deaths among the poor Saints crossing the Plains. The women and older men [so Mormons are told] who were left had no choice but to continue their struggle without help from these 500 young and stronger men."
_____

THE ACTUAL TRUTH

" . . . [T]his distortion of Mormon history was all part of a legacy of deception.

"Prominent Church leader and historian, B.H. Roberts, finally told the truth about the Mormon Battalion in his six-volume Comprehensive History of the Church. But since this truth is not faith promoting, it has been ignored by those who write lesson manuals intended to indoctrinate young people . . .

"The truth is that Brigham Young secretly sent Jesse C. Little to Washington, D.C. to see President James K. Polk and other federal officials, with the proposal that the U.S. government send a company of 1,000 Mormons with the U.S. Army going to fight the war with Mexico.

"These men were to be paid fo a one-year enlistment and be able to keep all of their weapons and equipment at the end of their service.

"President Polk didn't want any Mormons in his army. The quota of 50,000 men had already been over-subscribed by three times and, besides, Polk didn't trust the loyalty, patriotism or military training of the Mormons.

"But after much persuasion, he [Polk] reluctantly agreed to send 500 Mormons."

[Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 3, pp. 67-84; and History of the Church, vol. 7, pp. 611-15]

"When Captain James Allen, representing General Stephen W. Kearny of Ft. Leavenworth, entered the encampment of Mormons at Council Bluffs (Winter Quarters) Iowa in June of 1846, [Brigham] Young pretended to be surprised and angry but promised to raise the recruits as a demonstration of Mormon patriotism.

"500 men were enlisted and paid one year in advance. The money was turned over to . . . Young.

"The great hardships, suffering and even death that sending these 500 men caused would have been much greater if President Polk had granted Young's original request to send 1,000 men in order to divert the anger and resentment of Church members away from himself.

"Young [then] lied to his people and blamed the U.S. government for the entire episode.

"On September 13, 1857, . . . Young told a congregation of Mormons in Salt Lake City:

"'There cannot be a more damnable, dastardly order issued than was issued by the Administration [of President Polk] to this people while they were in an Indian country in 1846. . . .

'While we were doing our best to leave their borders, the poor, low, degraded curses sent a requistion for 500 of our men to go and fight their battles! That was President Polk; and he is now weltering in hell with old Zachary Taylor, where the present administrators will be if they do not repent.'"

[Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, pp. 231-32]

"[Then,] [o]n February 17, 1861, Brigham Young, the man who . . . is still revered by Mormons as a prophet of God, again lied when he told a congregation of Church members assembled in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake City:

"'Did Thomas H. Benton aid in gathering the Saints? Yes, he was the mainspring and action of governments in driving us to these mountains.

'He obtained orders from President Polk to summon the militia of Missouri, and destroy every man, woman, and child, unless they turned out 500 men to fight the battles of the United States in Mexico.

'He said that we were aliens to the Government, and to prove it, he said, "Mr. President, make a requistion for 500 men, and I will prove to you that they are traitors to our Government. . . . We turned out the men and Mr. Benton was disappointed.'"

[Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 335-36]

"Neither Thomas Benton nor the Missouri militia had anything to do with enlistment of the Mormon Battalion. Nor was the U.S. government threatening to exterminate all of the Mormons. This entire sermon is but another example of the many, many lies told by Brigham Young and other Church leaders in order to deceive and manipulate their people.

"As it turned out, despite high U.S. military casualties in [the Mexican] War, the Mormon Battalion was not used by field commanders. The Mormon Battalion didn't have to kill anyone nor did [it] suffer any casualties.

"But Brigham Young didn't know in advance that many of these young men wouldn't get killed when he volunteered their services.

"He was willing to jeopardize not only their lives but also the lives of their families who were left shorthanded crossing the Plains for his own selfish purposes.

"Then he lied about it.

"What kind of a person does it take to something like this?"

(the above from Arza Evans, "A Legacy of Deception," Chapter 13, in The Keystone of Mormonism [St. George, Utah: Keystone Books, Inc., 2003], pp. 149-51), original emphasis

Out-Dunning Paul H. Dunn: Orrin Hatch's Claim To Have Read Thousands Of Pages Of "Anti-Mormon" Literature
Tuesday, Mar 28, 2006, at 07:29 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

It appears that Orrin Hatch--Morgbot Superhero and Crime Fighter Against the "Anti-Mormon" Evil Empire--is now trying to out-Paul H. Dunn even Paul H. Dunn.

And that really says something, given that Hatch has been such a mega-fan of Dunn that he even attempted (unsuccessfully) to get media investigations into Dunn's World War II whoppers squelched.

"DCL" reported earlier:

Today I attended a meeting for a local LDS law society where Senator Orrin Hatch spoke. The topic was supposed to be "Ethics and the Judicial Confirmation Process," but he ended up talking an awful lot about TSCC, how "prejudice" against TSCC stymied his presidential bid in 2000, etc.

Anyway, one funny thing he said was that as an undergraduate student at BYU, he determined that he would read "1,000 pages of Mormon history." He said his history professor suggested he balance it out with 1,000 pages of "ex-Mormon history" (not sure what he meant by that- the history of ex-Mormons or history about the church BY ex-mormons, but whatever. . .)

The good Senator then said that he found "ex-Mormon history soooo interesting that he not only read 1,000 pages but 85,000 (!!!) pages of it." He said that he was not phased in his belief in the church by any of that "garbage."

Come on?!? 85,000 pages?!?!?!? Has there even been that much written of "ex-mormon history?"

The take-away point seemed to be that people who disbelieve TSCC are just "stupid" to be snookered by all that "ex-Mormon" history out there, when someone as powerful as the senator failed to be convinced by it.

Personally, unattached from politics here and focusing narrowly on his comments re TSCC, I think Mr. Hatch is full of s**t, both on claiming to have read the 85,000 pages and about his inferences.

I just thought this was eye-rolling interesting.

("Orrin Hatch has read '85,000 pages of ex-Mormon "history'[**language]," posted by "DCL" on Recovery from Mormonism board, 27 March 2006)

*****

In July of last year, based on my own experiences with Hatch, I posted some thoughts on the man, entitled "Orrin Hatch on 'Anti-Mormonism,' His Efforts to Protect Paul H. Dunn from Media Investigation and Other Little Tidbits."

Below is the original post (with the subsequent addition of other information in brackets).

Scroll down through the following and you will discover (highlighted in bold italic) that Hatch's claims concerning his alleged voluminous reading of "ex-Mormon" material has, well, blossomed like a rose, to the tune of several thousand additional petals.

To give Hatch the benefit of the doubt, however, perhaps he has since read an extra 75,000 pages since he first told me about this amazing feat. :)

And, for the record, when Hatch made his claims to me, he referred to what he had supposedly read not as "ex-Mormon" history but as "anti-Mormon" history:

My Personal History with Hatch

I have known Orrin Hatch for over a quarter of a century, going back to the late 1970s.

During that time, Hatch and I have had several conversations, both in person and by phone.

I first became acquainted with the Utah Senator when I worked on Capitol Hill for a Senate committee. Hatch's office and the one in which I was employed were in the Russell Senate Office building, right off the Hill, where I would visit with him on a fairly regular basis.

At Hatch's request, I drew his caricature, along with those of members of his family, and was invited to his home for dinner in Vienna, Virginia.

Hatch , in personal letters to me, expressed friendship and concern, as well as noting that he was praying in my behalf.
He also mailed to me a copy of a CD collection of religious hymns he had personally composed and then had set to piano music.
_____

Hatch's Quest for the American Presidency and His Views on Homosexuals

When Hatch was running for the Republican nomination for the presidency a few years back, I received a long distance call from him one afternoon as I was cleaning out the garage at our Arizona home.

Hatch was on the stump at the time, in the Midwest, and told me that he could use a cartoon from me supporting him in his run for the nomination. I politely sidestepped his request.

Later, when he came through Phoenix for a campaign debate and dropped by my newspaper for a visit, I provided him a copy of a cartoon I had previously done on him, which had criticized Hatch for anti-gay comments he had made in which, among other things, he had expressed public gratitude that he was not a Democrat and in which he noted that the Democratic Party was the party of the homosexuals. Hatch, in attacking gay supporters, also noted that Democrats tended to be more educated and financially well-off than Republicans.

When I handed him ta copy of my cartoon that took him to task for such antics, Hatch assured me that he had been misquoted. and misunderstood.
_____

Hatch's Use of Ezra Taft Benson as a Springboard into National Public Office

Hatch has often repeated to me over the years that what especially encouraged him to enter national politics was the strong support he received from my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson.

My grandfather, in fact, acknowledged to me in personal correspondence that he regarded Hatch as a good man whose voice was sorely needed in the Senate and as a person who he hoped t would be in Congress for a long time to come.

[Indeed, in a personal letter to me from my grandfather, dated 21-22 April 1981, Ezra Taft Benson said the following about Hatch:

“I have become acquainted with many senators in my life. I know of no one who I feel made a better record in his first term than Orrin Hatch. I . . . hope that I may be helpful to one whom I feel is a great asset to the United States Senate and should be continued in office for many years to come . . . "; As an aside, Hatch told me some years later--after he had addressed our national cartoonist convention's opening event on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., and we were walking out to where he was to catch his limousine curbside ride to another function--that his political opponents would "sell their mothers for a vote"] .
_____

Hatch and His Personal Use of Profanity

A few years ago, Hatch spoke by invitation to a national convention for the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, held in Orlando, Florida. I attended the event, where I had provided assistance for Hatch's appearance before our group.

Hatch was quite a hit with my fellow cartoonists.

After he had finished his formal dinner speech to us in Orlando, Hatch spent a couple of hours lounging with a group of cartoonists in the hotel lobby, regaling them with stories about him and his friends on the Hill.

He pleasantly surprised many of those present by freely using the "sh**" word, as he entertained them with tales about rubbing shoulders with government luminaries, including the likes of Teddy Kennedy, whom Hatch regards as a close personal friend.

(This was nothing new to me. I had frequently heard Hatch employ profanity when he would invite me to visit with him in his personal Senate office quarters).

After the gabfest was over, I accompanied Hatch to his hotel room, where we sat and talked, one-on-one, for another hour or so.
_____

Hatch's Further Designs on Winning the White House and His Thoughts on "Anti-Mormon" Literature

Hatch told me some interesting things about himself, about the Mormon Church and about his plans for higher office.

He confidently informed me that he was familiar with "anti-Mormon" arguments and that there was no criticism of the LDS Church that he either had not heard before or could not answer.

He boasted that he had, in fact, personally read over 10,000 pages of "anti-Mormon" material. He said that his thorough knowledge of the "anti-Mormon" position had favorably impressed a University of Utah professor, to whom he relayed this information.

I questioned Hatch's working knowledge of evidence against the Mormon Church, informing him that there was developing, mounting and credible data, much of it only recently made available, persuasively indicating that the Book of Mormon was a piece of 19th-century fiction.

I mentioned, in particular, Vernal Holley's work on the Spaulding Manuscript (which in my own studies had provided pivotal proof that Joseph Smith's production was non-historical), as well as geographical place-name similarities between supposed Book of Mormon lands and events and the topography of Great Lakes region of the United States.

Hatch did not demonstrate any knowledge of these specific counter-evidences but dismissed my arguments nonetheless, saying that his own research of Mormonism while in college had made him well aware of the critics' positions.

That aside, Hatch then confidently assured me that he would find much grassroots support among the American people in a run for the presidency.

Doing the math, he told me that all he needed was $1 contributions each from a million citizens and he would have $1 million for his campaign war chest.

I responded by telling Hatch that, in my opinion, he would never be elected President of the United States and gave him three reasons why:

* His opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment.

* His brutal mistreatment of Anita Hill during the Senate
confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas. (Hatch responded that he had not inappropriately questioned Hill, while acknowleding to me that he knew Thomas had had "problems with pornogrpahy at Yale" but that this was an issue from "a long time ago").

* His membership in the Mormon Church. (As is typical of the Hatch bravado, he blew off my observations).
_____

Hatch, Paul H. Dunn and Efforts at Manipulating the News

In the spring of 1990, when I was working at the Morning News Tribune in Tacoma WA, Hatch called me at my office and asked me to get my colleagues at the Arizona Repubic in Phoenix to stop their investigation of Paul H. Dunn.

Hatch told me that Dunn was a personal friend of his and that he was concerned about what the reporters' inquiries were doing to Dunn.

The Republic investigation that bothered Hatch was centering around Dunn's credibility problems arising from Dunn's alleged exploits as a combat soldier in World War II--stories which were eventually exposed as outright fabrications.

I asked Hatch if he was familiar with the charges against Dunn. He replied that he was not. I told Hatch that I could not, in good conscience, interfere with investigative reporters who were just doing their job.

Hatch thanked me and said he might get back to me.

He never did.

Male Pattern Smugness: Decades Later, Is The Manhandled LDS Church Still Opposed To The Equal Rights Amendment? Um, Is The Prophet Mormon?
Wednesday, Mar 29, 2006, at 07:36 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Onward, Mormon Muggers: The Relentless Misogynistic LDS Church Crusade Against Women's Rights

In an earlier post, "jen" asked:

Is the Morg STILL against the ERA? I've heard many people here state that the church is against the equal rights ammendment. I realize that this was the case in the 60's, when the ERA was first introduced, but are they still actively against it? Why were/are they? What's the official stance on this?
Even when I was a regularly attending TBM, I never reallly heard a word about this. Perhaps it was because I wasn't in Utah?

("Is the Morg STILL against the ERA?, " post by "jen," jenapostate@gmail.com, Recovery from Mormonism board, 28 March 2006)
_____

In answer to that question, Jessica Longaker, in her analysis, "The Role of Women in Mormonism," grimly concludes that genuine gender equality cannot be realistically achieved in the Mormon Church’s permanent patriarchal prison:

The Mormon Church of today is still clinging to the beliefs of the nineteenth century; ideas which are becoming more outmoded every day. A few women in the Mormon Church are trying to make a difference but they are usually swiftly excommunicated . . .

In Mormon magazines, which are full of advice for women from the heads of the Church, the message has changed in response to the feminist movement. In 1964, advice on marriage and divorce was fairly dispassionate; by 1972, these topics were addressed with increasing panic and harshness. . . . Feminists are described as “the Pied Pipers of sin who have led women away from the divine role of womanhood down the pathway of error.” . . .

Obviously, the Mormon Church is not going to alter its views on women in the immediate future. It is questionable whether it is even possible for Mormonism to equalize the roles of men and women because the oppression of women is so integral to the religion. Men and women cannot truly become equal in the Church, for the basic tenets of Mormonism are so fraught with sexism that equality would change the religion beyond recognition.

(http://www.exmormon.org/mormwomn.htm , emphasis added)
_____

Gordon B. Hinckley's Archaic Attitude Toward the "Dear Sisters"

If more nauseating proof of the Mormon Church's persistently patronizing, slave-holding attitude toward women is needed, all one has to do is read hibernating Hinckley's old school/old fool remarks to the assembled Relief Society sisterhood at General Conference:

My dear sisters, you marvelous women who have chosen the better part . . .

Many of you are mothers, and that is enough to occupy one's full time. . . .

You are housekeepers. . . . [W]hat a job it is to keep a house clean and tidy.

You are shoppers. . . . [W]hat a demanding responsibility it is to keep food in the pantry, to keep clothing neat and presentable, to buy all that is needed to keep a home running. . . .

You are the family chauffeur. You are driving your children about . . . hauling here, there, and everywhere as they pursue their busy lives. . . .

. . . [W]e have granddaughters who are mothers. They visit us, and I marvel at . . . their capacity to calm their children, to stop them from crying . . .

They drive cars, they run computers, they attend the activities of their children, they cook and sew, they teach classes, and they speak in Church. . . .

. . . [Y]ou dear women, I say thanks to you. . . . May your prayers be answered and your hopes and dreams become realities.

You serve so well in the Church. You think it is so demanding. It is. But with every responsibility fulfilled, there comes a great reward. . . .

We all worry about our performance. We all wish we could do better. . . .

Now, my dear sisters, . . . [y]ou are doing the best you can , , , Get on your knees and ask for the blessings of the Lord; then stand on your feet and do what you are asked to do. . . .

Now, we have a very diverse group . . . [that] includes young women who are . . . are single . . . [and] hoping to catch that perfect man. . . .

Some of you, unfortunately, will never marry in this life. . . . If that happens, do not spend your life grieving over it. . . . The Church needs your faith. It needs your strong, helping hand. . . . I see so many capable, attractive, wonderful women whom romance has passed by . . . but I know that in the plan of the Almighty, the eternal plan which we call God's plan of happiness, there will be opportunity and reward for all who seek them. . . .

May you [young mothers] be given strength to carry your heavy load, to meet every obligation . . . Nothing else you will ever own, no worldly thing you will ever acquire will be worth so much as the love of your children. . . .

Count your blessings; name them one by one. You don't need a great big mansion of a house with an all-consuming mortgage that goes on forever. . . . Weigh carefully that which you do. You do not need some of the extravagances that working outside the home might bring. Weigh carefully the importance of your being in the home when your children come from school. . . .

Now I speak to you single mothers whose burdens are so heavy because you have been abandoned or have been widowed. Yours is a terrible load. Bear it well. . . . Be grateful for any assistance that may come out of the quorums of the priesthood to help you in your home or with other matters. Pray silently in your closet, and let the tears flow if they must come. But put a smile on your face whenever you are before your children or others. . . .

You are the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There is no other organization to equal it. Walk with pride. Hold your heads up. Work with diligence. Do whatever the Church asks you to do. . . .

(http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-401-37,00.html)
_____

Boyd K. Packer: Mormonism's "Manly Man"

In male-manacled Mormonism, Packer is second to none when it comes to hating women. This modern-day Neanderthal is a pathetically insecure man who apparently has never met an independent woman he didn't like.

In a sermon entitled the "The Equal Rights Amendment," Packer puffed, prattled and preened in full priesthood pontification:

One might ask . . . if you are against the Equal Rights Amendment, then what are you for?

I am for the equitable enforcement of existing laws. There are sufficient of them to protect the rights of women and of children and of men. Or to enact judiciously and wisely any needed legislation to correct particular circumstances.

I am for protecting the rights of a woman to be a woman, a feminine, female woman; a wife and a mother.

I am for protecting the rights of a man to be a man, a masculine, male man; a husband and a father.

I am for protecting the rights of children to be babies and children and youth, to be nurtured in a home and in a family.

I am for recognizing the inherent God-given differences between men and women.

I am for accommodating them so that we can have physically and emotionally and spiritually stable, happy individuals and families and communities.
Without that, when the floods come, in the end what will really be worth saving?

May God bless us and preserve the sacred institution of the family, to the end that this generation and future generations can be preserved. May He bless fathers and mothers and their children to be happy in the life pattern He has ordained.

(http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai138.html , under "Ensign Articles," "Boyd K. Packer, 'The Equal Rights Amendment,' Ensign, March 1977, 6.")
_____

Enter Sonia Johnson, the Mormon Priesthood's Worst Nightmare

Standing up to such condescending patriarchal abuse, Sonia Johnson--the courageous Mormon woman eventually excommunicated from the LDS Church for her vocal support of the ERA--offered a brutally realistic (and depressingly dismal) assessment of the official LDS position on equal rights for women--an assessment that is just as accurate today as when it was first defiantly delivered over a quarter of a century ago:

Saturated as it is with the anti-female bias that is patriarchy’s very definition and reason for being, the Mormon Church can legitimately be termed "The Last Unmitigated Western Patriarchy." . . . This patriarchal imperative is reinforced by the belief that the President of the Church is a Prophet of God, as were Isaiah and Moses, and that God will not allow him to make a mistake in guiding the Church. . . .

. . . [T]he men at the head of the [Mormon] Church are strong and the patriarchs have for millennia crushed those women who escaped from their mind-bindings. . . .

. . . [W]omen will not be safe from the Brethren’s capricious meddling with our inalienable human rights until we attain positions of power and authority in our Church; to control our own auxiliary money and program and to publish our own magazine for communication among ourselves have put women under total male control, requiring us to ask permission of men in even the smallest of matters. These rulings–which have seriously harmed women’s self-esteem, lowered our status, made us bootlickers and toadies to the men of the Church and destroyed what little freedom of choice we had–those rulings reveal the depth of the Brethren’s fear of independent, non-permission-asking women, the kind of women which are emerging from the women’s movement. And it is no accident that they were enacted just as the feminist tide in the United States began to swell. . . .

. . . [T]he [Mormon Church's] patriarchs . . . are either afraid to talk with those of us who are alarmed at their opinions and treatment of women or they do not consider us worth their time. . . . But what it says to those of us who have survived being Mormon women is that our sisters are silently screaming for help and that they are not only NOT finding it at Church, but that at Church they are being further depressed and debilitated by bombardment with profoundly demeaning female sex-role stereotypes. Their Church experience is making them sick.

(For the original posting of the expanded text of Johnson's paper, delivered to the American Psychological Association in New York City on 1 September 1979, together with the speech's footnotes, other commentary and subsequent observations from RfM contributors, see http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon415.htm)
_____

Johnson’s Historic Speech, “Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church--How Women Have Been Made Bootlickers and Toadies to the Men of the Church"

To understand the deep-seated bigotry that persists against women in the LDS Church, one needs only to soak in Johnson's landmark, and timeless, war cry against Mormonism's femalephobia.

