⇒ MAIN INDEX ⇒ MC FAQ ⇒ CONTACT ME ⇒ 306 TOPICS ⇒ EX-MORMON FORUMS |
|
|
 Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign! |
© 2005-2010 Compiled With: Caligra 2.0.1 ALPHA |
Containing 4,172 Articles Spanning 306 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 2".
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.
|
|
 | Monday, Jul 11, 2005, at 08:47 AM Returning - After A Fashion - To Recovery From Mormonism - And A Mike Quinn Matter Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| After an absence of some months from the RfM board, I will be returning in the relative near future, but in a modified and reduced form.
I will not be engaging in the kind of real-time, live and repeated reexamination of the same discussion issues that perennially crop up on this board (having been there and done that many times in the past). The RfM board was a helpful stepping stone in my own "bolt from the Cult." It provided me a much-needed opportunity to express my opinions and divulge my experiences in honest and open ways that I had never been able to do during all my time in Mormonism, to get many things off my chest that had burdened me for years, to listen to and learn from the perspectives of other fellow ex-Mormon travelers, to discover where I was in my process of individual development and to help point me toward where I wanted to go and what I wanted to do with the rest of my life in the bigger, brighter, post-Mormon world. Like many others who have come, stopped, looked in and participated at the welcomed RfM watering hole, I have largely moved on to greener pastures. Just as coming to RfM was an important milestone, leaving RfM was an necessary step for me, as my wife Mary Ann and I have chosen to focus on, and moved forward together in, other vital and fulfilling aspects of our lives. That said, and with Admin's permission, I will be re-posting some of Mary Ann's and my previous writings dealing with our experiences inside Mormon circles. These posting originally appeared on the RfM board during the time I was a regular and active participant here but which I requested be taken down when I left the board in September 2004. We are putting this material back up (in what exact form will be determined under Admin's direction) because we believe it is valuable to be exposed to as many personal, reliable and unique perspectives as possible when confronting and challenging the Mormon Cult's peculiarly anti-intellectual, anti-individual, anti-gay, anti-feminist, anti-black, anti-societal, anti-science, anti-historical, anti-open and otherwise offensive claims to supposed divine truth. If individuals are to have the power to make rational, informed decisions in their lives designed to bring them personal peace and happiness outside the controlling, stifling oppressiveness of the Mormon box, then they need-no, they deserve--as much information as possible upon which to base those decisions. As has been said, knowledge is power. Given the Mormon obsession with control over content, one cannot trust with any reasonable expectation of getting honest answers that Mormon leadership--from the top of the Church Office Building down to the obedient minions at the ward level-will provide accurate portrayals of LDS history, doctrine, policy or practice. We hope that our re-postings (including, among other things, our accounts of personal meetings with Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell, as well as recollections of life with Ezra Taft Benson and other Church leaders behind the Mormon curtain) will offer some meaningful reference points for making personal decisions about the alleged credibility of Mormonism. ***** That said, I would like to mention one other matter that I never brought up in my numerous previous posts on this board. It has to do with Michael Quinn, who has been a subject of discussion here lately, and deals with why he 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. As I mentioned on this board before, 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. Now, what Mike also told me (which I have not shared before on this board) is 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. See you in the re-posts. |
| | Tuesday, Jul 12, 2005, at 07:53 AM From The Mormon Mailbag: I'm An Rm Who Helped Your Grandfather In The Temple. You Need To Come Back Now Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| From time to time, various Latter-day Saints apparently mistake their attacks of fasting-induced indigestion for whisperings of
the Still Small Voice and write to tell me about it. In this particular episode, a Mormon named "Bob" from Lehi, Utah, e-mailed me his profound insights on how corruption in the Mormon hierarchy has, thankfully and by the grace of a loving God, been overcome through the inspired writings of LDS Church flacks. Apparently, it is now "Bob's" turn to bring me back into the crushing embrace of the Great Jehovah, who has reportedly been seen recently wandering around East South Temple in search of nothing better to do than to call "Bob" into action. For your reading convenience and to help the Spirit-impaired pick up humming noises emitting from the Holy Ghost, "Bob's" letter has been subtitled in capital letters. Go for it, Brother "Bob": FEELING THE SPIRIT THROUGH SHERI DEW Dear Steve, I have recently finished reading your grandfather's biography by Sheri Dew and was again touched by what a great man your grandfather was. I WAS IN THE TEMPLE WITH THE LARD'S PROPHET WHEN HIS MOUTH MUSCLES TURNED