It was a stunning, compelling, no-holds-barred and complete dismemberment of Mormon patriarchy--one that, when it was delivered, blew the lid off of LDS maledumb's then-secretly organized, superficially disingenuous and patently dishonest efforts to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment.

Johnson–a brave, outspoken and Mormon male bashed-and-trashed torch bearer in the ultimately futile battle over passage of the ERA--was expelled from the LDS Church largely because of the bold and unapologetic remarks she made in a speech to the American Psychological Association (APA) in New York City on 1 September 1979.

Entitled “Patriarchal Panic: Sexual Politics in the Mormon Church: How Women Have Been Made Bootlickers and Toadies to the Men of the Church,” her speech was a powerful expose’ of the blatantly illegal, immoral and behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts by the LDS Church to prevent passage of the ERA in legislative statehouses across the country.
_____

Break Out the Rash: Mormonism's Reactionary Response

A typcially then-and-now, reflexive, knee-jerk Mormon reaction to Johnson's speech came from--not suprisingly--a LDS male in West Jordan, Utah, who wrote:

In the case of ERA, the Federal government has lobbied for its ratification, the Church against it. I think it all boils down to whom do we trust?

The government or those whom we sustain as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators? Who do we consider the wisest--the President of the United States or the President of the Church? Whose motives, goals and objectives do we align ourselves with?

While it's true that members of the Church have a right to be pro-ERA, it is clear to me that this is the same as our right to smoke, drink, be inactive or withhold any contributions to the Church. It is not similar to our right to be a Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever.

The Church says it is a moral issue, the world says it's political. Who do we believe?

Sonia Johnson and others apparently feel that the Church's opposition to [the] ERA is a "patriarchal panic" based on a chauvinistic desire to keep women under the thumb of men in the Church. The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have stated their reasons for opposition and we do them a terrible disservice in discounting their statements and suspecting instead various unholy ulterior motives.

Besides having the right to be wrong, Church members have the right to inspiration from the Holy Ghost (assuming personal worthiness). I submit that we should exercise that privilege rather than the former and find ourselves in peaceful agreement with those whom the Lord has charged with the great responsibility of leading us aright.

(http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue21.asp)
_____

Speaking Truth to Priesthood "Power"

Johnson’s speech was clearly not meant to placate the priesthood but to defeat it. It was a defiant, accusatory and emboldening call to arms that ended up getting her ecclesiastically beheaded by the panicked Brethren.

As Mormon author Linda Sillitoe describes it:

[It was] the extreme, not the norm, of Sonia Johnson’s utterances and yet it identifie[d] clearly the heart of what ha[d] become her dilemma. It is in this speech that she crosse[d] the line between equal civil rights and the patriarchal system of the Mormon Church, a border also blurred by the Church by identifying the ERA as a moral issue upon which the Church [was] taking political action (in harmony with the July 4, 1979 statement of the First Presidency which explain[ed] that moral issues, so identified by the First Presidency and Council of Twelve, may be ‘worthy of full institutional involvement’). Thus it is no more possible to remove Sonia Johnson's promotion of the Equal Rights Amendment from a Church context than it was possible for her to remove the anti-ERA petition from her ward lobby.

As Sillitoe further notes, it was Johnson’s speech that, in fact, provided the final impetus for the decision of Mormon Church patriarchs to excommunicate her from its ranks.

At her trial, Johnson was accused by her inquisitioners of having "publicly taught that the Church is dedicated to imposing the Prophet's moral directives upon all Americans; when it is the doctrine of the Church that all people are free to choose for themselves those moral directives dictated by their own consciences."

Johnson’s unpardonable sin (at least to the covered eyes and ears of Mormonism's patriarchal and predatory prevaricators) was to blow the whistle on the Brethren’s secret political designs to torpedo the ERA.

(http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/searchable/Issue19.asp)

***************

The Text of Sonia Johnson’s Courageous Pro-ERA/Anti-Patriarchy Speech

Below is the nearly complete text of Johnson’s remarks before the American Psychological Association in September 1979. (Nearly in the sense that the copy of Johnson’s speech in my possession is a typed manuscript which appears to have been photo-reproduced many times, thus resulting in occasional illegibilities at the top of some of its pages. However, despite these relatively small and infrequent gaps, the meaning of Johnson’s message is not lost).

Johnson’s public exposure of the "panic" seizing Mormon male leadership in the face of rising calls for gender equality became an inspiring cry in Mormonism’s pro-ERA underground--particularly, of course, for women who to this day continue to be suffocated by the Brethren’s patriarchal grip.

PATRIARCHAL PANIC: SEXUAL POLITICS IN THE MORMON CHURCH--HOW WOMEN HAVE BEEN MADE BOOTLICKERS AND TOADIES TO THE MEN OF THE CHURCH
September 1, 1979
Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Meetings, New York City
Sonia Johnson, Ed.D
Chair, MORMONS FOR ERA

Sexual politics is old hat in the Mormon Church. It was flourishing when my grandparents were infants, crossing the plains to Utah in covered wagons. Although different generations have developed their own peculiar variations on the theme, I believe my generation is approaching the ultimate confrontation, for which all the others were simply dress rehearsals. Mormon sexual politics today is an uneasy mixture of explosive phenomena: the recent profound disenfranchisement of Mormon women by Church leaders, the Church’s sudden strong political presence in the anti-ERA arena and the women’s movement.

Saturated as it is with the anti-female bias that is patriarchy’s very definition and reason for being, the Mormon Church can legitimately be termed "The Last Unmitigated Western Patriarchy." (I know you Catholics and Jews in this audience will want to argue with that but I will put my patriarchs up against yours any day!) This patriarchal imperative is reinforced by the belief that the President of the Church is a Prophet of God, as were Isaiah and Moses, and that God will not allow him to make a mistake in guiding the Church. He is, therefore, if not doctrinally, in practice "infallible"–deified. Commonly heard thought-obliterating dicta in my Church are "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done" and "when the Prophet speaks, the debate is ended." They forget to mention that the debate probably never even got started since in the Church there is little dialogue or real education. Indoctrination is the prime method of instruction because obedience is the contemporary Church’s prime message.

The caliber of character forged by this "education to obey" is illustrated by an encounter we had two summers ago [1977] in Lafayette Square after the national ERA march in Washington, D.C. Several of us were accosted by two Brigham Young University students, former missionaries for the Church, who tried to tear down our MORMONS FOR ERA banner. During the ensuing discussion, they solemnly vowed that if the Prophet told them to go out and shoot all Black people, they would do so without hesitation.

Another example: Under the Heavenly mandate against the Equal Rights Amendment, Mormons in Virginia last winter [1978], wearing their EQUALITY YES, ERA NO! buttons (a typical boggling example of patriarchal doublethink), lobbied not only against the ERA but against ALL bills for women–many of which were models of their kind.

The political implications of this mass renunciation of individual conscience for direction from “God” are not clearly enough understood in this country. The Mormons, a tiny minority, are dedicated to imposing the Prophet’s moral directives upon all Americans and they may succeed if Americans do not become aware of their methods and goals. Because the organization of the Church is marvelously tight and the obedience of the members marvelously thorough-going, potentially thousands of people can be mobilized in a very short time to do–conscientiously–whatever they are told, without more explanation than "the Prophet has spoken."

But Mormon anti-ERA activity, though organized and directed by the hierarchy of the Church from Salt Lake down through regional and local male leaders, is covert activity, not openly done in the name of the Church. Members are cautioned not to reveal that they are Mormons or organized by the Church when they lobby, write letters, donate money and pass out anti-ERA brochures door-to-door through whole states. . . . Instead, they are directed to say that they are concerned citizens following the dictates of their individual consciences. Since they are, in fact, following the dictates of the Prophet’s conscience and would revise their own overnight if he were to revise his, nothing could be further from the truth.

In addition, Mormon women, who make up most of the anti-ERA Mormon army (and the leaders refer to it as an army in true patriarchal style. . . ), are advised not to tell people that the men of the Church have organized them, but to maintain that they voluntarily organized themselves. "People won’t understand" . . . , their male leaders explain which in patriarchal doublespeak means: "People will understand only too well that this is the usual male trick of enlisting women to carry out men’s oppressive measures against women, hiding the identity of the real oppressors and alienating women from each other."

So many of us in the Church are so unalterably opposed to this covert and oppressive activity that one of the major purposes of MORMONS FOR ERA has become to shine light upon the murky political activities of the Church and to expose to other Americans its exploitation of women’s religious commitment for its self-serving male political purposes.

The reaction of the Church fathers to the women’s movement and women’s demand for equal rights has produced fearful and fascinating phenomena. In the mid-1960s, Utah’s birthrate was almost exactly the same as the national rate but by last year [1978] it was double the national average–evidence of a real patriarchal panic, a tremendous reaction against the basic feminist tenet that women were meant by their Creator to be individuals first and to fulfill roles second–to the degree and in the way they choose, as men do. In almost every meeting of the Church (and Mormons are noted for [next several words illegible] "good" Mormon woman, acceptable to the Brethren and therefore to God; messages calculated to keep women where men like them best: "made" . . . (created) to nurture husband and children, housebound, financially and emotionally dependent, occupationally immature, politically na�ve, obedient, subordinate, submissive, somnambulant and bearing much of the heavy and uncredited labor of the Church upon their uncomplaining shoulders.

Encyclicals from the Brethren over the past ten years [1969-1979] such as those which took away women’s right to pray in major Church meetings (this right has since been restored but women will not be safe from the Brethren’s capricious meddling with our inalienable human rights until we attain positions of power and authority in our Church); to control our own auxiliary money and program and to publish our own magazine for communication among ourselves have put women under total male control, requiring us to ask permission of men in even the smallest of matters. These rulings–which have seriously harmed women’s self-esteem, lowered our status, made us bootlickers and toadies to the men of the Church and destroyed what little freedom of choice we had–those rulings reveal the depth of the Brethren’s fear of independent, non-permission-asking women, the kind of women which are emerging from the women’s movement. And it is no accident that they were enacted just as the feminist tide in the United States began to swell.

But we have other, more direct, ways of knowing how badly threatened and angry our brethren are by the existence of women who are not under their control. In April [1979], we hired a plane to fly a banner over Temple Square in Salt Lake City during a break in the world-wide Conference of male leaders being held in the Tabernacle. The banner announced that MORMONS FOR ERA ARE EVERYWHERE. A reporter phoned the Jody Powell of the Church [Jody Powell was then-President Jimmy Carter’s White House press secretary] to ask how the Brethren were taking this little prank and was told that they found it "amusing." Then the Jody Powell-person suggested that the reporter put a cartoon in the next day’s paper showing our plane flying over the Angel Moroni atop the Temple (as the actual newspaper had) but instead of a trumpet, picture Moroni brandishing a machine gun. One does not need to be a psychoanalyst to understand how “amusing” the Brethren found our "little prank." . . .

More recently, when an Associated Press reporter interviewed President [Spencer W.] Kimball on the subject of uppity Mormon women, the Prophet warned that Church members who support the Equal Rights Amendment should be "very, very careful" because the Church is led by "strong men and able men . . . . We feel we are in a position to lead them properly." . . . The threat here is open and clear. We had better be very, very careful.

[Illegible] the men at the head of the Church are strong and the patriarchs have for millennia crushed those women who escaped from their mind-bindings. President Kimball is further quoted as saying, "These women who are asking for authority to do everything that a man can do and change the order and go and do men’s work instead of bearing children, she’s just off her base" . . . –a truly appalling revelations of ignorance about the realities of women’s lives.

But perhaps the image of greatest terror crawled from the psyche of Hartman Rector, one of the General Authorities of the Church, in response to my testimony before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights:

In order to attempt to get the male somewhere near even, the Heavenly Father gave him the Priesthood, or directing authority for the Church and home. Without this bequeath, the male would be so far below the female in power and influence that there would be little or no purpose for his existence. In fact, [he] would probably be eaten by the female as is the case with the black widow Spider. . . .

Given this view of women, it should come as no surprise that despite the carefully calculated public relations campaign which portrays the Mormon Church as the last bastion (and probably the inventors!) of the happy family and fulfilled womanhood, all is not well in Zion: all is particularly not well among Zion’s women.

In recent years, considerable hue and cry has arisen over the subject of depression among Mormon women, inspiring a spate of documentaries and articles. . . . The Salt Lake Tribune in December of 1977 quoted local therapists as stating that up to three-quarters of their Mormon patients were women and that the common denominator was low self-image and lack of fulfillment outside the home. . . .This depression is endemic and begins at an early age: the incidence of suicide among teenaged females in Utah is more than double the national average and rising. . . . Seven of 10 teenaged brides are “premaritally pregnant” and 40 percent of Utah’s brides are teens. . . . The proportion of teenage marriages in Utah has been greater than for the nation each year since 1960, which might partially account for Utah’s divorce rate being higher than the national average. (The time of the beginning of the increase is also significant, as I have pointed out earlier). Alcoholism and drug abuse among women are problems in Mormon culture, as are child and wife abuse. In the last 14 years, rape in Utah has increased 165 percent and the local index of rape is 1.35 percent higher than the national average. . . . . Add to this the significant fact that attendance at Relief Society–the Church’s women’s auxiliary–and at the Young Women’s organization meetings has dropped off drastically nationwide.

What all this says to the patriarchs is anyone’s guess–they are either afraid to talk with those of us who are alarmed at their opinions and treatment of women or they do not consider us worth their time. . . . But what it says to those of us who have survived being Mormon women is that our sisters are silently screaming for help and that they are not only NOT finding it at Church, but that at Church they are being further depressed and debilitated by bombardment with profoundly demeaning female sex-role stereotypes. Their Church experience is making them sick.

Because Mormon women are trained to desire above all else to please men (and I include in this category God, whom all too many of us view as an extension of our chauvinist leaders), we spend enormous amounts of energy trying to make the very real but–for most of us–limited satisfactions of mother- and wifehood substitute satisfactorily for all other life experiences. What spills over into those vacant lots of our hearts where our intellectual and talented selves should be vigorously alive and thriving are, instead, frustration, anger and the despair which comes from suppressing anger and feeling guilty for having felt it in the first place.

Last summer [1978], a Utah woman wrote to Senate Hatch of Utah: “A sea of smoldering women is a dangerous thing.” And that’s what the Mormon patriarchy has on its hands: a sea of smoldering women. Those whose anger is still undifferentiated, who do not realize how thoroughly they are being betrayed–their rage is exploited by Church leaders who subvert it into attacks against feminist causes such as the Equal Rights Amendment, making scapegoats of women and their righteous desires, identifying women as the source of women’s danger (a patriarchal tactic for maintaining power that has its roots in antiquity) and trying to distract us from recognizing that where our real danger as women lies, and always has lain, is in patriarchy.

But women are not fools. The very violence with which the Brethren attacked an Amendment which would give women human status in the Constitution abruptly opened the eyes of thousands of us to the true source of our danger and our anger. This open patriarchal panic against our human rights raised consciousness miraculously all over the Church as nothing else could have done. And revealing their raw panic at the idea that women might step forward as goddesses-in-the-making with power in a real–not a “sub” or “through men”–sense, was the leaders’ critical and mortal error, producing as it did a deafening dissonance between their rhetoric of love and their oppressive, unloving, destructive behavior.

I receive phone calls and letters from Mormon women all over the country and each has a story or two to tell: how two Mormon women in one meeting independently stood and spoke of their Mother in Heaven, how they met afterwards and wept together in joy at having found and named Her; how a courageous Mormon woman is preparing to make the first public demand for the priesthood. “The time has come,” she says calmly, “for women to insist upon full religious enfranchisement.” This statement is the Mormon woman’s equivalent of the shot heard ‘round the world!

Our patriarchy may be The Last Unmitigated but it is no longer unchallenged. A multitude of Mormon women are through asking permission. We are waking up and growing up and in our waking and growing can be heard–distinctly–the death rattle of the patriarchy.

The Magical Mystery Adam-On-Di-Amon Tour
Thursday, Mar 30, 2006, at 08:03 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

"Brothers and sisters, if you will all please step over this way toward the altar of stones, which you can see just ahead of you.

"Please watch where you are going. I see dead people--especially if you wander off the trail and over the cliff.

"Welcome to Adam-on-di-Amon.

"Before proceeding, we here at Faithfully Yours Mormon Tours ask that you please not touch, pick up, rearrange or remove these altar stones. We like to say that they are the original stones used by Father Adam to build an altar on this very spot.

"Unfortunately, the original stones which Adam used to build this altar have, over the years and through constant theft and vandalism, been lost and stolen--requiring that we replace them over and over again.

"This means that your tour guide crew has to waste valuable time that they could otherwise use making up more stories for you to share in sacrament meeting when you get home, in order to haul in new rocks to replace the ones you've taken off with. This rebuilding routine gets old real quick so, if you wouldn't mind, please play along and KEEP YOUR DAMN HANDS OFF THESE ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT STONES!

"If you want some stones to remember your visit here, you can buy some plastic replicas in the gift shop, located at the rear of the bus. Just ask the Mormon clerk with the plastic smile to help you.

"Thank you.

"Moving along, like I said, this historic and holy tourist trap, er, place is known as 'Adam-on-di-Amon.' I will explain that name in a moment, although what I will be saying about it makes very little sense to me or anyone else who gets paid with your tithing dollars to make it sound like something straight out of a FARMS brochure on ancient American NASCAR racing.

"If you will look at your bus tour maps, you can see that we are standing about two miles south of Jameson, Missouri, with a pleasant view overlooking the waters of the Grand River, not far from where hundreds of thousands of Book of Mormon enemy combatants slaughtered each other during the California Gold Rush.

"The Saints who eventually settled here were told by the Prophet Joseph Smith that Jameson is also near the spot of an ancient Nephite city--as indicated by the discovery of hewn stones already in piles when the Saints arrived.

"These stones were said to have displayed Deformed Egyptian hieroglyphs which, when translated by the Prophet Joseph using several of these altar rocks as peepstones in a hat, spelled out, "Lehi loves Sariah but hates brown people and Catholics."

"Unfortunately, these stones have also been stolen.

"Moving along--Hey!! Look, son, I told you not to touch those rocks! Drop them! Do it now, before the Great Jehovah strikes you down like Korihor and you suffer an ignoramius death! (Works everytime).

"Now, where was I?

"Oh, yes, it was on this spot that the Prophet Joseph Smith declared that Adam--the father of the human race and, according to Brigham Young, the guy who conceived Jesus through sex with the not-so-virgin Mary--was buried.

"In fact, if you look closely, you can see what looks like the end of a human leg bone sticking out of the dirt. Actually, it's a cow bone. The human ones are at the site of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, but we ain't goin' there.

"The parcel of land upon which you are standing was purchased by the Saints who settled here from a man named Arrington. Who he was, I haven't a clue. Someone who actually cares and who has lots of time on their hands should do his genealogy then thank him with a dunk-tank baptism for the dead send-off into eternally polygamous potluck glory, but that's for another time and place in outer space.

"It was to this hallowed spot that the Latter-day Saints flocked as their promised Zion--but only after they had been driven from all the other places they had also been promised.

"Eventually this location became a town, after starting out as a farm, and from there grew rapidly into the field of weeds that you see here today.

"The Saints gathered here from all quarters, even "Far West" (before they were forced to pull up stakes and move to 'Farther and Farther West')--but not before they had assembled at this sacred site and poked around, using one of Joseph Smith's witching sticks, looking for the grave of Adam.

"Adam's slippery remains (not to mention his apple) have yet to be found, although a petrified fig leaf, believed to have at one time been attached to his apron, was dug up when Joseph Smith was out here hunting for buried treasure.

"The town which the Saints proceeded to build on this spot was designated as 'Adam-on-di-Amon.' It is a name the Prophet Joseph came up with by writing it on a slip of paper, putting it in a hat along with several other names on their own slips of paper, then asking Emma to close her eyes and draw one out, while he stole a kiss from Fannie Alger.

"Now, here is where things get a bit complicated so stick with me--and put down that rock, kid! How many times do I have to tell you?? Next time, I'll bash your head in with it!! (Which might not be a bad idea. We could tell the next tour group that the blood they see on the rock came from Jesus, who was crucified on this very spot. Hmmmmm . . .)

"Anyway, the name 'Adam-on-di-Amon' was the name the Saints ended up using because it was easier to spell than other choices, including 'Addin'-on-Aladdin,' 'You-Da-Dude-Diahman,' 'Adam-played-Backgammon,' 'Princess-Di-is-Dead-'n-Gone-Man,' 'Diamond-Shamrock,' and (my personal favorite) 'Dam-Dam-bo-Bam-Banana-Fana-fo-Fam-Fee-Fi-MoMan-Adam.'

"In a sermon delivered on this spot by the Prophet Joseph, he declared that name 'Adam-on-di-Amon' was the name given anciently to a nearby valley (then known as Utah Valley) where Adam, prior to his death, called his children together and blessed them, then abandoned his family for some of his other wives, since Eve had managed to get him thrown out of his favorite watering hole--known among the local pre-Adamites as the 'Garden of Cheatin'--all for giving in to Eve by partaking of a beer that was delicious to the taste, but which he hadn't paid for.

"According to the Prophet Joseph, the blessing which Adam bestowed upon his children took place when the Earth was divided with the land in one place and the water in another, whatever the hell that means.

"Just think about it. (Wait, you can't think. You're Mormons on a fantasy trek, for gawd's sake). Land in one place and water in another. Land and water have got to be seperate; otherwise, how could you have, like, land, over here and water over there? Maybe that's a Gospel mystery for Bruce R. McConkie to figure out for us.

"It was also on this spot, brothers and sisters, that Father Adam dwelt ("Dwelt." What a dumb word. Why can't we just say "lived" or "hung out"? Because it's not in the damn script out of the Correlation Committee, that's why).

"Anyhoo, this is where Adam dwelt with his people prior to his death, which occured when he was bitten by a snake that Eve had let into the house without telling him.

"Before he died, Adam constructed the altar, represented here by this pile of meaningless rubble. It was at this altar that Father Adam, now advanced in years and by this time just plain sick and tired of earning too little bread by too much sweat of his brow, also offered sacrifices, since they were easier to come by.

"Following Masonic rituals that he would later reveal to the Prophet Joseph, Adam would slay chickens and goats(which he stole from the neighborhood Gentiles). This he did in the upper room of a mudhut prototype of what was later to become the Nauvoo Temple--and then drink their blood here, out of sight of the local authorities.

"Also at this stone altar--Hey!! OK, that's it, punk! (Sound of stone from altar hitting skull of kid)

"I apologize for the interruption.

"It was also here at this stone altar that, according to the early Mormon polygamist Zelph the White Danite, Adam leaned on his staff and prophesied many events that were to come to pass in the present generation, including the destruction of the Mormon Church due to the HBO special, "Big Love" and Mitt Romney's failed bid to lie his way into the White House by claiming he was baptized against his will by Mormon missionaries desperate for numbers.

"To wrap things up (as the Prophet Joseph used to say when referring to his Egyptian mummies), it was at this very spot that Adam bestowed his final blessings on his descendants--before the venom from that snake that Eve let loose in their house took effect and paralyzed Adam's vocal cords, causing his children to cry out, "What is wanted?," whereupon Adam managed to get out his last words, "Adam, having been true and faithful, desires a glass of water from the pail," before collapsing and dying.

"Are there any questions? . . .

"No? (That figures. Mormons never question).

"Well, if there aren't any questions, does anyone have any answers?

"Yes? Too bad. They're all wrong.

"OK, then, everyone on the bus for Denny's."

The Mormon Church Says It Doesn't Like To Be Called "Mormon" But Violates Its Own Damn Style Guide
Thursday, Mar 30, 2006, at 08:12 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Go to the official Style Guide site for the LDS Church and there you will find the official LDS Church explanation for the official name of the LDS Church, along with official directions from the LDS Church on what names to use or not use when officially referring to the LDS Church:

Style Guide - The Name of the Church

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Please avoid the use of “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church” or “the Church of the Latter-day Saints.”

When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged.
When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred, though “Mormons” is acceptable. "Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as “Mormon pioneers.”

The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,3899-1---15-168,00.html (emphasis added)
_____

So, you're not supposed to refer to the LDS Church as the "Mormon Church," because that's not the LDS Church's real name.

Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuze me but I just heard one of those LDS family "it's about time" radio spots and it referred interested listeners to, golly, guess what? . . . mormon.org.

So, when you go to http://mormon.org , you'll see it's an officially owned and operated propaganda site for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (you know, the Mormons).

Upon entering the site, viewers are hit up with the following greeting, front and center, written in lacey script and accompanied by a photo of happy-faced Mormons:

This site is for anyone interested in learning more about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We invite you to view information about The Church itself or to explore our beliefs about Families, the Nature of God, and the Purpose of life. We also encourage you to view answers to Frequently asked questions.
_____

So, the MORMONS and the MORMON CHURCH will getchya any way they can, even if it means throwin' out a hook with the worm "Mormon" on it.

Obviously, it must not bother them too much, as long as they can make a sale and reel you in.

Yup, anything to close the deal.

Wormy little liars.

More On Gordon B. Hinckley's Health
Monday, Apr 3, 2006, at 01:50 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Utah media, as well as news organizations in other locations are, with increasing focus, following up on the possibility that Hinckley's health has taken a signfiicant turn for the worse.

It was, of course, reported a few months ago that Hinckley had been operated on for colon cancer, that he was recovering comfortably from said surgery and that he would be resuming a full schedule shortly.

In the wake of these announcements, the Mormon Church's official news releases have been both vague and upbeat on the matter of Hinckley's reported condition.

However, we recently learned from RfM poster "Schraevus" of a so-called "Mormon e-mail" being circulated which reported that Hinckley's health is in serious jeopardy and that this might be his last General Conference:

Just go this from a TBM friend. Nothing quite as juicy as GA relatives gossip.

I was talking with my friend in North Salt Lake this morning. He lives in a ward with 3 Apostles and the Stake President is Elder Ballard's son-in-law. They had Stake Conference this past Sunday and Elder Ballard, who just had both knees replaced, came and spoke.

Among other things, Apostle Ballard said that General Conference this April (2006) may well be our last chance to hear Pres. Hinckley speak. He said that Pres. Hinckley is suffering from a very serious illness and that, much like King Benjamin gathering his people around to address them one last time, we would do well to listen as intently as the people of that time. It is sad to think that we may lose President Hinckley soon but thought it would be good to know this and treat his testimony even more reverently.

("This Just in on Mo E-mail," post by "Schraevus," Recovery from Mormonism board, 31 March 2006)
_____

I subsequently spoke with my own source a few days ago, which informed me that Hinckley has cancer and that his family was flying in from all over the country to be with him during General Conference.

When I asked if the Hinckley family normally comes in to be with their patriarch at Conference time, I was informed that a gathering by his family of this magnitude is unusual and that requests were being made to have Hinckley family members come who are outside Hinckley's immediate (i.e., nuclear) family circle.

I was informed of Hinckley's situation (and his family's response to it) as I inquired of the source about report (noted above) of Ballard's reported recently acknowledgment that Hinckley has a very serious illness and that this may be the last time he is at General Conference.

In response to those reports, I was told that Hinckley's serious illness was, in fact, cancer and that his family is coming in from far and wide.

Based on what my source told me (if proven accurate), it seemed that things did not look good for Hinckley.

(see "Update on Hinckley's condition from a well-placed source: Looks like a death watch may be in the preliminary making . . .," post by Steve Benson, board, 31 March 2006)
______

Subsequent to these and other RfM postings, an investigative source in the news media (who covers these matters for a living) has contacted me, inquiring on Hinckley's health and making a few observations, along with noting that the media is in a state of increased alert concerning the subject of Hinckley's health.

The observations include the following:

--Hinckley was scheduled to, but ended up not kicking off, April Conference with his own, planned opening remarks.

--Several glowing references to Hinckley were subsequently made by other Conference speakers.

--Several glowing references were likewise made by other Conference speakers to Monson (Hinckley's heir apparent).

--While Hinckley has assured the Mormon faithful that his obituary should not be written just yet and that he plans on attending this year's October Conference, there has been acknowledgment by the Church that Hinckley is suffering residual effects from his cancer operation. Elements of the media are on heightened alert to the possibility that if, in fact, Hinckley has cancer (particularly if he is suffering from a fast-spreading kind related to the colon), he might not make it to next October, despite his assurances otherwise.

--Continuing investigative efforts are being made by the media to confirm accounts that Hinckley's health is reportedly in a state of significant decline and that he may not be around much longer.

--The media is aware of the RfM board's on-going discussions on Hinckley's health and regards this site as a source of potentially valuable information.

The Latest In A Series Of Ongoing Updates On Hinckley's Health
Thursday, Apr 6, 2006, at 08:46 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Below is a summation (with new developments added, as they become available) concerning Gordon B. Hinckley's condition--which isn't good--and which, despite Hinckley's recent public comments, appears to possibly be a matter of some institutionalized cover-up by the Mormon Church:

Hinckley Admits He's On His Last Legs

On Sunday, April 2nd, Hinckley informed his General Conference audience that he is in the final chapters of his life, as reported by the Associated Press:

SALT LAKE CITY--Mormon church president Gordon B. Hinckley said on Sunday he is in the "sunset of my life" and suffering from some residual health problems after undergoing major surgery earlier this year.

"I am totally in the hands of the Lord," Hinckley said, addressing the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the second day of the faith's twice-yearly conference.

Hinckley, 95, was hospitalized in January after doctors discovered a cancerous growth on his intestine during what was called a routine medical examination. He had surgery and spent nearly a week in the hospital recovering.

Hinckley, now in his 11th year as church president, has acknowledged he is slowing down with age. But he also made it clear that his sense of humor is as sharp as ever and that he didn't want church members to over-interpret his health concerns.

"I trust you will not regard this as an obituary," he said, drawing a laugh. "Rather I look forward to the opportunity of speaking to you again in October."

http://www.boston.com/...
_____

Despite an Earlier Operation for Colon Cancer, Hinckley Still Has Cancer

Actually, it's no laughing matter and his condition appears to involve more than just residual after-effects of his previous surgery for colon cancer.

As I noted here last week, a reliable source recently informed me that Hinckley is presently suffering from cancer and that, due to the serious nature of his condition, his family had gathered from across the country in an unusual move to be with him at Conference.

http://www.exmormon.org/...

http://www.exmormon.org/...
_____

I also have been informed quite recently that, according to sources in medical circles, Hinckley definitely has cancer. However, the claims of these sources have, I am told, yet to be reliably confirmed.
_____

Hinckley's Current Condition, as of Yesterday: Mum from Mormondom

According to a source with whom I have been in recent contact and who is closely following developments on Hinckley's health, the Mormon Church yesterday released a statement on Hinckley's condition in which it said, essentially, that Hinckley has nothing more to say (at the moment, at least) about his physical condition.
_____

The LDS Church Denounces Internet Chat About What Is Reportedly Disseminated in Mormon Church Meetings

According to this same source, the same Mormon Church statement also decried Internet chat, warning Latter-day Saints not to spread information they believe they have heard in Mormon church settings.
_____

Spinning Ballard's Comments on Hinckley's Condition

This warning is particularly interesting, given that a Mormon e-mail has recently been making the rounds, in which statements attributed to Apostle M. Russell Ballard point to the serious state of Hinckley's health--and which strongly hint that Hinckley might not be around much longer.

The e-mail in question (also recently posted on RfM) reported the following:

I was talking with my friend in North Salt Lake this morning. He lives in a ward with 3 Apostles and the Stake President is Elder Ballard's son-in-law. They had Stake Conference this past Sunday and Elder Ballard, who just had both knees replaced, came and spoke.

Among other things, Apostle Ballard said that General Conference this April (2006) may well be our last chance to hear Pres. Hinckley speak. He said that Pres. Hinckley is suffering from a very serious illness and that, much like King Benjamin gathering his people around to address them one last time, we would do well to listen as intently as the people of that time. It is sad to think that we may lose President Hinckley soon but thought it would be good to know this and treat his testimony even more reverently.

http://www.exmormon.org/...
_____

With regard to Ballard's reported comments above, my source says that what Ballard shared about Hinckley's health has now been reconfigured by the Church to mean nothing more than an encouragement from Ballard that everyone should, as always, listen attentively to what the prophet as to say.
_____

Yeah, right.

Stay tuned.

"Justice" For The Victims Of The Bennett / Wheeler Sex Abuse Case: Yavapi County Style
Thursday, Apr 6, 2006, at 09:01 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/benson/

From The Flip-Flop-It Prophet: Hinckley Defends Historic Doctrinal Mormon Racism But Says He Doesn't Understand The Basis For It
Tuesday, Apr 11, 2006, at 06:42 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

women, prophetic revelation, LDS group-think, garments, the Book of Mormon, LDS Christianity, full-time missionary aversion to sex, politics, Internet smut, the 1950s, other churches, coffee and--last but not least--God's wife).
_____

We Thank Thee, Oh God, for Mumbo-Jumbo

Below are extraordinarily egg-faced excerpts from an exchange between David Ransom, of the Australian Broadcasting Company news show "Compass," and LDS Church president Gordon B. Hinckley.
_____

First, Hinckley's defense of Mormon racism against Blacks:

Blacks Didn't Deserve the Priesthood in the Past but Hinckley Doesn't Know Why

DR: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.

DR: So, in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: No, I don’t think it was wrong. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.

DR: What was the reason for that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time.

DR: Is it a problem for the Church that it it still has a tag of being racist?

Gordon B. Hinckley: No, I don’t think so. I don’t see that anywhere. I’ve been to Africa. I’ve been to other places. I don’t see any evidence of that any more. There’s some misconception of course that among some people. But I don’t see much evidence of that any more.
_____

Continuing on the subject of Mormon prejudice, here's what Hinckley had to say about not giving LDS women the priesthood:

"Happy" Mormon Women Don't "Agitate" for the Mormon Male Priesthood

DR: At present women are not allowed to be priests in your Church. Why is that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s right, because the Lord has put it that way. Now women have a very prominent place in this Church. They have there own organisation. Probably the largest women’s organisation in the world of 3.7 million members. And the women of that organisation sit on Boards. Our Board of Education--things of that kind. They counsel with us. We counsel together. They bring in insight that we very much appreciate and they have this tremendous organization of the world where they grow and if you ask them they’ll say, "We’re happy and we’re satisfied."

DR: They all say that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. All except, ah, oh, you’ll find a little handful one or two here and there, but in 10 million members you expect that.

DR: You say the Lord has put it that way. What do you mean by that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I mean that’s a part of His program. Of course it is, yes.

DR: Is it possible that the rules could change in the future as the rules are on Blacks ?

Gordon B. Hinckley: He could change them, yes. If He were to change them that’s the only way it would happen.

DR: So, you’d have to get a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. But there’s no agitation for that. We don’t find it. Our women are happy. They’re satisfied. These bright, able, wonderful women who administer their own organisation are very happy. Ask them. Ask my wife.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Are you happy? (to his wife . . . )

Mrs. H: Very happy! (laughs)
_____

On the matter of how Hinckley gets revelation directly from God to run the Mormon Church, Hinckley says the Church actually doesn't need much of it:

God Reveals Things to Hinckley By Whispering to Him, Hinckley Thinks God Hears Him When He Prays, He Thinks It's "the Real Thing," but He Can't Say How For Sure Often He Gets These Revelations

DR: As the world leader of the the Church, how are you in touch with God? Can you explain that for me?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I pray. I pray to Him. Night and morning. I speak with Him. I think He hears my prayers. As He hears the prayers of others. I think He answers them.

DR: But more than that, because you’re leader of the Church. Do you have a special connection?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I have a special relationship in terms of the Church as an institution. Yes.

DR: And you receive--

Gordon B. Hinckley: For the entire Church.

DR: You receive?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Now we don’t need a lot of continuing revelation. We have a great, basic reservoir of revelation. But if a problem arises, as it does occasionally, a vexatious thing with which we have to deal, we go to the Lord in prayer. We discuss it as a First Presidency and as a Council of the Twelve Apostles. We pray about it and then comes the whisperings of a still small voice. And we know the direction we should take and we proceed accordingly.

DR: And this is a revelation?

Gordon B. Hinckley: This is a revelation.

DR: How often have you received such revelations?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I don’t know. I feel satisfied that in some circumstances we’ve had such revelation. It’s a very sacred thing that we don’t like to talk about a lot. A very sacred thing.

DR: But it’s a special experience?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think it’s a real thing. It’s a very real thing. And a special experience.
_____

On the subject of intellectual freedom, Mormons are allowed to question, but they really prefer the higher road of conformity:

The Mormon Church Has Only a Few--Specifically, "One Or Two"--Dissidents

DR: There does seem to be [among Mormons] . . . an uncritical acceptance of a conformist style?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Uncritical? No. Not uncritical. People think in a very critical way before they come into this Church. When they come into this Church they’re expected to conform. And they find happiness in that conformity.

DR: But not allowed to question?

Gordon B. Hinckley: If what?

DR: They’re not allowed to question?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, they are allowed to question. Look, this Church came of intellectual dissent. We maintain the largest private university in America.

DR: And that continues to this day?

Gordon B. Hinckley: 27,000 students.

DR: And that dissent continues to that this day?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. We expect people to think for themselves. Now, if they get off and begin to fight the Church and that sort of thing, as one or two do now and again, we simply disfellowship them and go our way. But those cases are really very, very few.
_____

Then there's the magical Mormon underwear, which Hinckley admits to wearing for what he thinks might be its possible protective properties:

Hinckley Sports "The Spirtual What?" (His Term for the Garments) Because, Among Other Things, He Thinks They're Comfy and Just Might Shield Him from Harm

DR: Um, look, I don’t want to be indelicate here but this, um, American ‘60 minutes’ program did deal with this business about the spiritual undergarments. I must ask you, what are they? And do you wear them?

Gordon B. Hinckley: The spiritual what?

DR: The spiritual undergarments?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, well, that’s simple--Many people wear particular types of clothing. Many religions. The Jews do. Vestments of various kind worn by other Religions. It isn’t an unusual thing at all. It’s sacred. We regard it as such. It’s a token as it were of our membership in the Church and our eligibility to go to the Temple.

DR: And the sacred undergarments protect you?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I think so. Yes.

DR: Do you wear them?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

DR: All the time?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes.

DR: And, and have you--

Gordon B. Hinckley: They’re very comfortable.

DR: Have you ever received protection from them?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Protection from them? Oh, I think so. I’m 86 years of age and going on 87 and I’m still here.
_____

About the Book of Mormon, Hinckley says there's really not all that much historical proof for it and, well, the gold plates are missing:

People Didn't Write Much Anciently That We Can Figure Out and, OK, We Don't Have the Gold Plates Anymore

DR: Now the Book of Mormon tells about Christ’s dealings with ancient people in America. I know that’s a long story, but can you put that in a nutshell for me?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Well, He said when during His ministry other sheep I have which are not of this fold, and that they those He would visit following His death, following His resurrection. We believe He appeared to the people on the American continent and ministered to them for a brief period. Talked to them much the same as He talked to people in Palestine. Just as the Bible is a Testament of the Old World, so the Book of Mormon is a testament of the New World.

DR: So, Jesus went to America and taught there. Is there any historical proof of this?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, I don’t know there are many confirmatory evidences of that civilization. The record of theses people, we think, is a testament or remembrance of that occasion. Yes, to that degree. But not a lot. Most people didn’t write very much that we’ve been able to decipher. Now.

DR: But this information came to--?

Gordon B. Hinckley: The Book of the Mormon.

DR: Er, through Joseph Smith?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Correct.

DR: Now, I understand these revelations came on golden plates. Can you tell me something about that?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. This was a book written in the language of the Egyptians on golden plates and they were hidden away in a hill in western New York and Joseph Smith was led to that hill and those plates were delivered to him and he translated from those plates what has become the Book of Mormon. Here it is. You can hold it in your hands. You can heft it. You can read it. You can feel the spirit. You can try to explain it. But when all’s said and done, it’s there.

DR: So, where are the plates now?

Gordon B. Hinckley: The plates are not here. The angel who delivered them took them back.
_____

Are Mormons Christian? You bet, Hinckley says:

The LDS Church is Christian and Other Churches Are, Too--As Long As They Say They Are

DR: . . . [H]ow does your faith sit with other Christians?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Let me say first that the Book of Mormon becomes a second witness for the Lord Jesus Christ. We believe in Jesus Christ as the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. We carry the name of the Savior and the name of the Church. We are Christians in a very real sense.

DR: And others are not?

Gordon B. Hinckley: And others are if they chose to call themselves such.

DR: But--

Gordon B. Hinckley: The term "Christians" in a generic vein.

DR: Do they need, though--

Gordon B. Hinckley: A group of people who believe in Jesus Christ.

DR: Do they need though to believe in these new revelations to be truly Christians?

Gordon B. Hinckley: They will get great satisfaction [if they] believe in, in these new revelations. They will have in their hand a second witness for the reality and validity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

DR: So, how do you respond to those who say that you’re not really Christians?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I simply say that’s a that’s a misconception. We are Christians in a very real sense. And that’s coming to be more and more widely recognized. One time people everywhere said we’re not Christians. They’ve come to recognize that we are and that we have a very vital and dynamic religion, based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.
_____

On the subject of Mormon missionaries out in the field, they simply do not give in to sexual or television temptation:

"Nothing Happens" When Mormon Elders Are Distracted By Girls or TV

DR: After you leave here, you’ll go out and you’ll talk to 450 young missionaries. Does it bring back memories for you?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, yes indeed. As a missionary in the British Isles about 65 years ago. It was a great experience, a tremendous experience.

DR: Tough?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, yes. You know the English. They’re tough, but they’re wonderful.

DR: I meant the rules that apply. I understand that, um, as a missionary you, er, you can’t, er, be alone with a member of the opposite sex. You can’t watch television, no listening to music, apparently--other than listening to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. No swimming. No dating. It sounds like a tough call.

Gordon B. Hinckley: You’re looking at it the wrong way. You’ve got the wrong end of the telescope. You have to look at it the other way. Here they are. They’ve consecrated two years of their lives. To go in, out and serving other people. To doing their missionary work. They concentrate on one thing. As their whole objective is to teach the Gospel. They don’t bother with these other things. They don’t get in the way of them. They are consecrated and devoted to this great work of teaching the Gospel. They don’t need to be bothered with these other things and they’re not. You don’t miss them when you’re in this work. Really you don’t. You just so [inaudible] all fired up over teaching the Gospel to people and nothing else matters. It’s strange to you, David, but it’s so.