UPWARD AS A SIGN OF HIS DIVINE CALLING I was called to serve as a missionary in 1990 and had the opportunity of attending a temple session with your grandfather in the Jordan River Temple. In that session I had the opportunity to sit beind your grandpa and was able to help him during the session and at one point he looked at me and smiled. I remember how my heart burned! YOU LEFT THE CHURCH SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DRAGGED YOUR ENFEEBLED GRANDFATHER AROUND? WHERE ARE YOUR PRIORITIES? My purpose for writing is that I know you were not happy with how your felt the church handled your grandfather's declining years and I even heard that you made the decision to leave the church. I KNOW IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINES--BUT, FLIP, I'LL MAKE IT MY BUSINESS ANYWAY Quite frankly, it is none of my business, but I want you to know I come from a family where my grandparents became disenchanted with how the missionary department handled my uncle's nervous breakdown while on his mission. THIS REALLY IS NO BIG DEAL. GOD'S PROPHETS HAVE A HISTORY OF RUNNING ROUGHSHOD OVER THE LITTLE PEOPLE President Hinckley was in charge of the missionary department at that time and my grandmother never could forgive them. YOU NEED TO REPENT AND FORGIVE THESE SCREW-UPS BY GOD'S SERVANTS IF YOU WANT ANY CHANCE AT ALL THAT GOD WILL SAVE YOU They spent 30 years outside of the church before softening and realIzing the promised blessings. JUST BECAUSE THE CHURCH MANHANDLES ITS MEMBERS DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ISN'T TRUE I thought about you while reading in the biography about how your grandparents used to say "no empty chairs" and hope that you will see that the Church is a church full of imperfect people, yet it is the true church of Jesus Christ containing the authority and the ordinances that will make our families eternal. YOUR GRANDFATHER WANTS YOU BACK IN THE CULT. THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS Forgive me if I have been offensive to you in any way, but I can't help but think that if you still have ill feelings toward the church, how much your grandfather would be pleased if you came back. I HOPE ALL GOES WELL FOR YOU IN HELL BUT PLEASE REALIZE THAT I ONLY WANT YOU TO BE HAPPY Anyhow, I wish you the best and wanted you to know that I was thinking of you and your family. Sincerely, Bob J. Lehi, Utah ***** I wrote Bob back the following: The Mormon Church is a fraud, from its inception up the the present. Case closed. It's been awhile since Bob first sent me his e-mail and, golly darn, Bob hasn't written me back. |
| | Monday, Jul 18, 2005, at 08:04 AM What Do Mormonism's Alleged "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" Really Know?: From Their Own Lips Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: What Do Mormonism's General Authorities Really Know About the Supposed Truthfulness of the LDS Church--and How
Do They Supposedly Know It? A question often asked by those re-examining their Mormon faith is whether the General Authorities of the LDS Church genuinely believe the Church is true. They may believe it, but do they really know it? And are they forthright with the Mormon membership about what they say claim either believe or know? Based on my personal contact with some of Mormonism’s highest leaders, obtained through conversation and correspondence, the answers to these questions is simply "No." President Ezra Taft Benson My grandfather's testimony of Mormonism, as expressed to me repeatedly over the years in personal discussions and correspondence, was rooted in two basic beliefs: The Book of Mormon He fervently believed that the Book of Mormon was the revealed word of God and an actual historical document. From what I was able to observe, he never, for a moment, questioned its authenticity. That said, however, I never personally heard or saw him analyze or critique the Book of Mormon in any real depth on issues relating to its alleged historicity, authenticity or reliability. In private, his feelings about the Book of Mormon were not as resounding or convincing as they were when he was behind the pulpit My grandfather did admit to me, one-on-one, that even though he insisted the LDS Church was not neutral on the question of organic evolution, one could argue for or against it from the same Mormon scriptures. In other words, for all his publicly-expressed confidence in the Book of Mormon, in this particular instance he was not nearly as emphatic or confident in private as he appeared in public about the surety of LDS scripture. Nevertheless, his hesitancy on that question was not enough to shake his unbending faith in the authenticity of the gold plates. To my grandfather, they were without question the translated word of God, serving as a pillar of unshakeable, personal, testimonial faith. Ranking second only to revealed Mormon scripture in battling what he called godless Communism, he told me, were the publications of the John Birch Society--which he told me by letter every American should have access to. The Ranking Leaders of the Mormon Church My grandfather unquestioningly believed, and simply accepted, that the highest leaders of the Church--most notably, the LDS President and the First Presidency counselors, together with the Quorum of the Twelve--were inspired by God in leading the affairs of the Mormon Church. He insisted that all must follow the Brethren devoutly--and without skepticism For example, when he called me one snowy, wintry day in Provo, Utah (at the behest of my distraught mother) to tell me to break off my engagement to Mary Ann, he introduced himself by saying, "Stephen, I'm not calling as your grandfather, but as the President of the Quorum of the Twelve." He did, however, privately acknowledge to me that these Church leaders were human, that they made mistakes, that they did not always agree among themselves on doctrinal matters (such as on the official Church position on organic evolution) and that some matters about which they disagreed among themselves (again, such as with organic evolution) were not necessary to one's eternal salvation. Still, he told me that obedience to the General Authorities--even if what they claimed to be true was, in fact, wrong--constituted a fundamental principle of the Gospel. He assured me that God would bless those who followed the Brethren, even when the Brethren were in error. My grandfather also told me that he did not want me to publish anything that would undermine faith or testimony in the leaders of the Mormon Church. In short, he was more committed to the idea that obedience trumped truth than the other way around. My grandfather never claimed to me (or anyone else of whom I was aware) that he had personally seen God, Jesus Christ or other divine beings. He did, however, emotionally inform me that he had had an experience in the Salt Lake temple (regarding the announcement by President Kimball on Blacks and the priesthood) that was too sacred to talk about. He told me that it was one of the most "spiritual" experiences of his life but that he would not delve into it at all, even though I requested that he do so. He also informed the assembled Benson family at a Nauvoo, Illinois, reunion that there were other matters which he was not at liberty to discuss, either. What those were, he never did say. He was never specific with me in revealing any particular personal experiences of his that formed the basis for his testimony of the truthfulness of Mormonism--other than to bear witness to knowing that truth of LDS claims through the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie In a lengthy face-to-face conversation I had with McConkie at his home while doing a BYU research paper on the official Mormon Church position on the subject of organic evolution, McConkie strongly emphasized what was an obvious and fundamental basis for his belief in the truthfulness of the Mormon Church. That foundation was that the Standard Works of the Church served as the ultimate authority in determining LDS doctrinal truth--even more so than the words of the so-called "living prophets." McConkie said that the canonized LDS scriptures superceded anything that living Presidents of the Church had declared, or might declare. He said that the Standard Works served as the final test--the pre-eminent standard of measurement--in ascertaining the validity of any claim made by Mormon Church leaders, including teachings of both living and dead presidents of the Church. Otherwise, McConkie told me, these scriptures would not be known as the "Standard" Works. In making this claim, McConkie specifically criticized in my presence two LDS Church Presidents whom he said had made uninspired pronouncements while serving as heads of the Church. Their pronouncements were false, he argued, because what they said was clearly contradicted by the LDS Standard Works: --The first was President Brigham Young, for his teachings on the Adam-God doctrine (specifically, that Adam, of Adam and Eve fame, was actually our Heavenly Father and had sired Jesus Christ through sex with Mary). On this subject, McConkie admitted to me that one could quote Young against himself. --The second Mormon Church head to utter false doctrine in that capacity was, McConkie told me, President David O. McKay. McConkie said that McKay delivered untruths to BYU students in a campus oration, in which he advised them to study the theory of organic evolution and the geologic history pointing to an ancient earth. McKay told the students that organic evolution was a beautiful theory, as long as God was not divorced from it, and that the Earth was, in fact, millions of years old. McConkie informed me that these claims of McKay had not been inspired by the Holy Ghost. McConkie did not admit to having himself made any doctrinal errors himself. In this area, his testimony seemed to rest on his own sense of doctrinal infallibility. In fact, McConkie told me that his emphatic claim(published in the first edition of his book Mormon Doctrine but edited out of its second edition) that the Roman Catholic Church was the Church of the Devil was true. When I asked him to explain its deletion from the books later edition, McConkie insisted that it was removed not because it was not true but because it was too difficult for people to accept. President Spencer W. Kimball During the course of my BYU research paper on the official LDS stand regarding organic evolution, I repeatedly corresponded with Kimball, who was then Mormon Church President. Throughout the course of our exchanges, I had a difficult and increasingly frustrating time obtaining direct and clear answers from him on the subject, even though I made specific and detailed inquiries. For instance, on the question of previous First Presidency statements on the physical origins of humankind, Kimball informed me in personal correspondence that he was not familiar with the First Presidency statements I had cited in my initial correspondence with him and requested that I mail them to