DR: You can tell it’s strange, I know. If they are distracted by TV, by music, by girls, what happens?

Gordon B. Hinckley: What happens? Nothing happens. They just go forward with their work. When they go home they get back and, er, social life. There’s plenty of time for a young man. He’ll take care of those things naturally. He’ll be back in school, most of them. And, er, he’ll date, he’ll go on into marriage. And they’ll be happy and productive citizens.
_____

And another thing--the Mormon Church doesn't get involved in politics:

The LDS Church Doesn't Have Anything to Do with Politics--Just Moral Issues

DR: . . . {I]n Australia, as in the US, I understand you [inaudible] government on social issues. Especially in the name of protecting the family. What sort of things would you like to change as far as Australian society is concerned?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know much about, er, your social structure here. I’m only, I only come as a visitor and so I can’t say very much but I was sorry to read that the great emphasis being put on gambling down in, er, Victoria? Victoria, yes.

Institutionally, the Church speaks out on moral issues. Other than that we draw a strict line of separation of Church and State. The Church institutionally does not get involved in politics. Does not endorse candidates, does not endorse parties. We encourage our people as citizens of the land to exercise their franchises individuals. And to be active in these things, but as an institution the Church maintains a strict line of separation of Church and State speaking out only when there is a moral question at issue.
_____

Oh, and about that dang Internet:

Despite Internet Sex, the Mormon Church is Full of Wonderful Young People

DR: You put forward an opinion, I understand here, about the, the sex on video and about, um, the Internet and the effect that may have on society?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, yes, all of these things are downgrading. There isn’t any question about it. These are one of the causes for what’s happening. The illegitimate birth way up, er, dropping out of school up, many things. We put great emphasis on education, for instance.

DR: And you believe the reason for this is a sexually permissive society?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s a permissive society in which we live, yes. And, unfortunately, parents are largely responsible for that. They’ve taken an indifferent attitude towards the action of their children. We’re trying very hard and I think we’re succeeding in maintaining the traditional family life. And we have a great, huge number of young people who’re growing up in the faith and who are just wonderful.
_____

On the subject of other churches, Mormons are a blast from the past and couldn't be nicer:

Mormons Love the 1950s--and They Don't Talk Badly About Other Religions, Either

DR: Just looking at the [LDS] missionaries as I came in today, it reminded me very much of the fifties. The sort of values of the fifties in Australia.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yeah.

DR: Do you agree?

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's cleaned up. The shirts on. White shirts, ties, suits. Conservative dress. Does remind you of the fifties. Contrast that with what you see today and you get the whole picture.

DR: Do you think the fifties were a better time?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I think the fifties were a good time and I think this is a great time. I don’t think we’ve retrograded across the world. I think there are many good people everywhere. And our appeal is to those people. We don’t down grade any Church. We don’t speak disparagingly of any Church. We simply say to people of other Churches, bring all the good that you have and come and let us see if they if we can add to it. Now that’s all there is to it.
_____

On coffee, fill it to the rim with "Milo:"

"Nobody"--That's Right--Nobody "Needs Coffee"

DR: . . . [Y]ou do condemn so many things that are commonly accepted. For example no sex before marriage. No tobacco, no alcohol, no gambling not even coffee.

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yeah, that’s right.

DR: And very, very strict.

Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s wonderful. And you live longer. And you’re happier. And you’re healthier.

DR: What’s wonderful about not drinking coffee?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Oh, ah, coffee has all kinds of caffeine in it, other things. You don’t need coffee. Nobody needs coffee. You can get along without it, David (laughs).

DR: Not even early in the morning for an interview like this?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I had a cup of Milo.

DR: And that worked?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That worked.
_____

On God's marital status, Hinckley's, well, not quite sure:

The Mormon Prophet Can't Say With Certainty If God Actually Has a Wife

DR: . . . God has a wife?

Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know, but I suppose so. As we have a Father, I assume we have a Mother.

DR: I understood your teachings said that God has a wife?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Yes. Well, we . . . yes, we have a Mother in Heaven. We believe so. We’re sons and daughters of God.
_____

Thus saith the Lord.

And if that's the case, then God help us.

("'Compass' Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley, Australian Broadcasting Company, aired 9 November 1997, at http://www.lds-mormon.com/hinckley.shtml)

This Month's Spiritual Living Lesson: Knowing The Mormon Church Is True Through "Cutis Anserina"
Thursday, Apr 13, 2006, at 07:28 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Otherwise known as "goose bumps."

They are the follicles of our faith.

The whisperings of Frosty the Snowy Ghost.

They speak to us in the chill small voice that "goosiness is next to godliness."

Listen, then, and learn, oh ye of little goose bumps:

Understanding the Tickling Testimonial of Tingling Flesh

. . . [G]oose bumps [are] a temporary local change in the skin when it becomes rougher due to erection of little muscles, as from cold, fear, or excitement.

The chain of events leading to this skin change starts with a stimulus such as cold or fear. That stimulus causes a nerve discharge from the sympathetic nervous system, a portion of the autonomic (involuntary) nervous system. The nerve discharge causes contraction of little muscles called the arrectores pilorum (the hair erector muscles). Contraction of these muscles elevates the hair follicles above the rest of the skin. And it is these tiny elevations we perceive as goose bumps. . . .

Goose bumps are also referred to as "gooseflesh." A fancier term for this familiar phenomenon is "horripilation." Horripilation was compounded from the Latin "horrere", to stand on end + "pilus", hair = hair standing on end. . . . Medicine has a special term, "cutis anserina" for goose bumps. But it goes back to the goose again, since "cutis," skin + "anser," goose = goose skin.

Some biologists believe that goose bumps evolved as part of the fight-or-flight reaction along with heart rate increases that send the heart racing while blood rushes to the muscles to give them additional oxygen. A similar phenomenon, bristling, in fur-covered animals may have made them look larger and more frightening and kept them warmer by increasing the amount of air between hairs which traps body heat.

But in people there seems to be no practical purpose for goose bumps except, of course, to make our skin crawl.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7112
_____

The Glory of God is in the Goose Bumps

Ever hear a song on the radio that makes your arm hair stand on end? Does thinking about your child being born also give you goose bumps? Memories are tied to emotion, and emotion triggers your body to release adrenaline and endorphin. Your brain responds to that hormonal rush by, among other things, giving you goose bumps . . .

Goose bumps also pop up when you are cold. The body responds to the temperature change by releasing adrenaline, which causes the tiny muscles connected to hairs to contract. The response is the same with emotion. Adrenaline is released, the brain responds, and you get goose bumps. In extreme emotional situations, such as the birth of a child, the brain receives such a surge of hormones, the body's response can move beyond goose bumps to all-over shaking.

It does not matter whether the emotional event is live or recalled from memory. The bond between emotion and memory is so strong, we can hear a song that reminds us of our past, or think about emotional events, and give ourselves goose bumps. . . .

However, the brain cannot distinguish between pleasure and a dangerous emotion. The reaction to hearing a memorable song on the radio or spotting a bear in your backyard will be the same: goose bumps. . . .

http://www.uoguelph.ca/mediarel/archives/001441.html
_____

I say these things in the name of our Lo-Lo-Lord and Shiv-Shiv-Shiverin' Savior, even Gee-Gee-Gee-Geezus Christ, It's Cold!

Joseph Smith: Prophet Of The Lard From The Mental Ward
Monday, Apr 17, 2006, at 06:58 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

JOSEPH SMITH: CRAZY AS A LATTER-DAY JAY BIRD

Mormonism's founding flake was--to put it bluntly--a walking, talking testament to mental illness whose personal psychological issues, combined with his genetic predisposition to brain disorder, produced a dingbat with a head in a hat who manifested classic signs of being deranged, strange and unarranged.

To put it mildly, the evidence seems--(how best to put it?)--overwhelming, as noted in the examinations below.
_____

Woo-Woo Unto You: Mormonism's Over-Sexed, Polygamous, Hallucinating, Moody, Manic-Depressive Prophet

Dr. Lawrence Foster [hypothesized in a 1993 Dialogue article] . . . that Joseph Smith may have been mentally ill. . . . While it may be true that Foster did not use the specific words "mentally ill . . . ," he very strongly implied that Joseph Smith had a serious mental problem.

Foster's hypothesis is that Smith suffered from manic-depression, which is certainly a form of mental illness. In his article . . . Foster wrote:

"In no area were Joseph Smith's manic qualities more evident than in his efforts to introduce and practice polygamy during the last three years of his life. The point at which Joseph Smith began systematically to introduce polygamy to his closest associates has strong suggestions of mania. . . . his subsequent surge of activity with the sixteen or more women with whom he appears to have sustained sexual relations as plural wives . . . is even more suggestive of the hypersexuality that often accompanies manic periods." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter, 1993, pages 4, 7, 9-13)

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/foster.htm
_____

Quoting again from his article, Foster further explains his hypothesis that Smith's involvement in polygamy may, in fact, have been rooted in his manic depressive state:

"To place this issue into a larger context, let us return to the perspectives of William James . . . and realize that religious prophets, including Joseph Smith, are is some sense, at least initially, 'sick,' 'disturbed,' or 'abnormal.'. . .

"Why did Joseph Smith feel so preoccupied with introducing plural marriage among his followers . . . Was there some hidden psychological key that could help make sense of this seemingly obsessive drive? . . .

"A variety of factors including . . . Joseph Smith's own strong sex drive all made plural marriage an idea with considerable power for the Mormon prophet . . . Was Smith, as some of his previously most loyal followers at the time asserted, losing touch with reality during his final months in Nauvoo?

"A compelling psychological approach to explaining this and other puzzling features of the Mormon prophet's behavior during this period was suggested to me by a Mormon psychiatrist, Dr. Jess Groesbeck. . . . gradually the explanatory power of the interpretation came to seem more and more compelling to me.

"Groesbeck argued that many aspects of Joseph Smith's behavior, especially during the last years of his life, appeared strikingly similar to behavior that psychiatrists associate with manic-depressive syndromes.

"Although one could understand that any individual under the pressures Joseph Smith faced might have experienced substantial mood swings, in the Mormon prophet's case those mood swings appear so severe that they may be clinically significant.

"Groesbeck also pointed out that there is substantial evidence that tendencies toward manic-depression tend to be inherited. Although many people are aware that one of Joseph Smith's brightest and most appealing sons, David Hyrum, tragically lapsed into insanity and spent the last years of his life in a mental institution, few realize at least six other male descendants of the Mormon prophet also have suffered from psychological disorders, including manic-depression. . . .

"According to Harold I. Kaplan and Benjamin J. Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry: . . . 'The increased activity often takes the form of sexual promiscuity, political involvement, and religious concern. . . . Delusions and hallucinations are not unusual. . . . It is quite common for the person to communicate with God and to have it revealed that he or she has a special purpose or mission. Patients frequently describe themselves as an 'organ' of God through whom God speaks to the world.'

"In the various forms of manic-depressive illness, the manic highs alternate in bipolar fashion with periods of depression. . . .

"How do descriptions of psychological mania square with Joseph Smith's actions during the last three years of his life[?] . . . To anyone who has worked closely with the records of the Mormon prophet's life during those final years, the parallels are striking. . . .

"Most obvious is the Mormon prophet's extraordinary expansiveness and grandiosity throughout this period. During the last year of his life . . . Smith served as mayor of Nauvoo and head of his own private army, became 'king' of his secret Kingdom of God . . . ran for president of the United States . . . and was the 'husband' in some sense of dozens of wives. . . .

"In no area were Joseph Smith's manic qualities more evident than in his efforts to introduce and practice polygamy during the last three years of his life. The point at which Joseph Smith began systematically to introduce polygamy to his closest associates has strong suggestions of mania. . . . his subsequent surge of activity with the sixteen or more women with whom he appears to have sustained sexual relations as plural wives (the full number may have been much greater) is even more suggestive of the hypersexuality that often accompanies manic periods." (Dialogue, pp. 4, 7, 9-13) . . .

If the First Vision is viewed as an hallucination, and the revelation to establish polygamy as a natural result of manic-depression, then one can be more sympathetic with Joseph Smith's strange behavior. Under this hypothesis many things about Joseph Smith can be explained.
_____

One Peepstone Short of a Full Hat: Fits of Uncontrolled Anger

. . . Foster stated that [manic depression] could account for "Joseph Smith's ferocious anger in . . . the last couple of years of his life." It could also help explain why Smith became the "head of his own private army, became 'king' of his secret Kingdom of God... [and] ran for president of the United States . . .

Joseph Smith . . . was [certainly] prone to violence. While Mormon writer John J. Stewart claimed that . . . Smith was "perhaps the most Christ-like man to live upon the earth since Jesus himself," this conclusion is not supported by Joseph Smith's History: "I am not so much a 'Christian' as many suppose I am. When a man undertakes to ride me for a horse, I feel disposed to kick up and throw him off, and ride him." (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 335)

Unlike the gentle and soft spoken man portrayed in the Mormon film, "Legacy," Joseph Smith was without question a fighting prophet. He not only liked to wrestle and prove his strength, but he sometimes kicked people and struck them very hard. Historian D. Michael Quinn observed that Smith was a "church president who physically assaulted both Mormons and non-Mormons for insulting him . . ." (The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, 1994, pp. 261-262)

Jedediah M. Grant, a member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young, told of "the Baptist priest who came to see Joseph Smith. . . . [T]he Baptist stood before him, and folding his arms said, 'Is it possible that I now flash my optics upon a man who has conversed with my Savior?' 'Yes,' says the Prophet, 'I don't know but you do; would not you like to wrestle with me?' That, you see, brought the priest right on to the thrashing floor, and he turned a sumerset right straight. After he had whirled round a few times, like a duck shot in the head, he concluded that his piety had been awfully shocked . . ." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 66-67)

Joseph Smith's close friend, Benjamin F. Johnson, made this observation after Smith's death:

"And yet, although so social and even convivial at times, he would allow no arrogance or undue liberties. Criticisms, even by his associates, were rarely acceptable. Contradictions would arouse in him the lion at once. By no one of his fellows would he be superseded.... one or another of his associates were more than once, for their impudence, helped from the congregation by his foot. . . . He soundly thrashed his brother William . . . While with him in such fraternal, social and sometimes convivial moods, we could not then so fully realize the greatness and majesty of his calling." (Benjamin F. Johnson, letter to Elder George S. Gibbs, 1903, as printed in The Testimony of Joseph Smith's Best Friend, pp. 4-5)

Mormon writer Max Parkin refers to a court case against Joseph Smith in which Calvin Stoddard, Joseph Smith's brother-in-law, testified that, "Smith then came up and knocked him in the forehead with his flat hand -- the blow knocked him down, when Smith repeated the blow four or five times, very hard -- made him blind -- that Smith afterwards came to him and asked his forgiveness . . ." (Conflict at Kirtland, citing from the Painesville Telegraph, June 26, 1835)

Parkin also quotes Luke S. Johnson, who served as an apostle in the early Mormon Church, as saying that when a minister insulted Joseph Smith at Kirtland, Ohio, Smith, "‘boxed his ears with both hands, and turning his face towards the door, kicked him into the street,' for the man's lack of charity." (ibid., page 268)

In the History of the Church for the year 1843, we read of two fights Joseph Smith had in Nauvoo:

"Josiah Butterfield came to my house and insulted me so outrageously that I kicked him out of the house, across the yard, and into the street." (History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 316)

"Bagby called me a liar, and picked up a stone to throw at me, which so enraged me that I followed him a few steps, and struck him two or three times. Esquire Daniel H. Wells stepped between us and succeeded in separating us. . . . I rode down to Alderman Whitney . . . [H]e imposed a fine which I paid, and then returned to the political meeting." (ibid., p. 524)

On August 13, 1843, Joseph Smith admitted that he had tried to choke Walter Bagby: "I met him, and he gave me some abusive language, taking up a stone to throw at me: I seized him by the throat to choke him off." (ibid., p. 531)

After he became president of the Mormon Church, Brigham Young commented, "If you had the Prophet Joseph to deal with, you would think that I am quite mild. . . . He would not bear the usage I have borne, and would appear as though he would tear down all the houses in the city, and tear up trees by the roots, if men conducted to him in the way they have to me." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, pp. 317-318)

In addition to choking, kicking people out of houses and churches, knocking them in the head, boxing their ears, and tearing their clothing, the evidence indicates that he threatened people's lives. For documentation see The Mormon Hierarchy, pp. 91-92.
_____

Holy Hallucinations and Hereditary Epilepsy

The idea that Joseph Smith was mentally ill has been around for a long time. In discussing theories about the origin of the Book of Mormon, Francis W. Kirkham, a Mormon writer, mentioned one of the anti-Mormon theories: "The Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith, a person subject to epileptic fits in early life and later to other pathological mental conditions." (A New Witness For Christ in America, 1951, vol. 1, p. 350). . .

Dr. Kirkham . . . [then cites] the following from the [1902]book, The Founder of Mormonism, written by Isaac Woodbridge Riley . . .:

"Thurlow Weed, when first Joseph submitted to him the Book of Mormon, said that he was either crazy or a very shallow impostor. There is no call for so harsh a judgment . . . There is a truer and, at the same time, more charitable explanation -- it is, in a word, that Joseph Smith, Junior, was an epileptic."

. . . [I]t does seem that there was something seriously amiss in [Smith's] life.

It is interesting to note that Joseph Smith's grandfather, Solomon Mack, seemed to suffer from fits. He even wrote a book detailing some of his fits, "severe accidents," and unusual visions he received. In his book, A Narrative of the Life of Solomon Mack, Joseph Smith's grandfather wrote:

"I afterwards was taken with a fit, when traveling with an axe under my arm . . . I was senseless from one until five p.m. When I came to myself . . . I was all covered with blood and much cut and bruised. When I came to my senses I could not tell where I had been nor where I was going. But by good luck I went right and arrived at the first house . . ." (as cited in Joseph Smith's New England Heritage, by Richard L. Anderson, 1971, p. 43)

Although Dr. Anderson mentions that, "[t]here were also 'some fits' among his later disorders," he rejects the idea that he was "afflicted with hereditary epilepsy, which too neatly explains his grandson's visions as epileptic seizures, with flashing lights and lapses into unconsciousness. But the case of neither grandfather nor grandson fits such speculation." (ibid., p. 13)

In a footnote on page 166, Anderson says that "[i]t is even possible that Solomon used 'fit' in the early sense of 'a mortal crisis, a bodily state (whether painful or not) that betokens death."

Nevertheless, Solomon Mack described so many accidents in his book that it would make one wonder if there was something seriously wrong with the man.

In any case, in the official account of Joseph Smith's First Vision he wrote:

". . . I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, v. 15)

Joseph Smith described the remarkable vision he saw and then went on to say: "When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up to heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home." (ibid., v. 20)

While Joseph Smith claimed that he saw an actual vision, there is a similarity to his grandfather's experience in that both of them were overpowered and passed out. Interestingly, both Joseph and his grandfather used the expression, "When I came to myself" (compare v. 20 with Solomon Mack's account cited above).

Another account of the [First] [V]ision appears in Joseph Smith's 1835 dairy. This account contains some eerie material about a strange noise Joseph heard that was not published in the official version:

"My tongue seemed to be swol[l]en in my mouth, so that I could not utter. I heard a noise behind me like some person walking towards me. I strove again to pray but could not. The noise seemed to draw nearer. I sprung up on my feet {page 23} and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking." (An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, edited by Scott H. Faulring, 1987, p. 51)

It is interesting to note that some of those who suffer from epilepsy claim they hear "peculiar sounds" just prior to an attack (see The American Medical Association Family Medical Guide, 1987, p. 289). Whatever the case may be, the fact that Joseph Smith claimed he heard the sound of "some person walking towards" him whom he was unable to see is certainly weird.

Some critics of the LDS Church claim that the spooky elements of the [First] [V]ision, such as Joseph Smith being "seized upon by some power which entirely overcame" him, the "thick darkness," and the attempt to "bind" his tongue prove that the vision was demonic. Mormons, on the other hand, maintain that God thwarted an attack by Satan and gave Joseph a wonderful vision.

Foster . . . gives another alternative: Joseph Smith may have suffered from an hallucination.

Joseph's First Vision experience was not the only time that he passed out. Later, Joseph Smith claimed he was visited in the night three times by an angel who told him about the gold plates. Joseph wrote:

"I shortly after arose from my bed, and, as usual, went to the necessary labors of that day; but, in attempting to work as at other times, I found my strength so exhausted as to render me entirely unable. My father, who was laboring along with me, discovered something to be wrong with me, and told me to go home. I started with the intention of going to the house; but, in attempting to cross the fence out of the field where we were, my strength entirely failed me, and I fell helpless on the ground, and for a long time was quite unconscious of anything.

"The first thing that I can recollect was a voice speaking unto me, calling me by name. I looked up, and beheld the same messenger . . ." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, v. 48-49)

It is also interesting to note that both Solomon Mack and Joseph Smith claimed they prayed for God's forgiveness. Both maintained that they had a spiritual experience in which they saw a bright light in their house on more than one occasion.

Mack wrote:

"I was distressed to think how I had abused the Sabbath and had not taken warning from my wife. About midnight I saw a light about a foot from my face as bright as fire; the doors were all shut and no one stirring in the house. I thought by this that I had but a few moments to live, and oh what distress I was in. I prayed that the Lord would have mercy on my soul and deliver me from this horrible pit of sin. . . . I was in distress.

"Another night soon after, I saw another light as bright as the first, at a small distance from my face, and I thought I had but a few moments to live." (as cited in Joseph Smith's New England Heritage, p. 54)

Joseph Smith wrote that after he had his First Vision, he was severely tempted:

". . . I was left to all kinds of temptations; and mingled with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. . . . on the evening of the above-mentioned twenty-first of September, after I had retired to my bed for the night, I betook myself to prayer and supplication to Almighty God for forgiveness of all my sins and follies . . .

"While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside . . . The room was exceedingly light . . . He called me by name . . . He said there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates . . .

"After this communication, I saw the light in the room begin to gather immediately around . . . the room was left as it had been before the heavenly light had made its appearance.

"I lay musing on the singularity of the scene . . . when in the midst of my meditation, suddenly discovered that my room was again beginning to get lighted, as it were, the same heavenly messenger was again by my bedside." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, v. 28-30, 32-34, 43-44)

Joseph Smith, of course, also asserted that when he had his [F]irst [V]ision he "saw a pillar of light exactly over my head, above the brightness of the sun . . ." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith -- History, v. 17) . . .

[If Foster is correct in his hypothesis regarding manic depression], the fact that Joseph Smith wrote, "When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven" (v. 20) could be significant.

As he was lying there on the ground the rays of the sun may have seemed like a blinding light shining in his eyes. Since Smith claimed the vision occurred in the woods early in the spring, and that he was "looking up into heaven," it is certainly possible that the sun shining down through the branches could have given him the impression he was having a vision.

In addition to these parallels, both Smith and his grandfather had an experience in which they believed they were addressed by God or Christ. Solomon Mack wrote: " . . . I was called by my Christian name . . ." (pp. 54-55) Smith also stated: "One of them spake unto me, calling me by name . . ." (v. 17)
_____

When It Comes to All Those Contradictions, What a Haywired Brain Could Explain

If Joseph Smith experienced hallucinations, . . . it would go a long way towards explaining why his story of the First Vision contains so many glaring contradictions. In the first account, which he wrote in 1832, he said there was only one personage present in the vision: the Lord Jesus Christ (see An American Prophet's Record: The Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, pp. 5-6).

In the version written in 1835, Smith maintained that there were two persons whom he did not identify. In addition, however, he also said that he "saw many angels in this vision . . ." (ibid., p. 51) Finally, in the official account published in 1842, Smith claimed that he saw both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ! This account omits the presence of angels in the vision.

Besides a number of other contradictions, Smith claimed that the vision occurred at the time of a revival in the Palmyra-Manchester area. In his official account he claimed that the First Vision took place "early in the spring of eighteen hundred and twenty."

Wesley P. Walters, however, demonstrated conclusively that there was no such revival in the Palmyra-Manchester area. In fact, Walters found hard evidence that the revival did not occur until the fall of 1824. . . .

If Joseph Smith suffered from seizures and hallucinations, it would make it easier to understand why he could not tell a consistent story about the First Vision. As we have shown above, in Joseph's official account of the vision he said he felt that he was "doomed to destruction." He also revealed that he "was ready to sink into despair and abandon myself to destruction . . ."

In his book, Hearts Made Glad: The Charges of Intemperance Against Joseph Smith the Mormon Prophet, LaMar Petersen wrote the following:

"Joseph's associates sometimes spoke of his paleness when 'in vision' or when receiving a revelation. A daughter of Adaline Knight Belnap recorded her mother's impression of the Prophet in an instance of spiritual (spirituous?) passivity. 'How well she remembers one day before her father died (Vinson Knight) of a little excitement in school. The children were busy when the school room door was carefully opened and two gentlemen entered, carrying the limp form of Joseph Smith. The children all sprang to their feet, for Brother Joseph lay helpless in their arms, his head resting on his brother's shoulder, his face pale as death, but his eyes were open, though he seemed not to see things earthly. The teacher quieted them by telling them that Brother Joseph was in a revelation, and they were carrying him to his office above the schoolroom." (Hearts Made Glad, 1975, p. 206)

While there is no question that Joseph Smith and other early Mormon leaders did use alcoholic beverages . . . , this strange incident could be viewed as evidence supporting Foster's hypothesis of manic depression.
_____

Mental Problems from Head to Toe: Infected Leg to Infected Mind

. . . [I}t is certainly possible that traumatic events he experienced could have had a serious effect upon him. For example, when he was just a young boy, he had an extremely bad infection in his leg. According to his mother, it finally came to the point that the doctors were convinced that "amputation is absolutely necessary in order to save his life." His mother, however, requested the doctors make "one more effort" to save the leg.

Joseph's mother went on to state that he refused to take any brandy or wine before the operation. Consequently, he had nothing to kill the pain. According to Mrs. Smith, the operation was horrific. The surgeons had to bore "into the bone of his leg, first on one side of the bone where it was affected, and then on the other side, after which they broke it off with a pair of forceps or pincers. They thus took away large pieces of the bone. When they broke off the first piece, Joseph screamed out so loudly, that I could not forbear running to him. . . .

"When the third piece was taken away, I burst into the room again -- and oh, my God! what a spectacle for a mother's eye! The wound torn open, the blood still gushing from it, and the bed literally covered with blood. Joseph was as pale as a corpse . . ." (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith The Prophet, and his Progenitors for Many Generations, by Lucy Smith, 1853, pp. 63-65)

Although Joseph Smith dictated his recollection of the operation for his History of the Church, it was never included in the published History. . . .

Joseph Smith claimed that the illness came upon him when he "was five years old or thereabouts" and said that he "endured the most acute suffering for a long time . . ."

When amputation was suggested he responded: " . . . as young as I was, I utterly refused to give my assent to the operation, but consented to their trying an experiment by removing a large portion of the bone . . ."

Smith went on to claim that he suffered persecution at this early period of his life, which, of course, was years before he had his First Vision:

". . . I was reduced so very low that my mother could carry me with ease.

"After I began to get about I went on crutches till I started for the State of New York where my father had gone for the purpose of preparing a place for the removal of his family, which he affected by sending a man after us by the name of Caleb Howard . . . We fell in with a family by the name of Gates who were travelling west, and Howard drove me from the waggon and made me travel in my weak state through the snow 40 miles per day for several days, during which time I suffered the most excruciating weariness and pain, and all this that Mr. Howard might enjoy the society of two of Mr. Gates daughters which he took on the wagon where I should have rode, and thus he continued to do, day after day through the Journey and when my brothers remonstrated with Mr. Howard for his treatment to me, he would knock them down with the butt of his whipp. -- When we arrived at Utica, N. York Howard threw the goods out of the wagon into the street and attempted to run away with the Horses and waggon, but my mother seized the horses by the reign . . . On the way from Utica, I was left to ride on the last sleigh . . . I was knocked down by the driver, one of Gate's Sons, and left to wallow in my blood until a stranger came along, picked me up, and carried me to the Town of Palmyra."

[Joseph Smith, 'History,' Book A-1, pp. 131-132, LDS Church Historian's Office, ibid., p. 480]

In her book, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, p. 69, Mrs. Smith did mention the trouble she had with Mr. Howard and also stated that he mistreated "my children, especially Joseph. He would compel him to travel miles at a time on foot, notwithstanding he was still lame."

Interestingly, however, she says nothing about her son's incredible claim that he walked in his "weak state through the snow 40 miles per day for several days . . ." Moreover, Mrs. Smith is silent with regard to the fact that Joseph claimed he was "knocked down by the driver . . . and left to wallow in my blood until a stranger came along, picked me up, and carried me to the Town of Palmyra."

The question might be raised as to whether Joseph Smith was exaggerating or hallucinating. On the other hand, although it is difficult to believe, his mother may have forgotten the incident.

It does not seem possible that Joseph Smith, who was "still lame" from the operation, could have walked "40 miles per day for several days" in the condition he was in after his operation. Mormon writers state that the operation was so severe that Joseph Smith walked with a slight limp for the rest of his life.

Joseph Smith's statement that he "was five years old or thereabouts" when he had the operation is incorrect; he was actually just over seven years old at the time. Mormon writer LeRoy S. Wirthlin shows that Joseph's mother places the date in "1813" and notes that Joseph's claim of being "about '5 years old or thereabouts'. . . would not have placed the family in Lebanon" at the time of the epidemic (see Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1981, p. 146).
_____

Mentally Mad and Persecutionally Paranoid

. . . Lucy Smith . . . claim[ed] that one evening when Joseph "was passing through the door yard, a gun was fired across his pathway, with the evident intention of shooting him. He sprang to the door much frightened. We immediately went in search of the assassin . . . The next morning we found his tracks under a wagon, where he lay when he fired . . . We have not as yet discovered the man who made this attempt to murder, neither can we discover the cause thereof." (Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith, p. 73)

While one might think that this had something to do with Joseph Smith's work on Mormonism, Mrs. Smith made it clear that this was before his First Vision.

Besides these experiences, in 1832, Joseph Smith was actually tarred and feathered by an angry mob. Fawn Brodie stated that the mob, "dragged Joseph . . . They stripped him, scratched and beat him with savage pleasure, and smeared his bleeding body with tar from head to foot. . . . they plastered him with feathers. It is said that Eli Johnson demanded that the prophet be castrated, for he suspected Joseph of being too intimate with his sister, Nancy Marinda. But the doctor who had been persuaded to join the mob declined . . ." (No Man Knows My History, 1971, p. 119)

Interestingly, Nancy Marinda Johnson later became one of Joseph's plural wives.

At any rate, it seems possible that the combination of the horrendous operation and the cruel mobbing could have resulted in Smith having some serious problems. Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, for example, is caused by very shocking experiences. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, p. 424, gives this information:

"The essential feature of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury . . . Traumatic events that are experienced directly include . . . violent personal assault . . ."

It is obvious that the mobbing of Joseph Smith was a "violent personal assault" upon him that could have affected his mental state. If he was prone to manic-depression, as Foster seems to believe, it could have had a devastating effect on his conduct. . . .
_____

As Bright as the Noonday Sun: Joseph Smith was a Certifiable Kook Case

In the interest of historical fairness (and we all know just how FAIR Mormon apologists can be), ". . . FARMS-BYU scholars . . . should . . . inform their readers that . . . Joseph Smith . . . may have been mentally ill."

"May"?

Just like the world "may" be round.

http://www.utlm.org/topicalindexc.htm (click on "#90 Messenger, 'Joseph Mentally Ill?'")

Getting It Off Your Chest: Not Only Resigning Your Membership But Telling The Cult Why
Wednesday, Apr 19, 2006, at 07:14 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

A soon-to-be official ex-Mo friend of mine (who has given me permission to post this here) recently sent his letter of separation to Mormon Cult headquarters.

Before dispatching it, he asked me what I thought of what he had written. I told him I thought it was "powerful and direct," but that the bureaucrats in the bowels of the de-membering office probably wouldn't bother to read his reasons for deciding to bolt the Cult.

I responded:

". . . While I think it is important for you, personally, to explain why you are having your membership terminated, the bureaucrats in the name removal department frankly don't give a rat's a[**]. They probably will merely skim over that part of your letter, if they read it at all.

"My advice? Think about not casting your pearls before swine. Just order them to get you the hell off the records of their cult, tell them you understand the consequences and ramifications (blah, blah, blah) and tell them to do it now, dammit."

"Then get down here so we can go motorcycle riding."

My friend replied that he knew that was most likely the case but wanted to lay it out for, in nothing else, his own benefit.

He answered thusly:

"I had the same thought of casting the pearls, but that part was more for me. I guess I want it to be matter of record, even if the don’t give a rat’s a[**]. I’m sure that it is all getting mechanical for them, anyway.

"I had visions of GBH reading it & weeping, but then I woke up. . . .

"My kids . . . are sending in their letters also in a few days. Maybe we should get the bulk mail rate.

"I am anxious to get back on my bike. . . ."
_____

Enjoy the liberation launch of another freedom-finder, as he told the Cult to take a hike:

"Member Records, LDS Church
50 E North Temple Rm 1372
SLC UT 84150-3810

"RE: Resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

"This letter is my formal resignation from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and it is effective immediately. I hereby withdraw my consent to being treated as a member and I withdraw my consent to being subject to Church rules, policies, beliefs and 'discipline'. As I am no longer a member, I want my name permanently and completely removed from the membership rolls of the Church.

"I have given this matter considerable thought. I understand what you consider the 'seriousness' of my actions. I am aware that the Church handbook says that my resignation "cancels the effects of baptism and confirmation, withdraws the priesthood held by a male member and revokes temple blessings.' I also understand that I will be 'readmitted to the Church by baptism only after a thorough interview' (quotes from the 1999 Church Handbook of Instructions).

"My resignation should be processed immediately, without any 'waiting periods.' I am not going to be dissuaded and I am not going to change my mind.

"I am asking for a simple administrative procedure under my constitutional right to practice freedom of religion. I expect this matter to be handled promptly and with full confidentiality. If my friends, family or neighbors learn of my resignation through anyone but myself, I will consider it invasion of privacy and I will consider taking legal action against the Church.

"After today, the only further contact I want from the Church is a single letter of confirmation to let me know that my name has been removed from the membership rolls of the Church.

"My reasons for taking this step are too many to list, but fundamentally, I have had doubts & concerns from the time I joined the Church that I have tried to suppress & I found I could no longer do that anymore. As I began my search for answers I turned to the early teachings of the Church, being the foundation of its teachings, & made the mistake of reading the Journal of Discourses w/ Brigham Young’s talks & then followed up with History of the Church. I was appalled by the declarations made by Joseph & Brigham. I tried to assuage my concerns that they were in the formative years of the Church & had to make the declarations that they did to spur on the members.

"I have always been bothered & embarrassed by polygamy. I tried using the pat answers that we don’t practice it any more & brushed it under the rug. The reality is that we do still practice it by teaching that we will have multiple wives in the Celestial kingdom. I think the whole idea is a 'crock.' I believe that Joseph Smith was 'hormonally' inspired in this teaching. I believe it was anatrocity to seal himself to women that had husbands in the mission field. I believe that in most cases that families that practiced polygamy suffered emotionally & psychologically.

"And furthermore to have the declarations by the Brethren that polygamy was required of it’s 'worthy' members & that the policy would never cease, and then to abandon the policy under political pressure to gain Statehood. It falls under the same category as the standing on Blacks. They held firm to a ridiculous mentality until the pressure was to great & then they abandon another 'never-to-change' policy.

"The list goes on from the way women are viewed & treated as 'baby machines' to the pompous attitude the members have that if you’re not a member of the Church, you’re inferior. I know too many non-Mormons that are far superior to me that are perfectly happy & fulfilled in their pursuit of happiness.

"There’s always the Church’s convenient denial of its own history. Negating comments that don’t coincide with today’s teachings by the earlier brethren, like Brigham Young, by stating that he was speaking for himself & not the Lord. Brigham claims that he never uttered a word that didn’t come from the Lord. If the Church would at least acknowledge the discrepancy & say, 'Yeah, that’s was then, but we need to evolve or change.' Something, other than denial.

"What is a person to believe? I can’t keep up anymore. I can’t do the juggling act. Most importantly, I don’t buy into the 'motivation by guilt' method imposed by the Church, the dangling carrot of eternal increase. The stress in the member’s lives is greatly enhanced & augmented by the Church. I don’t believe this is the Lord’s plan.

"I have shed the mantle of control by the Church & I feel liberated. I now longer acknowledge the Church’s influence in my life. The Church has many great programs & has a lot to offer, but the belief system is incongruent with what I feel in my heart. I have made this a matter of fervent prayer & found peace in this decision. Please respect my wishes.

"Sincerely,

"[signed]"

Paying The Pied Pipers: How Mormon General Authorities Have Suckled Support From Unsuspecting Church Members
Wednesday, Sep 13, 2006, at 06:37 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

In answer to the question, "Do the Mormon General Authorities get paid?," in a nutshell:

Hell, yes.

Indeed, the Mormon Church hierarchy has a repetitive, disingenuous, embarrassing and often greedy history of billing its rank-and-file members for their support--while attempting to make the less-than-convincing claim (clearly designed for public consumption) that its presiding officers are on humble financial par with the Mormon Church's vast lower-level uncompensated lay clergy.

In his book, "The Mormon Hierarchy--Extensions of Power," Chapter Six, "Church Finances," D. Michael Quinn lays out the LDS Church's senioritized system of paying its presiding officers from the earnings of regular Church members.

Under the heading "Paid Ministry and Voluntary Service" are telling excerpts. (Subtitles have been inserted for smoother reading):

Mormon Scripture Cited for Hiring Joseph Smith and Subsequent General Authorities

". . . Before the church even had a tithing requirement, it had a paid ministry. In November 1831 a revelation declared: 'He who is appointed to administer spiritual things, the same is worthy of his hire . . .' (D&C 70:12). This was the doctrinal basis for giving financial support to Joseph Smith, and later to a hierarchy of general authorities." _____

Mormon Church Justifies Monetary Assistance to General Authorities, Including First Presidency and Other High-Ranking Officers

"In May 1835 an official church council voted that the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and First Council of Seventy 'have particularly to depend upon their ministry for their support, and that of their families; and they have a right, by virtue of their offices, to call upon the churches to assist them.'. . . When Bishop Edward Partridge gave the first definition of tithing in December 1837, part of the tithing was for 'remunerating the officers of the church for the time which they were necessarily employed in doing the business of the same.' Six months later the stake high council voted 'to instruct the Bishop to pay the First Presidency, J. Smith, & Sidney Rigdon, whatever sum they agree with them for.' However, there was 'such an uproar' over this decision that the First Presidency dropped its request for a fixed annual salary. . . . " _____

Church Patriarchs Paid for Giving Blessings and Eventually Authorized to Accept Donations

"For several decades only the patriarch had a set compensation, while other general authorities depended on haphazard donations from the rank-and-file or ad hoc appropriations from general church funds. In 1835 the Presiding Patriarch was authorized a salary of $10 a week, plus expenses. . . .

"Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing. . . . Joseph Smith, Sr., gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them. . . . 'Uncle' John Smith commented that he 'lived very Poor ever Since we Left Kirtland Ohio' in January 1838 until January 1844. Then his nephew Joseph Smith ordained him a patriarch 'through which office I Obtained a Comfortable Living.' . . .

"Financial incentive is another explanation for the fact that individual Mormons received more than one patriarchal blessing in the nineteenth century, often at the invitation of the patriarch. In October 1877 John Taylor criticized the monetary motivation of some stake patriarchs. He said they were using their patriarchal office as 'a mere means of obtaining a livelihood, and to obtain more business they had been traveling from door to door and underbidding each other in the price of blessings.' . . .

"In addition, patriarchs received fees for giving unrecorded blessings of healing to the sick. In fact, Apostle Francis M. Lyman commended Patriarch Elias Blackburn for 'doing a great deal of good among the sick, without receiving very much pay for his services.' . . .

"Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. . . . Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings. . . ." _____

Local Mormon Church Leaders Also Lived Off of Tithing

"In the nineteenth-century American West, local officers of the LDS church obtained their support from the tithing they collected. As early as 1859 Brigham Young wondered 'whether a Stake would not be better governed when none of the officers were paid for their services.' . . . During Young's presidency, ward bishops drew at will from the primarily non-cash tithing Mormons donated. He complained at October 1860 general conference 'against a principle in many of the Bishops to use up all the Tithing they could for their own families.' . . ." _____

Full-Time Mormon Missionaries Also Lived Off of Tithing

"Even full-time missionaries benefitted from tithing funds in the nineteenth century. The senior president of the First Council of Seventy commented in 1879 that the families of married missionaries should be supported from tithing funds. . . . However, at best that practice barely kept struggling wives and children out of abject poverty while their husbands and fathers served two-year missions." _____

Salaries Ordered for the Quorum of the Twelve

"In 1884 church president John Taylor limited bishops to 8 percent of tithing they collected (now primarily cash), while stake presidents got 2 percent of tithing collected by all the bishops of the stake. In 1888 Wilford Woodruff established set salaries for stake presidents and provided that a stake committee would apportion 10 percent of collected tithing between the bishops and the stake tithing clerk. At April 1896 general conference, the First Presidency announced the end of salaries for local officers, in response to the decision of the temple meeting 'to not pay Salaries to any one but the Twelve.' . . ." _____

Temporary Suspension of Salaries for Stake Presidents

"Nevertheless, ending salaries to stake presidents in 1896 was temporary. For a while stake presidents and their counselors were allowed to draw 'from the tithing fund . . . no more than the limit which had been previously specified, and not to entertain the idea that a stipulated compensation attached like a salary to certain offices in the Church.' By April 1897 the First Presidency spoke about 'the subject of compensation to presiding men' in a meeting with stake presidents and other local officers. The First Presidency urged 'the brethren to give their services so far as possible to the church without remuneration.' In 1898 'the regular 10% of tithing [was] allowed Bishops and clerks for handling the same,' but the First Presidency balked at allowing even more to cover expenses for supplies. . . .