him, which I did. Clearly, whatever confidence Kimball had in the truthfulness of Mormonism was not always based on official Mormon positions enunciated by the Presidents of the Church, some of which he admitted to me he knew nothing. However, in contradicting Kimball for whom he worked, Secretary to the Office of the First Presidency, Arthur C. Haycock, later told me in a phone conversation that Kimball was incorrect in confessing to me ignorance about the First Presidency statements he had asked me to send him. In a discussion from his Church office in Salt Lake City, Haycock informed me that Kimball was, in fact, aware of those official First Presidency statements--but that he had forgotten he was aware of them. When I asked Haycock for permission to reproduce Kimball’s correspondence to me in a BYU undergraduate research paper I was doing on the subject, Haycock said I could--as long as I made it clear in my paper that the interpretations reached about Kimball's correspondence with me were my own. Haycock did not offer me Kimball’s explanatons of his owncorrespondence with me, assuming Kimball had any to give. I continued to press Kimball for answers but received none from him. Eventually, the First Presidency (consisting of Kimball and his two counselors, N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney) signed and sent a letter to my Arizona bishop, directing him to answer my questions in their behalf. To assist the bishop in that effort, Kimball, Tanner and Romney included a 1909 statement from the First Presidency of Joseph F. Smith on the subject of organic evolution--a statement that Kimball had told me in his earlier correspondence with me that he was not familiar with and which had I ended up sending to him, at his request. Although they included the 1909 statement for use by my bishop in explaining to me the official Church position on organic evolution to me, the Kimball First Presidency did not tell my bishop what that statement meant. Despite Kimball's, Tanner's and Romney's directive to my bishop to answer my questions on the official Church stance on organic evolution, the bishop felt unqualified to do so. Therefore, the bishop advised me to write Kimball one more time, requesting further clarification on the subject. I did so but Kimball never answered back. On the subject of organic evolution and faith, the only direction Kimball gave me was to ask if I had Henry Eyring's book, Faith of a Scientist, in which Eyring asserted that science and religion both served as tools in the search for truth: the former in helping people avoid myth; and the latter in directing people toward God. When I told Kimball that I had read Eyring's book and asked him to provide me with his own views on it, Kimball remained silent. Apostle Mark E. Petersen In conducting my research on the question of the official Mormon Church position on organic evolution, I also corresponded with Petersen. Petersen evidenced in personal correspondence with me a lack of firm belief in the seemingly official pronouncements of even unsigned editorials in the official LDS publication, the Church News. In pressing him, Petersen admitted to me the following: --The unsigned Church News editorials written on the subject of organic evolution had actually been authored by him. --These editorials represented his personal opinion only. --Official statements on Church doctrine came soley from signed First Presidency statements. Petersen then refused to tell me, even though I specifically asked him to so, what the official Mormon Church position was on the topic of organic evolution. Apostle Dallin H. Oaks In a conversation that my wife Mary Ann and I had with Oaks shortly before leaving the Mormon Church, he told me that the basis for his personal testimony about the truthfulness of Mormonism took the form of a warm spiritual witness which he felt in his heart. From what Oaks told me, this witness had particular meaning for him with regard to the truthfulness of official Mormon scripture. Oaks admitted, for instance, that critics of the Book of Abraham seemed to presently have hold the upper hand in arguments against its authenticity. Oaks told me, however, that the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham ultimately came through a personal, spiritual witness. Oaks further said that the Book of Mormon could neither be proven or disproven by evidentiary examination, but in the end, also had to be accepted on faith. In admitting that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon could not be empirically proven, Oaks acknowledged that portions of the Book of Mormon (albeit insignificant, in his opinion) might have potential problems with plagiarism. Specifically, he admitted that he, too, had wondered while composing his own sermons how the words of the Apostle Paul from his epistles to the Corinthians could end up, almost word for word, in the Book of Mormon, even though Bible prophets preceded their counterparts in the Book of Mormon by generations. Oaks concluded that God must have inspired Bible and Book of Mormon prophets to speak using the same, exact language. Oaks then attempted to minimize obvious Book of Mormon plagiarisms by drawing a comparison between the Book of Mormon and one’s marriage. He said that one should not abandon one’s marriage because it is not perfect; likewise, Oaks argued that merely because 5% of the Book of Mormon (an estimation he came up with himself based upon a quick perusal of a paperback copy of the book which wife Mary Ann had