"By 1904 set salaries were back again for stake presidents, who were allowed $300 per year. . . . As late as 1910, local officers continued to receive 10 percent of locally collected tithing 'for handling tithes.' . . . Recently a Mormon said that his father received a cash allowance as bishop in the 1920s, which was a later period of such compensation than my own research has verified. . . ." _____

Retirement Allowances for Stake Presidents and Bishops

"In addition, since the 1880s stake presidents and bishops of long tenure had received retirement allowances in monthly or annual payments. . . . In 1901 even the parsimonious church president Lorenzo Snow said that a financially struggling stake president 'ought to receive his remuneration after he was released as well as before.' Retirement allowances for stake presidents continued into the early 1900s. . . ." _____

Systematic Payouts for General Authorities at the Expense of the Rank-and-File Members

". . . [F]inancial compensation for church officers began with the general authorities in the 1830s but did not become systematic until 1877. During these decades there was evidence of rank-and-file dissatisfaction with the Mormon hierarchy's financial privileges. In 1847 Brigham Young told a public meeting: 'Be cont[e]nted with your lot and station and stop whining and babbling about the 12, saying that Brigham oppresses the poor and lives off their earning and that you can't see why you can't have some of his good living, and so on. Did Brigham Young ever get anything from you, did you ever help him to any of his fine living, you poor curses, or was it through Brigham's influence that thousands of the poor have been fed?' . . . After Young and the apostles spent the next twelve years directing the expanding settlements of the Great Basin, 'Erastus Snow spoke Concerning the feelings of many of the people against seeing the Twelve prosper in Temperal things.' . . ." _____

Church Leaders Bow to Pressure and Scale Back Their Financial Demands for Personal Monetary Support--But Not for Long

"Following discussion of this criticism in February 1859, the First Presidency and apostles restrained their financial activities. For the next five years Salt Lake County's annual assessments showed a steep decline in the wealth of Brigham Young, his counselors, and the apostles. By contrast the assessed wealth of the Presiding Bishop and his counselors initially increased and then only gradually tapered off during the same period. The rank-and-file expected the Presiding Bishopric to have extensive financial activity. . . . In fact, the pendulum had swung so far that in December 1865 Apostle John Taylor 'Prophesyed that the Twelve should be delivered from the bondage of poverty under which they have been weltering for years.' . . ." _____

Massive Personal Wealth for Brigham Young and His Counselors

"Although the rate of this financial decline had been equivalent for the First Presidency and apostles, the burden was far less on Brigham Young and his counselors who had massive personal wealth compared to the apostles. In 1859 Young's own property assessments were only slightly below those of the entire church for Salt Lake County. Young's totalled $100,000, while the Trustee-in-Trust's was $102,250. . . . In 1860 first counselor Heber C. Kimball 'observed that Mormonism had made him all that he was: he was worth $20,000 now; and if he had remained in the States he would have been a poor man to this day.' . . . Brigham Young estimated his personal wealth at about $600,000 in a legal deposition of 1875. That was three years after he paid $100,000 in 'the tithing of his own personal means.' . . . By contrast, during Young's presidency the Twelve's average assessed wealth reached a high of $6,672 in 1874, and several apostles individually had only $500 to $2,000 in assessed wealth annually from 1860 to Young's death in August 1877. . . ." _____

General Conference Announcement of General Authority Payments

"At the October 1877 general conference, the hierarchy announced a policy of 'reasonable recompense for their services' to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and to the First Presidency, when organized. In John Taylor's view, this was actually a way of stopping the previous abuses in the personal use of tithing funds. 'Some of my brethren, as I have learned since the death of President Brigham Young, did have feelings concerning his course,' Apostle George Q. Cannon wrote. 'It is felt that the funds of the Church have been used with a freedom not warranted by the authority which he held.' . . . Of general authorities still living, Joseph F. Smith wrote in December 1877: 'One man, for instance, who has drawn $16,000 per year from the tithing office for his support, has been cut down to 2,000 per year. Thus some of the leaks are plugged up and we hope to be able by and by to build the temple.' . . . Smith was apparently referring to Brigham's son John W. Young, who served as his father's counselor for thirteen years (first secretly and later with public acknowledgement).

"However, Taylor's 'reasonable recompense' of 1877 did not cover the needs of the apostles. At an apostles meeting on 3 May 1880, 'The question of over running salaries was brought up. Several of the brethren had overdrawn their allowance . . . ' They voted to forgive the overdrafts and to increase their annual allowance. In addition, the apostles decided to give an allowance to the Presiding Patriarch in addition to his per-blessing fee. . . ." _____

Fixed Salaries Established for General Authorities

"In September 1887 this became fixed allotments, which one apostle opposed with the comment: 'it was repugnant to the people to have the 12 [apostles] draw a salary.' . . . In April 1888 the First Council of Seventy also began receiving financial allowances, to which one council member replied: 'I would prefer to receive no salary.' A 'permanent' allowance to members of the First Council of Seventy was not established for another decade. . . ." _____

Church Presidents and Their Guilty Consciences

"Nevertheless, LDS presidents themselves expressed discomfort about using their allowances. When the First Presidency and Twelve discussed the salary system again in 1896, President Wilford Woodruff said that he had not drawn money from the church until after 1877. Apostle Lorenzo Snow, Woodruff's presidential successor, said that despite the allowance system, he had not drawn from church funds for forty years. . . . This resistance to making personal use of church funds reached its climax in President Heber J. Grant, who rode public street cars rather than use tithing funds to have an automobile and chauffeur for the First Presidency. . . ." _____

Guilt Aside, General Authority Salaries Continued to be Authorized

"Despite discomfort over receiving tithing funds for living allowances, a salary system for LDS general authorities continued without significant interruption from 1882 on. As indicated by Joseph F. Smith's 1877 letter and by Wilford Woodruff's diary, the apostles received $2,000 to $2,500 annually during the first five years of the salary system. Then significant financial stratification occurred, with the senior apostle receiving $5,000 annually, apostles of middle seniority $3,000, and junior apostles $2,000. In September 1887 the apostles adopted a uniform compensation, with each receiving $3,000. Although there was not yet a fixed allowance for the First Council of Seventy, in 1888 the Presiding Patriarch's 'annuity' increased from $1,000 to $1,250. . . ." _____

Salary Levels of Mormon Top Leadership Determined by Power and Seniority Rankings

"By the turn of the twentieth century, the hierarchy's allowances were stratified by ecclesiastical position and seniority. In 1890 the monthly allowances of the Quorum of the Twelve and Presiding Bishop were identical, with the counselors in the First Presidency receiving $50 more a month and the church president receiving another $100 monthly. By 1907 the monthly allowances were stratified into a six-tiered system: (1) the lowest allowance for junior members of the Seventy, (2) the next higher allowance to mid-level members of the Seventy and the Presiding Patriarch, followed by (3) the eight junior members of the Twelve, (4) the Presiding Bishopric, two senior members of the Seventy, and four senior members of the Twelve, (5) the counselors in the Presidency, and (6) the president of the church. In those 1907 allowances, $100 monthly separated the top two tiers, and only $50 monthly separated each of the lower tiers. By 1932 there were only four strata in the monthly allowance system: (1) the lowest allowance was for counselors to the Presiding Bishop and for the entire Seventy, (2) an extra $50 monthly allotment for the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Patriarch, and all members of the Twelve, (3) an additional increase of $100 monthly for counselors in the First Presidency, (4) and a $150 monthly bonus for the church president.76David O. McKay's presidency (1951-70) adopted uniform allowances for all general authorities, regardless of quorum or seniority. . . ." _____

Miscellaneous Fees for General Authority Services Rendered

"There were also miscellaneous fees which the general authorities collected for ecclesiastical services. Brigham Young charged men 'ten dollars for each divorce' or cancellation of sealing, which policy continued until the end of the century.78 In addition, until 1899 the general authorities charged a fee for setting apart all departing missionaries. . . ." _____

General Authorities Complain That They Aren't Getting Enough

"Periodically the Mormon hierarchy has made a significant increase in monthly allowances to general authorities. In 1950, for example, there was a 30-percent increase. . . . Nevertheless, in view of the financial empire administered by the LDS general authorities, their compensation from church funds has always been paltry compared to the salaries and perks of corporate America. In 1949 First Presidency counselor J. Reuben Clark wrote that 'the General Authorities of the Church get precious little from the tithing of the Church. They are not paid as much as a first-class, stenographic secretary of some of the men who run industry.' . . . That disparity was probably the reason for the next year's increase in allowances to the general authorities.

"For example, as a newly appointed Assistant to the Twelve in 1941, Marion G. Romney found that his church 'allowance amounted to less than half of what he was earning from his law practice when he was called as a General Authority.' . . . Appointed an apostle that same year, Harold B. Lee found that his financial allowance was less than the salary of some staff members at LDS headquarters. . . . As was true in the nineteenth-century hierarchy, a significant drop in income and personal wealth occurred when a man accepted the calling of LDS general authority. . . ." _____

Lucrative General Authority Book Bonuses

"Although not a formal salary, general authorities can also receive significant income from the books they publish. When he published 'The Way To Perfection' in 1931, Joseph Fielding Smith specified that all its future royalties would go to the LDS Genealogical Society. However, he was not as generous with the royalties from his dozens of other books. For example, when President Smith died in July 1972, his royalties from Deseret Book Company totaled $9,636 for the previous six-month period.85 Presiding Bishop (and later apostle) LeGrand Richards set a remarkable example by accepting no royalties for his 'Marvelous Work and a Wonder' which had sold 2 million copies by the time of his death in 1983. However, a president of the LDS church's publishing company has observed that very few general authorities have declined royalties for their books. . . Mormons purchase books written by general authorities primarily because of the church office the author holds, rather than for the book's content. Although many general authorities do not write books, such royalty income is a direct consequence of being an LDS leader." _____

Hinckley Hides Reality of Extent of General Authority Living Allowances

"Speaking of LDS church-owned businesses and stock-portfolio in 1985, First Presidency counselor Gordon B. Hinckley said that 'the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people. . . . However, tithing was the source of these 'living allowances' from the 1830s until the church's corporate success in recent years.

"Moreover, President Hinckley's description of the hierarchy's income as 'very modest' depends upon one's own concept of wealth. For example, when Joseph Fielding Smith died at age ninety-five in 1972, he had worked nearly all his adult life at LDS headquarters, first as a paid employee in the Historian's Office and then as a general authority with a church living allowance. At his death, President Smith had $245,000 in bank deposits, $120,000 in cash, $120,574 in stocks/bonds, and $10,688 in uncashed checks (including Deseret Book royalties of $9,636). Even twenty-five years after his death, few rank-and-file Mormons have such "modest" amounts of cash and liquid assets available to them in old age. . . ." _____

Church Presidents Use of Church Funds to Cancel Their Personal Debts

"The LDS ministry is still a volunteer, lay ministry. In the twentieth century, church offices have become unpaid to a degree they never were in the nineteenth century. Of more than 160,000 ecclesiastical leaders at the beginning of 1996, fewer than 500 were authorized a living allowance from church funds. . . . Many of these LDS officials decline to use their authorized allowances.

"However, on occasion church presidents have personally benefitted from church finances by simply cancelling their indebtedness to church funds. On 23 April 1834 a revelation ended the Kirtland United Order and distributed its real estate assets among Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Martin Harris, Newel K. Whitney, and John Johnson. The revelation said, 'it is my will that you shall pay all your debts' (D&C 104:78). However, Joseph Smith privately required Whitney to balance 'in full without any value recd.' the $1,151.31 Whitney had loaned to the prophet, as well as $2,484.22 of the other men's debts to Whitney. Bishop Whitney had to personally absorb this loss 'because Joseph said it must be done.' . . .

"The next two church presidents did likewise. Three weeks before he died in August 1877, Brigham Young obtained a cancellation of his debts in Ogden, Utah, extending back to 1849.91 Despite the previously stated objections of his own counselor, John Taylor also persuaded the Quorum of Twelve Apostles in 1880 to allow him a $10,000 claim for sugar machinery, which claim Brigham Young had refused since 1853. . . ." _____

Allowing Tithing Monies to Be Loaned to Prominent Mormons

"By contrast, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, and Joseph F. Smith did not use their office as church president to cancel their personal indebtedness, yet they allowed tithing funds to serve as a loan pool for prominent Mormons. In a sharply worded report in 1911, the church auditors noted: 'If certain members of the Church are entitled to borrow money for private ends, is this not a right of all members, for the same purpose? If this policy is admitted, would it not result in confusion, jealousy, loss and consequent wrong?" The committee observed that "the debtors frequently look upon their obligations as being due to a rich and indulgent relative, to be paid (if at all) at their own convenience.' Among the debtors was Apostle Heber J. Grant for a 'cash loan of $34,000.' In 1913 the committee renewed the subject of church loans to individuals, and commented that 'it is not within the purview of the Trustee-in-Trust to make advances of this kind . . . And any loans made on plain notes are legally uncollectible.' . . .

"It is important to recognize that general authorities borrowed from the church's general fund because their living allowances were insufficient to meet their needs. In 1910 Apostle Anthony W. Ivins recorded that the following members of the Twelve were in debt: Francis M. Lyman, George Albert Smith, Heber J. Grant, Rudger Clawson, Hyrum M. Smith, George F. Richards, and David O. McKay.94Grant was the most candid about his apostolic indebtedness: 'A president of the stake begged and pleaded with me to quit paying tithing. He said I did not owe any tithing until I got out of debt. Would not that have been a fine record for a man who now stands as president of the Church, not to have paid tithing for thirty-two years?' . . ." _____

General Authorities Declare Legal Bankruptcy Rather Than Pay Their Personal Debts

"Many general authorities repaid their debts after long years of effort, while others died in debt. On the other hand, some chose to declare legal bankruptcy. In 1842 Joseph Smith, his counselor Sidney Rigdon, Presiding Patriarch Hyrum Smith, and Presiding bishop-designate Vinson Knight sought relief from their indebtedness by filing for bankruptcy. . . . Seventy's president J. Golden Kimball was the next current general authority who filed for bankruptcy. In 1899 he had $11,126 in debts but only $2,031 in assets. . . . By 1902 the First Presidency was unwilling for a member of the Presidency or Twelve to declare public bankruptcy, and Apostle Reed Smoot quietly persuaded the creditors of John W. Taylor to settle the apostle's $140,000 debts at ten cents on the dollar. . . ." _____

General Authority Acceptance of Stock to Pay Personal Debts Drains Church Finances

"On 27 December 1919 recently sustained Heber J. Grant obtained the approval of his counselors to accept $30,000 worth of his stock (at par) in the Utah-Implement Vehicle Company to cancel loans he received as an apostle from the Trustee-in-Trust. . . . However, accepting stock to cancel personal loans caused enormous losses to the church during Grant's administration. In 1930 first counselor Anthony W. Ivins computed that the church lost $900,000 in personal loans to Presiding Bishop Charles W. Nibley. Upon his appointment as second counselor in the First Presidency in 1925, Nibley had used stocks and bonds to repay his indebtedness to the church. . . ." _____

http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpt...

Doubting General Authorities Really Have No Place To Turn
Tuesday, Oct 3, 2006, at 07:13 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

They are mired--alone and at the top--in a system that is:

--intolerant of dissent;

--that operates on imperially judging a person's self worth based on their willingness to jettison their inherent right to individuality and, instead, to comply with top-down commands that they be blindly obedient;

--that generates compliance through application of the grinding gears of intense pressure to conform and behave as the high-profiled leaders of a primitive cult who are looked to for guidance and example by adoring followers who harbor unrealistic and impossible unexpectations of their leaders;

--that isolates even its most elevated leaders from ready access to genuine and accepting confidants in whom they can turn in moments of personal doubt; and

--that brainwashes even its leading elite into at least wanting to believe The Lie, to suspend critical thinking and to submit to authoritarian rule in order to receive temporal reward, approbation from the Mormon masses and, ultimately God's blessings of salvation.

Consider the anguishing circumstances that must have been the cause of silent, internal turmoil for the following closet doubters at the top of the Mormon patriarchally-gripped pyramid of power, struggling, as they must, with fact vs. faith: _____

--Member of the First Presidency Hugh B. Brown confided to LDS archeologist Thomas Ferguson that he (Brown) had concluded Joseph Smith did not possess the ability to translate ancient Egyptian.

Behind-the-scenes, Brown also secretly opposed, and lobbied against, the official anti-Black doctrine of the Mormon church but was unsuccessful in getting it reversed.

--Member of the Seventy B.H. Roberts, in a personal, private and lengthy study of the Book of Mormon that languished for decades without being published after Roberts' death, voiced telling concerns that Joseph Smith may well have plagiarized--in addition to have resorted to sheer invention--in order to produce the Book of Mormon, rhetorically suggesting that Smith possessed an imaginative but spiritually immature mind.

--Apostles Bruce R. McConkie (to BYU professor Eugene England) and Dallin H. Oaks and Neal A. Maxwell (to grandson of Mormon president Ezra Taft Benson, Steve Benson) privately confessed that Brigham Young taught false doctrine about Adam supposedly being the God.

--Oaks also confidentially admitted to Benson that scholarly critics of the Book of Abraham currently have marshalled arguments in their favor against the book.

Oaks also acknowledged, based on his own sermon preparation, that the Book of Mormon arguably suffers from plagiarized imperfections, some of which can be traced to the New Testament writings of Paul.

Oaks, in the same conversation further confessed that his ultimate faith in the Book of Mormon comes from a warm "knot" in his heart, not from any actual evidence--and a few weeks following that private admission openly acknowledged at a FARMS banquet in Provo, Utah, that the Book of Mormon could neither be historically proven or disproven.

--Maxwell depended on faxed material that he personally had requested from FARMS to defend the Book of Abraham, rather than relying on his own testimonially-rooted ability (assuming it actually existed) to defend the book against compelling evidence that it was manufactured by Joseph Smith out of whole cloth, bearing no relation whatsoever to ancient Egyptian language, culture or history.

Maxwell also told Benson said that the Mormon God would wait until the last moment to come forth with proof of the Book of Mormon, as well as admitted that a main mission of FARMS was to keep the Church from being the victim of an end-run by its critics.

--Both Oaks and Maxwell failed to offer (even in the face of Benson's specific request) their own personal testimonies of their supposed callings as special apostolic witnesses of Christ--relying instead on personal testimonial experiences they had in their college days or in early childhood, respectively.

--First Quorum of the Seventy member Marion D. Hanks, whose liberal, open-minded, tolerant and educated views on such subjects as organic evolution resulted (according to reliable inside Mormon sources) in him eventually being marginalized by Mormonism's high-handed handlers, where today he quietly fades away in ill health and seclusion, reportedly watching from the porch of his home as his wife mows the lawn.

Brown, Roberts, McConkie, Oaks, Maxwell, Hanks . . .

Certainly there are more where they came from.

These are some of Mormonism's highest doubting Thomases--closet questioners with deep, nagging concerns who have covered their insecurities with brave-sounding bravado but who, sadly, have done so because they have had no place to turn in their private moments of second-guessing--forsaken, isolated and even victimized by a relentless, unforgiving cult that is more interested in control than in comprehension.

A cult that, sadly, has entrapped them personally and entombed their questions within their own, troubled hearts.

Should Mormon Women Just Be Humble, Grateful, Shut Up And Follow? After All, The LDS Church Finally Let Women Pray In Sacrament Meeting
Thursday, Oct 5, 2006, at 08:06 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Shannon Weber, in her recent and powerful article, "A Woman's Unanswered Questions" (excerpted below), addresses the lack of equality and respect for women that continues to shackle and suffocate females in the Patriarchally-Gripped LDS Church:

"A few months ago I committed to fully explore my angst with women's role in the Mormon Church. I was nudged forward in this quest by simple but unanswerable comments from my children. My six-year-old daughter complained, 'It is better to be a boy!' When asked why she explains 'Only boys can be "the President, the prophet or pass the sacrament.' I know the Church-sanctioned responses but I am unable to pass the vague one-liners and untruths to my kids. I replied, 'One day a woman will be president and you will come with me to vote for her. Women were prophets and I'm not sure why we've stopped talking about and looking for them.'

"I was stumped in responding to her observation of the sacrament. No plausible explanation came to my mind. Another day my five-year-old son proudly tells me 'It is better to be a boy because you can pee standing up and when you get bigger you get the priesthood.'

"I'm aghast to consider the priesthood (governing in the Church and home, access to inspiration, the powers to act in God's name) as such an entitlement. Clearly the rift between what I know and what my children have learned is larger than I had realized.

"Changes for Women in My Lifetime

"I have been waiting with faith and hope my entire adult life for change. . . . However, an analysis of the changes for women in my lifetime shocked me. The results:

"--1) Women allowed to pray in sacrament meeting (1978)

"--2) Married women allowed to go to the temple without their husbands (1978)

"--3) The temple ceremony changed from women 'obeying' their husbands to women 'following' the counsel of their husbands (1990)

"--4) The Proclamation on the Family (1995)

"--5) Standards for women's grooming (2001)

"Much of this change is not progressive and the sights not on equality. . . . Equality does not mean 'sameness' or putting male expectations on females.

"Equality is the expectation and the support for women to be whom they are, who God made them to be. Christ aptly modeled equality in his teachings, parables and interactions with women while gently going against the cultural norm with Godly behavior toward all humans.

"Women's Sanctioned Roles

"The cookie cutter approach, with narrowly prescribed roles, doesn't fit for every woman. I see the rejection of women in their 'other' roles as many women struggle with situational and clinical depression, women living in situations other than the preferred nuclear family, women who work outside the home and women unfulfilled by motherhood.

"The Proclamation on the Family is a rigid and exclusionary pattern for family living. I watch women struggle with the defined roles. . . . At times the struggle lands women squarely within the Church defined measures of success.

"Other times the struggle results in depression, marital conflict, feelings of inadequacy and lack of fulfillment. There is little comfort for women who are single, celibate lesbians, and/or childless. . . .

"Doctrine and Culture

. . . In reality, both [Mormon Church] doctrine and culture are offensive. The omission of discussion regarding the cultural tendency to oppress women speaks loudly. A culture that thrives under a patriarchy isn't inclusive or progressive. Doctrine that requires perfection would support a culture that is open to change, growth and betterment.

"Assuming the culture, not doctrine, is the problem, there is no avenue or mechanism for advocating for cultural change in breadth or depth. Additionally, as the Mormon Church is a 'way of life' Church, members sign up for both culture and doctrine even though there can be discrepancies. For many members the difference between the doctrine and culture is indiscernible.

"Culture aside, there are significant deficiencies for women in the doctrine.

"Women and the Temple

". . . The Second Article of Faith says we will be punished for our own sins. And yet in the temple film after Eve lowers her eyes when chided by God, women must covenant to follow their husband's counsel as he follows God's counsel. This is problematic at face value.

". . . Plus the lack of allowance in the covenant for women who are single, married to non-members or temple non-attendees, married to jackasses, or widows. This covenant further enforces the notion that only/primarily men communicate with God.

"Furthermore, how does this telling of the Garden of Eden story reconcile for those who feel Eve was framed or that the story is part of the bad Bible translation. Or those who take an interpretive view of the Garden of Eden story much like the Church has taken an interpretive view of the rest of the creation story, i.e. a day really meant a period of time, not 24-hours. The credibility issues of the Book of Abraham further complicate the Garden of Eden story.

"Another paradox is the notion that women hold the priesthood in the temple. While whispered among liberal- minded Mormons, this doctrine is never taught in Church, general conference, missionary discussions, the Ensign or even priesthood lessons. President Hinckley and other General Authorities do not acknowledge women holding the priesthood when questioned by the media about the exclusionary male priesthood.

"If indeed women hold the priesthood in the temple, it is held and practiced in secret. Why are we ashamed? Other priesthood functions are boldly performed and even offered to non-members such as the healing blessing or grave dedication.

"This women-priesthood is only held near the temple bathrooms. One is not allowed to hold this form of women priesthood while having young children as women are forbidden to be temple workers during this time of life. This woman form of priesthood is not something women are set apart to do, nor are they sustained by their peers.

"There is no Sunday instruction for this woman form of priesthood. Women early in this dispensation were encouraged to use their priesthood for healing blessings and ordinances inside and outside the temple (Joseph Smith, History of the Church: Volume 4, pages 602-603.)

"Early women leaders were told and believed that they were building up a women's organization after the same pattern of the priesthood. It was not until the 1900's that women's autonomy was denied and the presiding authority of the Relief Society usurped.

"The process for getting to the temple is problematic for equality-minded members. It is male priesthood leaders who determine who is worthy to go to the temple and to become one of these woman holders of the temple kind of priesthood. To enforce this practice of males determining worthiness, a male temple worker checks each temple recommend at the door.

"Women and Polygamy

"A discussion of the temple must include polygamy. The 'new and everlasting covenant of marriage' or 'celestial marriage' is polygamy. This is doctrine. The current living recommend policy reinforces the practice as men are allowed to be sealed to more than one woman while a divorced or widowed and temple-sealed woman is only allowed to be sealed for time. . . .

"The history of polygamy deserves exploration. . . .

"--1. Joseph Smith manipulated women and their families. He lied to Emma. For him the new and everlasting covenant of marriage also included polyandry and over 30 wives.

"--2. My God does not take advantage of or herd women.

"--3. Polygamy doctrine vs. polygamy culture has never been reconciled. This may be impossible to clarify yet the Church carries on with a murky history and double-standard temple practices.

"--4. The whole notion of a group of women bowing their head and saying yes to one man, bringing him more glory, makes me uncomfortable.

"Power to Act in the Name of God

"If the question is 'What is the priesthood?,' the seminary answer is 'The power to act in the name of God.' In reality, I observe two types of priesthood: The Power to Act in the Name of God (PANG) priesthood and the Priesthood Leadership (PL).

"It would be great to know and identify the difference between PANG and PL. Would one say, 'Welcome to the Power to Act in the Name of God Executive Committee meeting?' Or, 'Thank you for coming to Sunday School. You are excused to Relief Society and your respective Power to Act in the Name of God classes.'

"It is nearly impossible to reconcile the difference between a young woman attending a class titled 'Beehives.' while an emotionally less mature 12-year old boy will attend his Aaronic Power to Act in the Name of God class.

"Is it the PL or PANG that determines all worthiness? Which deposits the offerings, takes sacrament attendance, counsels, extends callings, calls people to repentance, decides the boundaries of wards and stakes, runs BYU (if there were a female president of BYU would she be called Sister or President?), organizes missions, leads LDS Social Services and church welfare at all levels, signs the food orders, etc.

"Why call it PANG or PL when it most often materializes as patriarchy? While there is certainly patriarchy in the world, in other arenas we are allowed to speak out and find alternatives.

" . . . [S]ome placate themselves with the thought that motherhood equals priesthood. In the same pattern as putting women on a pedestal, this notion marginalizes fathers and diminishes the majority of women's lives that are not spent in active parenting. For women who are unable or choose not to have children, the equation is terribly lopsided.

"Church history is replete with sanctioned women's Power to Act in the Name of God. Open teaching and practicing of women-delivered healing blessings is documented in Church history. . . . The bottom line is women don't need to be given PANG by the laying on of hands, and it is certainly not a power exclusive to men.

"What, then, of women and Priesthood Leadership? I don't care to run a ward, sign checks, pass out the worship program, or determine other's worthiness for such activities.

"But the fact that it requires a penis to qualify is stifling.

"I want my kids to see women in leadership roles. I want my views and my kids' needs represented at every level. I want single moms, lesbians, grandmas, mentally-ill women, handicapped women, etc. represented in my Church's goals and activities. While men can certainly represent women's needs and vice versa, having all the stakeholders at the table holds participants accountable for their words and deeds. The loss as a result of excluding women from leadership positions is incalculable. With inclusion, the potential is grand.

"Abuse of PL power is overt and covert. Abuse of power happens because there is no differentiation between PL and PANG. If there is an opportunity with low probability of consequence there are those who will abuse. When we give power to an individual and don't arrange a mechanism for quality control, there will be negative consequences. Let this kind of machine run for over 150 years and serious problems will fester. . ..

"Meaningful inclusion of women would lessen the opportunities for abuse, broaden the pool of leadership participants, and add a level of accountability that is now absent.

"God's One True Church on Earth and How to Untwist the Pretzel

"Believing I belonged to God's one true Church, I have felt pressure to conform, to participate, and to excel. . . . My recent exploration along with melding the daily with the spiritual has been like untwisting from a pretzel. Or what it may feel like for a butterfly to first flap her sticky, new wings. . . .

"Ultimately I believe in inclusion and equality. I don't believe in culture or doctrine that is not inclusive. The gospel and Church should work just as well for the weak as the strong. The true Power to Act in the Name of God will protect (not just in word, but in daily deed) and represent all of Mother's children. While the Church-defined role may work for many women and some women feel liberated by the doctrine or culture, I am morally opposed to the exclusive belonging and requirements that do not work for all women. This is counter to Christ's teachings and my belief that Heavenly Father and Mother want each child to return.

"Why now? I want to give an inviting, inclusive and advocating legacy to my children. Establishing this legacy and gently handing off to the next generation may not be possible while twisted in a pretzel."

http://www.newordermormon.org/unans_q...

Anybody's Guess: Just Who Was It That Snuck Up On A Jittery Joseph Smith While He Was Trying To Get The Divine Goods In The Woods?
Tuesday, Oct 10, 2006, at 06:15 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

In an early version of the First Vision, found in a November 1835 journal entry of Joseph Smith, as recorded by Warren C. Cowdery, Smith describes meeting up with mysterious, threatening forces while attempting to pray for guiding light in a darkened world:

"I called upon the Lord for the first time in [the silent grove] . . . or, in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed to be swoolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove gain to pray, but could not; the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person, or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. . . ." (Dean C. Jesse, "The Early Accounts of the First Vision," BYU Studies 9, no. 3, 1969, p. 6, original punctuation and spelling)

*****

So, just who was this mystery intruder who walked up on Joseph Smith when he was busy trying to unswell his tongue and talk to God in the trees behind his house?

An Egyptian mummy?

The disembodied Lucifer, making rustling noises with his invisible feet?

Casper the Holy Ghost?

A Relief Society sister bringing cookies?

Church security?

A Founding Father asking to be baptized for the dead?

A lost Lamanite, poking around for his lost DNA?

A squirrel looking for nuts?

A frisky Fanny Alger looking for a roll in the Sacred Grove?

A fuming Emma looking to kick Fanny's fanny?

_____

Give it your best shot.

Staying "In" Despite Being On The Outs: The Fate And Faith Of Dissidents Grant Palmer And Michael Quinn
Thursday, Oct 12, 2006, at 06:15 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Questions have been raised on this board recently about the nature of the faith and committment of excommunicated Mormon historian D. Michael Quinn and disfellowshipped LDS educator Grant Palmer:

"Subject: Quinn and Palmer: a question Date: Oct 11 13:53 Author: levine Mail Address:

"I was just wondering if authors like Quinn and Palmer have a master plan to try to stay in the church so they can influence as many people as possible.

"Wouldn't more TBM's read their books if the authors are still mormons? I've wondered why Q & P would want to remain members. Or maybe the reasons are just personal ones."

_____

GRANT PALMER: RETIRED BUT "ACTIVE" IN HIS OWN WAY

Reliable sources inside Mormonism, positioned both to know and verify, report that Palmer is living in modest retirement, in a small home in San Diego--and has been privately relaying information to interested parties regarding details on the resignation from Mormon ranks of certain prominent members. ______

D. MICHAEL QUINN: A BANISHED BUT STILL IN-THE-HEART BELIEVER

With regard to Quinn, he is no longer a member of the Mormon Church, having been excommunicated for apostasy in 1993 for his published research on post-Manifesto polygamy.

Quinn is a friend of Steve Benson (who voluntarily left the Mormon Church in 1993) and who, according to Benson's account of personal visits with Quinn, has nonetheless remained a faithful believer in what Quinn regards as the restored truthfulness of the Mormon Church.

In a previous RfM post made in July 2005, Benson wrote of Quinn's situation, as follows:

"Michael Quinn . . . has chosen to remain a believer in the supposed truthfulness of Mormonism.

"I have known Mike as a personal friend for several years and admire him greatly, both as an individual and as a scholar, although we disagree on some fundamental matters.

"After I left the LDS cult in 1993, I had more than one occasion to talk directly, and in person, with Mike about his own perspectives and beliefs pertaining to Mormonism.

". . . Mike shared his testimonial belief with me that the Book of Mormon was a literal historical record of ancient and accurate vintage, that Joseph Smith was a prophet called of God to reveal His divine truth to the world, that through Joseph Smith the golden plates were translated and that following the death of Joseph Smith the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fell into apostasy through the corruption and sin of its leadership--and that this 'falling away,' if you will, of the Mormon Church from the purposes and designs of God's original 1830 restorative act, has continued up to the present time.

"Mike told me that it was his belief that a second Restoration (i.e., one coming after the initial return of God's true Church to the earth in 1830 through the hands of Joseph Smith) was necessary in order to rehabilitate the Mormon Church and again make it the organization through which God would lead and guide His children on earth.

"I asked Mike how he could believe such things, especially given what many have considered his devastatingly revealing historical dissection of Mormon origins and its extensions of power.

"Mike acknowledged to me that he knew that his belief in Mormonism did not sound logical but that he nonetheless possessed a personal testimony of the Book of Mormon, of the prophetic calling by God of Joseph Smith and of the truthfulness of the Mormon Gospel as God's one and only true Church." ______

QUINN THE PROPHESIED APOSTLE, QUINN THE PHONE-TAPPED APOSTATE, QUINN THE TARGET OF DEATH THREATS AND QUINN, THE MAN ABANDONED

In a further RfM post, also in August 2005, Benson noted some information about which Quinn had himself spoken publicly--namely, that Spencer W. Kimball had promised Quinn that if he remained faithful, one day he would be an apostle:

"Mike [spoke of] . . . a promise made to him by then-apostle Spencer Kimball, at the time Mike was still an active, temple-endowed, well-respected member of the Church.

"Mike said that Kimball promised him that if he continued in faithfulness and obedience, he, too, would one day become an apostle.

"'Mad_Viking' then asked me [Benson], 'So, was it your impression that he held on to his beliefs of Joseph Smith's divine mission, despite his admission of it being illogical, simply because of this statement made to him from Spencer W Kimball?'

"I replied:

"Mike Quinn told me he had a testimony of the Mormon Church as God's true Church; the gold plates as genuine, translated artifacts; and the mission of Joseph Smith as being God's chosen prophet of the Restoration.

"Mike did not tell me that he held on to those beliefs in the hope that he would someday become an apostle (as then-apostle Spencer W. Kimball promised him, if Mike remained faithful), and I did not draw a link between the two because Mike did not make one. His belief in Mormonism seemed more personal and much deeper than any anticipation of advancement through the ranks. It was a quiet, soft-spoken type of conviction about which Mike did not make a big deal--but to which he appeared truly committed.

"I found Mike's testimony startling, incongruous and at significant odds with his unparalleled research that clearly, in my opinion, exposed the fraud, frailities and fictions of Mormonism.

"But Mike's ultimate testimony in Mormonism seemed to rest on his belief that it was initially restored by God's hand in pure and true form, then became corrupted through the human-caused downfall of its leaders who subsequently followed Joseph Smith into power in the post-Smith era.

"Mike Quinn holds on to the belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints remains God's true Church on the earth--but that it is in dire need of a complete restorative overhaul in order to bring it back to its original integrity, purpose, luster and exaltation-providing power.

"What is all the more amazing about Mike's deep-rooted faith is to see how his devotion to the basic claims of Mormonism has remained strong, despite all that he has been through.

"At the peak of his career as an historian, Mike was a highly-regarded profesional in his field, both in out and of the Church.

"Then, Mike's daring and ground-breaking research on the Mormon Church's deceptive practice of post-Manifesto polygamy (which the Church tried hard to keep hidden from the public) led to his excommunication on the grounds of apostasy. Dallin Oaks, in particular, was bitterly incensed at Mike's decision to air his findings and told me personally that Mike was a person without character who could not be trusted.

"Mike's stake president also darkly hinted to him that he was being investigated on "moral" charges (relating, in all probability, to Mike's honest acknowledgement of being gay).

"Mike told me that his home phone was tapped (most likely by Mormon Church security), and that, moreover, he was able to verify the power drain on his telephone line (indicating a deliberate intrusion) through the use of special phone equipment. He said that the likelihood of the drain actually being a tap was supported by employees at the local SLC phone company.

"Mike was also the subject of death threats. His heterosexual marriage of many years ended in divorce and his teenage son committed suicide by hanging himself in one of Salt Lake City's surrounding canyons. Mike's professional career subsequently took a nose dive. He found himself unemployed and without the necessary grant funding to continue his historical research.

"He moved to Mexico for a time to live with a friend and, at one point, was literally living day-to-day, hand-to-mouth.

"Through it all, Mike has maintained his testimony in what he believes to be the truthfulness of the Mormon Church. This bespeaks a personal devotion greater than any hoped-for call to Mormon apostleship. At this point in his life, Kimball's promise to Mike in that regard seems, shall we say, a tad out of reach.

"Nevertheless, Mike's sincere belief in the LDS Church--a Church which in its depraved and destructive state has persecuted and maligned him--remains firm.

"Go figure." _____

WHY QUINN WAS EXCOMMUNICATED

In another RfM post in August 2005, Benson provided background details on the reasons why Quinn was excommunicated from the LDS Church--including the privately-expressed vitriolic reaction (behind closed doors of a Mormon apostle's office) to Quinn's published writings on post-Manifesto polygamy:

"Inquiries have recently been made . . .about what constituted the basis for the excommunication of D. Michael Quinn from the Mormon Church for supposed 'apostasy.'

"Not coincidentally, prior to getting the ecclesiastical axe, Quinn--a noted historian and former tenured BYU professor--had written at least six articles for the LDS Church’s premiere magazine, the Ensign, as well as had published several more in the LDS-owned and operated journal, BYU Studies.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/sepsix.shtm... _____

"As to what exactly prompted Quinn’s expulsion from Mormonism’s ranks, RfM poster, 'Mad_Viking,' asked the following:

"'In light of [Quinn's post-excommunication expression of his personal testimony in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church], it is simply amazing that he would maintain faith. I amhonestly baffled by it.

"'Is the research that got him excommunicated available to the public?'

(Mad_Viking,”Re: No, that was not my impression," Recovery from Mormonism Board, 4 August 2005, 1438 hours) _____

"Yes, Quinn's research on the subject is publicly available.

"In a nutshell, Quinn’s 'sins' were having had published in the Spring 1985 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, a devastating historical account of the shell game played for decades by the Mormon Church in its deliberate campaign of misdirection and misinformation.

"Quinn’s Dialogue article has been praised thusly:

”'This essay is one of the best pieces of Mormon literature we have. [Quinn] went to Gordon [B.] Hinckley before he ever published this essay and showed him what he had. He then told . . . Hinckley that if he did not want it published then [Quinn] would not publish it. . . . Hinckley toldMike that he needed to do what he felt best so [Quinn] published it because he felt it dealt with a very sensitive issue that needed to be addressed.'

http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... _____

"Quinn himself explained the post-Manifesto reasons for his excommunication in his article, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and its Aftermath)':

“'In 1985, after Dialogue published my article "LDS Church Authority and New Plural Marriages, 1890 - 1904," three apostles [Boyd K. Packer, Mark E. Petersen and Ezra Taft Benson] gave orders for my Stake President to confiscate my temple recommend. Six years earlier, I had formally notified the First Presidency and the Managing Director of the Church Historical Department about my research on post-Manifesto polygamy and my intention to publish it . . . Now I was told that three apostles believed I was guilty of "speaking evil of the Lord's anointed." The Stake President was also told to ‘take further action’ against me if this did not ‘remedy the situation’ of my writing controversial Mormon history. . . .

"'I told my Stake President that this was an obvious effort to intimidate me from doing history that might "offend the Brethren" (to use Ezra Taft Benson’s phrase). . . . The Stake President also saw this as a back-door effort to have me fired from BYU. . . .

“'At various stake and regional meetings, Apostle Packer began publicly referring to "a BYU historian who is writing about polygamy to embarrass the Church." At firesides in Utah and California, a member of BYU’s Religious Education Department referred to me as "the anti-Christ of BYU." . . . Church leaders today seem to regard my post-Manifesto polygamy article . . . as "speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed" because they themselves regard certain acts and words of those earlier Church leaders as embarrassing, if not actually wrong. I do not regard it as disloyal to conscientiously recreate the words, acts and circumstances of earlier prophets and apostles. . . . .

“'No one ever gave me an ultimatum or threatened to fire me from Brigham Young University. However, University administrators and I were both on the losing side of a war of attrition mandated by the General Authorities. . . .

“'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation, effective at the end of the current school semester. . . . I explained [that] "the situation seems to be that academic freedom merely survives at BYU without fundamental support by the institution, exists against tremendous pressure and is nurtured only through the dedication of individual administrators and faculty members." . . .

“'Three months after my departure, it angered me to learn to learn that BYU had fired a Hebrew professor for his private views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Although I personally regard the Book of Mormon as ancient history and sacred text, I told an inquiring newspaper reporter: "BYU officials have said that Harvard should aspire to become the BYU of the East. That’s like saying the Mayo Clinic should aspire to be Auschwitz. BYU is an Auschwitz of the mind." . . .

“'When BYU’s Associate Academic Vice-President asked me if that was an accurate quote, I confirmed that it was. "Academic freedom exists at BYU only for what is considered non-controversial by the University’s Board of Trustees [meaning the Quorum of the Twelve] and administrators," I wrote. "By those definitions, academic freedom has always existed at Soviet universities (even during the Stalin era). . . .

“'"It is . . . my conviction that God desires everyone to enjoy freedom of inquiry and expression without fear, obstruction or intimidation. I find it one of the fundamental ironies of modern Mormonism that the General Authorities, who praise free agency, also do their best to limit free agency's prerequisites --access to information, uninhibited inquiry and freedom of expression.” (Quinn, D. Michael. 'On Being a Mormon Historian (And Its Aftermath).' In Smith, George D., ed. Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 91-95). _____

"THE COMPLETE TEXT OF QUINN'S EXPLOSIVE ESSAY

"Quinn's essay on post-Manifesto polygamy that so propelled paranoid Mormon leaders into hanging him can be found at:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polyg... . . . " _____

In a subsequent RfM post in August 2005, Benson referenced the following additional, published information about Quinn's excommunication:

"After tape recordings and transcriptions of Quinn's talk, 'On Being a Mormon Historian,' began to be published and circulated without his permission, national attention to Quinn's views was heightened by a February 1982 issue of Newsweek headlined, 'Apostles vs. Historians.'

"From that point forward, the Mormon squeeze play on Quinn began in earnest.

Writes Quinn:

"'A few days [after publication of the Newsweek article], a General Authority invited me to his office. He warned me that he found Elder Packer to be easily offended and vindictive years afterward.

"'In May [1982], my stake presidency informed me that five former bishops had recommended me to be the ward's new bishop but that Apostle Mark E. Petersen had blocked the appointment. He asked the stake presidency, "Why is Michael Quinn in league with anti-Mormonism," apparently referring to the unauthorized publication of my essay by the Tanners.

"'Elder Petersen arranged for the stake presidency to bring me to the Church Administration Building at 47b East South Temkple to meet with Apostles Petersen, Benson and Packer. The second counselor in the stake presidency accompanied me. The Apostles were careful not to ask me a single direct question. In order of seniority (Apostle Benson first, me last), each of us expressed his own views of the Newsweek article, the "problems" of writing Mormon history and the effects of all this on the faith of LDS members. The meeting was congenial and supportive.'

"That seeming support was to eventually evaporate, as those same three Apostles began a deliberate pressure campaign to have Quinn discredited, isolated and deposed, despite the fact that Quinn had proven himself to be a highly regarded researcher and acclaimed educator.

"Notes Quinn:

"'In the spring of 1986, graduating history majors at BYU voted me 'outstanding professor.' That fall BYU's administration had my name dropped from a list of participants in an upcoming celebration of Mormonism in Britain. Then, for the second year in a row, BYU's administration denied my application for "Professional Development Leave." This time the college dean invited m to his office to explain why. He said the Apostles on the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees had prepared a list of faculty members and research topics which BYU administrators were forbidden to support. "I have always hoped that one day BYU will become a real university," the dean said, "but this makes me feel that that day will never arrive."

"'By January 1987 pressures on me increased. BYU's administration required the History Department and Charles Redd Center for the American West to withdraw funds they had promised me to give a paper on general American religion at the University of Paris. It did not matter that the advanced text of the paper, entitled "Religion, Rationalism and Folk Practices in America to the mid-19th Century," made no reference to Mormonism. I paid my own way to France to represent BYU.

"'Despite all tha that had happened, until January 1987 I could not yet believe that my life's hopes were at an end. A new department chair let me know that my situation would improve only if I stopped doing research which implied Mormon studies. . . . Abandoning Mormon history may have been safe in the climate of repression but it as unacceptable to me, especially as an option of duress. "Publish or perish" is the experience of scholars at most universities, but for this Mormon historian it was "publish and perish" at BYU.

"'After publication of my Early Mormonism and the Magic World View in mid-1987, two members of BYU's History Department circualted the rumor that my stake high council was excommunicating me for apostasy. The rumor was completely false but more important, I had thought these rumor=mongers were my colleagues and friends. When a student asked the Dean of Religous Education if BYU was going to fire me, he replied that the Board of Trustees had decided against it. "Like stirring up a turd on the ground," he told the student, 'firing Mike Quinn would only make a greater stink.' At this point, I began applying for research fellowships that would allow me to leave BYU. . . .

"'On 20 January 1988, I wrote a letter of resignation . . . At the time of my resignation, I had tenure ("continuing status"), was Full-Professor of History and was Director of the History Department's graduate program. My letter of resignation represented my formal acknowledgement of failure--personal and institutional. . . .

"'I again addressed [the issue of academic freedom] in 1991 after a rarely-used joint declartion by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles condemned the annual Sunstone Symposium. . . . Those who questioned this statement were being summarily dropped from Church positions and both Church and BYU administraive pressure was directed against a junior professor of anthropology at BYU who had given a symposium paper. I observed in a newspaper story, "Consistently, from the beginning, the [LDS] Church leadership has always been uncomfortable with open forums that have been organized by the rank and file." However, I added, "in the 19th-century, the leadership recognized the existence of a loyal opposition and the 20th does not.". . .

"'Since leaving BYU and Utah, I have been an independent free-lance writer. I still do Mormon history. People of various persuasions still seem eager for it.'"(D. Michael Quinn, 'On Being a Mormon Historian (and Its Aftermath),' in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992], pp. 89-90, 92-96) _____

Eventually, Benson met with two Mormon apostles in private conversation--where the ugly truth behind Quinn's excommunication became apparent in raw, personal terms:

"YEARS LATER AMONG THE QUORUM OF THE TWELVE; BABBLING BALONEY ABOUT HISTORY AND BUBBLING BITTERNESS OVER QUINN

"Additional sordid details behind the excommunication of Quinn seeped out some eight years after his post-Manifesto essay was first published.

"These facts were provided by two of the Mormon Church's highest henchmen–'Apostle-ologists' Neal A. Maxwell and Dallin H. Oaks.

"On 9 September 1993, my wife Mary Ann and I met with Oaks and Maxwell in Maxwell's Church office, #303, located in the Church Administration Building, in downtown Salt Lake City. We had approached them with a list of detailed and wide-ranging questions about fundamental doctrines, teachings, practices and policies of the Mormon Church that significantly troubled us--and about which we felt we deserved credible and straight-forward answers.

"In the broad sense on the polygamy question, we wanted to know from these pre-eminent damage controllers why the Mormon Church had not been more forthcoming and honest with its history with regard to the official practice (and later blatant denial of) polygamy.

"Then, specifically, we wanted to know about what I have subsequently referred to as 'the mystery of history, and those who tell the truth about polygamy--without permission.'

"In that meeting with us, 'good cop' Maxwell offered unconvincing rationalizations for the Mormon Church’s failure to be honest and forthcoming about its practice of polygamy.

“'Bad cop' Oaks followed up by launching a shockingly shabby attack on Quinn’s personal integrity. _____

"MAXWELL'S MURKY MEANDERINGS

"In answer to the larger inquiry, Maxwell cagily replied by noting that the process of writing history is frustrating, complex and incomplete.

"He handed us a photocopy of a sermon. (The copy turned out, I discovered later, to be a talk Maxwell himself had delivered during the 1984 October General Conference entitled, 'Out of Obscurity.' However, the single sheet excerpts that he handed to us contained no title or author, although it had been marked up in red ink for our benefit. Maxwell’s address ultimately appeared in the General Conference issue of the Ensign, 10, November 1984, p. 11).

"Quoting from a 'Tribute to Neville Chamberlain,' delivered in the British House of Commons, 12 November 1940, Maxwell’s sermon declared:

"'History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days.'

"The sermon then addressed what Maxwell verbally described to us as the definition of history: a collection, he said, of 'floating mosaic tiles':

"'The finished mosaic of the history of the Restoration will be larger and more varied as more pieces of tile emerge, adjusting a sequence here or enlarging there a sector of our understanding.

"'The fundamental outline is in place now, however. But history deals with imperfect people in process of time, whose imperfections produce refractions as the pure light of the gospel plays upon them. There may even be a few pieces of tile which, for the moment, donot seem to fit . . .

"'So, belatedly, the fullness of the history of the dispensation of the fullness of times will be written.

"'The final mosaic of the Restoration will be resplendent, reflecting divine design and the same centerpiece–the Father's plan of salvation and exaltation and the atonement of His Son, Jesus Christ.'

"What Maxwell’s excuses lacked in clarity, Oaks’ made up for in character assassination _____

"OAKS' VICIOUS PERSONAL ATTACKS ON QUINN

"While Oaks was much less colorful than his charming so-charlatan Maxwell, he was much more direct in dealing with the substance of our question.

"Oaks acknowledged that he had read Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy, covering the period from 1890 into the early 20th century.

"Oaks also confessed that the Mormon Church had not, in fact, been honest about its practice of polygamy during that time. He admitted that the case, as laid out by Quinn, was, in fact, true. Oaks admitted that, in his opinion, lies had indeed been told by Mormon Church leaders about the continuing practice of polygamy after it supposedly was ended by the Manifesto of 1890.

"But enough of admitting Church wrongdoing.

"Oaks then proceeded to attack Quinn personally by accusing him of breaking his word.

"Oaks said that Quinn had been given access to all of J. Reuben Clark's papers for the purpose of writing a book on Clark's years of Church service. Oaks said he had assured the Church that Quinn was credible, in order that Quinn could be given access to those records. Oaks noted that shortly after Quinn's research was published on Clark, out came Quinn's article on post-Manifesto polygamy.

"Quinn, Oaks told us angrily, had violated Oaks' confidence. He accused Quinn of having taken more information out of Church archives than he had been given permission to examine and research, going in.

"Oaks said that Quinn was not an innocent victim in this affair. Oaks informed us that he subsequently wrote Quinn a letter, in which he expressed his "deep disappointment" with him and telling Quinn he had exceeded the limits of their original understanding.

"In that letter, Oaks further said, he told Quinn that he now regarded him as someone who could not be trusted. Oaks added that Quinn would not tell us about these things, if asked, because of Quinn's involvement.

"On that last point, I wanted to see for myself.

"In August 2001, in a personal visit with Quinn at a gathering in Fort Worden, Washington, hosted by a group of gay Mormon fathers (where Mary Ann and I had been invited to speak), I recounted to him Oaks' version of events and asked him for his own recollections.

"Visibly agitated but in a controlled and quiet voice, Quinn emphatically denied that he had violated any research agreement with the Church Historical Department.

"He told me that it was clearly understood going in that he had open access to archival materials."

[see: http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... , Part 4] _____

"CONCLUSION: A FINAL WORD ON MICHAEL QUINN

"Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell, I know Michael Quinn.

"Michael Quinn is a friend of mine.

"You are no Michael Quinn."

Orrin Hatch's Unholy Habit Of Covering Up For His Friends' Sex Scandal-Related Behavior
Monday, Oct 16, 2006, at 07:30 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

Mormon Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, in defending House Speaker Dennis Hastert's conduct in dealing with the brewing page scandal, said that Hastert "did not want to appear to be anti-gay."

Below are excerpts from the Salt Lake Tribune article (initially referrred to by PtLoma) in which Hatch offers a spirited defense of Hastert's actions:

"Hatch says House feared anti-gay label Hastert's busy schedule also may have delayed action on Foley, he adds

By Matt Canham

The Salt Lake Tribune

"U.S. House leaders may have delayed taking action against former Florida Republican Rep. Mark Foley because they were afraid of appearing anti-gay, according to Sen. Orrin Hatch.

"Utah's senator . . . defended House Speaker Dennis Hastert, who has drawn repeated criticism for not acting on concerns brought to his office earlier.

"Hatch's defense, presented to the Tribune editorial board earlier this week, centered on how busy Hastert is as the Republican leader in the House.

"But he also said: 'I don't know anybody today in the Congress who wants to act or be homophobic, so that may be part of the problem here.'"

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_4479584

*****

Should one be surprised?

Orrin Hatch apparently has a history of covering up sexually-related inappropriate conduct of those whom he politically supports.

In a post sometime ago on RfM, Steve Benson noted that he had personally and privately met with Orrin Hatch who, during the course of their conversation, admitted that amid the contentious confirmation hearings for then-U.S. Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, he (Hatch) had known that Thomas had suffered from "a problem with pornography" while Thomas was a student at Yale.

(Thomas' alleged sexual misbehavior had become a point of significant controversy, based on under-oath claims by Anita Hill that Thomas had sexually harassed her when she worked as a staffer for Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Hill, among other allegations, claimed that Thomas was obsessed with the size of women's breasts and frequently made offensive comments about them to her).

According to Benson, Hatch admitted that he and his fellow supporters of Thomas on the Senate Judiciary Committee did not make a public issue of Thomas' involvement with college-era pornography because Thomas' so-called "problem" had occurred "a long time ago."

Seems like both Hastert and Hatch are quite adept at the art of taking delayed action.

Brent Metcalfe: By His Enemies Ye Shall Know (And Respect) Him
Tuesday, Oct 17, 2006, at 06:00 AM
Original Author(s): Sourcerer
Topic: STEVE BENSON - SECTION 10 -Guid-

↑

INTRODUCTION

A person's reputation and character are determined, in significant measure, by his or her enemies.

If, in this case, the enemies happen to be deviously devoted Mormon apologists (who, by their very nature, perpetuate lies, falsehoods and excuses in behalf of the manipulative LDS cult), then the person these snarling Mormon pit bulls are ripping apart has obviously struck a nerve of truth with them that they cannot handle.

Which brings us to Brent Metcalfe and his enemies.

While some on this board are obviously displeased with Metcalfe's ExMo conference presentation, it may do well to remember that Metcalfe is ridiculed and hated by high-ranking Mormon authorities and their minions.

Which means he must be doing something right.

Brent Metcalfe is an inately intelligent and thoughtful individual, a gifted and careful writer, a dogged and tireless researcher, an agile and adept thinker and a respected and reputable (albeit largely self-made) scholar whose historical studies, doctrinal conclusions and other Mormon-related observations are the result of his determined efforts at understanding and interpreting the LDS world in empirical, rational, methodical and responsible ways.

That Mormon apostles (as well as their hand puppets at FARMS) have frantically ripped Brent Metcalfe up one side and down another is telling proof of just how effective Metcalfe has been at undermining Mormonism's fabrications--and just how much, as a result, insecure Mormons fear and loathe him. _____

MORMON APOSTLE MERCILESSLY ATTACKS METCALFE

Apostle Neal Maxwell, in a private conversation with Steve Benson in Maxwell's Church office in September 1993, viciously attacked Metcalfe, as recounted in Benson's published account of his meeting with Maxwell:

"Maxwell attempted to defend the Book of Mormon via 'critical textual analysis'--as well as through personally attacking one of the most outspoken critics of the Book of Mormon at that time, former Church security employee and excommunicated LDS researcher, Brent Metcalfe.

"Maxwell said that the first critical textual analysis of the Book of Mormon was soon to be published by Royal Skousen, a BYU professor of English and linguistics, whom Maxwell described as being in 'the intellectual wing of the Church.' (At the time, Skousen was in the process of examining the original English 'translation' of the Book of Mormon, based on the surviving 28% of the original manuscript held in the historical archives of the Mormon Church).

"Maxwell said that, unlike Metcalfe's [then-]recent critique of Book of Mormon authenticity, Skousen's treatment of the Book of Mormon was 'deep.' (Metcalfe was editor of a newly-released book, New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology [Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1993]. The work billed itself as an outline of 'the broad contours of contemporary scholarship which continue to examine issues of antiquity . . . from the standpoint of physical and cultural anthropology, geography, linguistics, demographics, literary forms, liturgical context, theology, and evolution of the original manuscript to published work,' front flyleaf).

"Unimpressed by Metcalfe's efforts, Maxwell derisively described the difference between Metcalfe's approach and that of Skousen's as being like 'the difference between seagulls hovering over garbage thrown overboard and seagulls that know how to fish.' Speaking in condescending and disparaging terms of Metcalfe, Maxwell said, 'We pat him on the head and say, "Little boy, you haven't even scratched the surface."'

"Despite his acerbic personal attacks, Maxwell nonetheless said that 'we shouldn't proclaim we've won the game with every piece of positive evidence. We should avoid being tossed to and for by every doctrine.'

http://twincentral.com/site/pages/art... , Part 18 _____

JUVENILES AT FARMS TAKE POTTY-MOUTH POT SHOTS AT METCALFE

Benson, in a RfM post made in January of this year, also wrote of FARMS equally vicious attacks on Metcalfe:

"FARMS apologists, reviewers and 'researchers' are infamous for savaging critics of the Mormon Church for supposedly being puerile and unsophisticated in the conclusions these skeptics reach about LDS doctrine, practice and history.

"Case in point: FARMS premiere offensive lineman (and we do mean 'offensive') William Hamblin--in ridiculing Jerald and Sandra Tanner's work, Covering up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon--pompously declared:

"'[T]hey [the Tanners] simply refuse to deal with recent serious Latter-day Saint arguments . . . a perfect picture of the Tanners at the height of their ineptitude . . . completely fails to deal with [current LDS scholarly] interpretation of the Book of Mormon geography and archaeology . . . incapable of seriously dealing with academic studies and issues surrounding questions of archaeology and geography of either the New or old World. . . . [they should] stick to their . . . .facile, ad nauseum demonstrations that Latter-day Saint doctrine bears little relationship to fundamentalist Protestant doctrine.'

"Hamblin is the last person to be chiding others for not being serious.

"Hamblin himself is about as serious as a whoopie cushion in a church pew.

"John Weldon, writing for the 'Apologetics Index,' points to the stupidly childish FARMS case of 'Metcalfe Is Butthead,' which exposed Hamblin's breathtaking immaturity in dealing with Mormonism's critics:

"'FARMS is, as we know, an acronym for the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.

"'Unfortunately, after reading their reviews, etc., and examining their methods, an acronym equally suited for FARMS would often be: 'Frequent Artless Ridicule Made Simple.'

"'This is particularly so in light of the 'Metcalfe is Butthead' acronym fiasco, and similar matters. We mean no disrespect toward the more balanced FARMS writers, but FARMS style and antics are often less than scholarly.'

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/cpoin... _____

"Just what, exactly, was this 'fiasco' and how was Hamblin involved in it?

"An answer to that question exposes the FARMS boys as engaging (and eventually being caught in) some of the most infantile, imbecilic antics imaginable.

"Lecturer John Hatch, in an address at a Sunstone symposium entitled 'Why I No Longer Trust the FARMS Review of Books,' detailed this extremely unprofessional and embarrassing moment in the history of FARMS's juvenile and scurrilous attacks on Mormonism's critics:

"'Mormon book collectors know there is one issue of FARMS Review of Books that is extremely rare. It is the first statement of issue 6:1, the issue that was almost entirely dedicated to reviewing Brent Metcalfe's book, "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology."

"'The amount of space spent reviewing Metcalfe and his book is almost three hundred pages.

"'However, the important point for book collectors is the review by William Hamblin. In his review, Hamblin originally included an acrostic. An acrostic is something of a code or puzzle hidden within a set of paragraphs or lines. When one takes the first or last letter of the line or paragraph and puts them together, they form a word or phrase, similar to an acronym.

"'In this instance, by taking the first letter of every paragraph in the first few pages of Hamblin's review the phrase, "Metcalfe is Butthead" was formed. After the publisher of the book threatened a lawsuit, FARMS reprinted the issue rewording several of the paragraphs.

"'It was an incredibly unprofessional and downright immature move on the part of FARMS. Again, the question of "why" springs to mind. Why is such a childish and personal attack necessary?

"'Another disturbing facet of this story is the fact that the reviewer obviously spent the vast majority of his time trying to form the code that would spell out 'Metcalfe is Butthead' rather than trying to formulate a competent, persuasive review.

"'Why?

"'That is the question I have for FARMS that has never been answered. Why do they feel that scholars, church members, and even human beings can act the way they have at times and still be taken seriously and have the respect of others?'"

http://www.signaturebooks.com/sigstor... _____

"As Hamblin the Hypocrite so amply demonstrates, walking through a FARMS review is like attempting to cross through a farm's barnyard.

"You're quite likely to get some unwelcome material on the bottom of your boots."

*****

CONCLUSION

Excommunicated Mormon Brent Metcalfe is a solid, seasoned amd substantial critic of the LDS Church who lost both his LDS Church job and eventually his LDS Church membership because he was personally honest and open enough to do probing, persistent and public research that exposed the lies of the LDS cult.

That Metcalfe may not express views that are in line with what some other ex-Mormons think is appropriately "ex-Mo" is simply an example of what Metcalfe does best: namely, challenging people to think outside the box.

		HOME
		FAQ
		CONTACT ME
		369 TOPICS
		THE EX-MORMON FORUMS

How to navigate:

Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
Click the red arrow on the article to return to the top.
Right-Click and copythe "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.

Archived Blogs:

Spencer W. Kimball, The Lds Church And Organic Evolution: Personal Correspondence With Mormonism's Prophet Of Fraud

Who Among Us Had The Wondrously Wacky Experience Of Learning/squirming At The Feet Of Byu Religion Teacher Reid Bankhead?

Daniel C. Peterson: Master Mason Of Attack And Evasion

Behold!: Daniel C. Peterson Speaks Out On His Deep Throat Source(s) Regarding My Conversations With Oaks And Maxwell

Mormonism And The Futile Cult Quest For The American Presidency: Mitt Getting Increasingly Hit

From The Witness Box To The Mormon Cult: "You Want The Cartoon Truth? You Can't Handle The Cartoon Truth!"

"A Legacy Of Deception:" The Monstrous, Manipulated Myth Of The Mormon Battalion

Out-Dunning Paul H. Dunn: Orrin Hatch's Claim To Have Read Thousands Of Pages Of "Anti-Mormon" Literature

Male Pattern Smugness: Decades Later, Is The Manhandled LDS Church Still Opposed To The Equal Rights Amendment? Um, Is The Prophet Mormon?

The Magical Mystery Adam-On-Di-Amon Tour

The Mormon Church Says It Doesn't Like To Be Called "Mormon" But Violates Its Own Damn Style Guide