highlighted with examples of plagiarisms), one should not abandon it, either. Regardless, Oaks informed me that he had received a spiritual witness that served as the basis for his personal testimony that the Book of Mormon was true. Oaks's testimony regarding Mormonism's apostles and prophets was both illuminating--and conditional. He admitted to me not being impressed with the antics of certain fellow members of the Quorum of the Twelve, notably his senior, Boyd K. Packer. After it became public knowledge that Packer had improperly involved himself in the excommunication of Mormon dissident, Paul Toscano, Oaks, in referring to Packer, told me, "You can't stage manage a grizzly bear." Oaks then lied on the record to the press about what he actually knew of Packer's inappropriate behavior and was forced to retract when caught. Oaks told me that he would steadfastly stand by the President of the Church, with one notable exception: Oaks would not defer, he said, to the President of the Church if the President were to come out and declare that the Book of Mormon was not true. If that should happen, Oaks said he would look to the Quorum of the Twelve for a vote as to whether what the Church President had said about the Book of Mormon deserved support. Oaks also did not seem all that certain with regard to the reliability of prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets. He told me that Church members should not be keeping track of which prophecies had been borne out and, further, that prophecies made by Mormon prophets were for private, rather than public, application. Oaks downplayed the prophetic role of Mormon Church prophets by asserting that prophesying was only a minor responsibility of prophets. Their major role, he declared, was to testify of Jesus Christ. Oaks argued that the role of Mormon prophets had evolved over time. He told me, for instance, that the basic doctrines of Mormonism were revealed by Joseph Smith early on in the history of the Church. Oaks noted that the more modern approach of Church governance has been, since the time of President Joseph F. Smith, to "beseech his counselors in the First Presidency to help him, to watch over him, so that they could together make the right decisions that God wanted them to make." When I asked Oaks to share with me his personal testimony that served as a basis for his apostolic calling as a special witness for Christ, Oaks recounted his days as a college student at the University of Chicago, where he said he had questions about the Mormon Church. Oaks did not detail the nature of those questions but said a local LDS Institute teacher helped him find answers. Apostle Neal A. Maxwell Maxwell was together with, and participated in, the same conversations I had with Oaks. Maxwell seemed equally unsure as to the evidentiary proof for the Book of Mormon. He told me, for instance, that God would not provide proof of the Book of Mormon until the end--thereby indicating that such proof did not presently exist. Maxwell also told me that one of the purposes of FARMS was to prevent the General Authorities from being outflanked by the Church's critics. As to how he personally regarded the pronouncements of president of the Church, Maxwell said it was his duty to be loyal to the Church president. Maxwell added, however, that he not agree with everything President Ezra Taft Benson had to say on political matters. This was a particularly interesting admission, given that Benson had earlier (albeit as an apostle) publicly declared that God's prophets could speak authoritatively on all matters, including those of a political nature. Maxwell, like Oaks, warned me against keeping "box scores" when it came to tallying which prophecies uttered by Mormon prophets turned out to be turned--and which ones turned out to be false. He further reminded me that Mormon prophets spoke as prophets only when they were acting as prophets--but that, for instance, the teachings about people living on the moon attributed to Joseph Smith were probably misreported. Maxwell also instructed me as to how revelation for the Mormon Church was actually received. He said that Joseph Smith's role as unilaterally revealing doctrine in behalf of the LDS Church was a practice not continued by subsequent Mormon prophets. Maxwell claimed there are four levels of fundamental Church doctrine: (1) Doctrines revealed by the prophet speaking alone (2) Doctrines revealed by the prophet in conjunction with his First Presidency counselors (3) Doctrines revealed in First Presidency statements, with the words of the First Presidency assuming "a special status" (4) Doctrines revealed by official declaration Maxwell and Oaks, together, asserted that what the President of the Mormon Church said must be in compliance with the Standard Works of the Church in order to be accepted as acripture. They also said that that when Brigham Young taught what Oaks called the "false" doctrine of Adam-God, it was because he was a young prophet who was in need of the help of some good counselor. When I asked Maxwell to share with me his personal testimony as to his apostolic calling as a Special Witness of Christ, he told me about the time when, as a young boy, he witnessed his father give his sibling a healing priesthood blessing. Conclusion: Pulling Back the Curtain and Revealing the Charade The above statements by Mormonism's supposed prophets, seers and revelators speak for themselves. Based upon their own admissions, these men do not have persuasive, convincing or complete knowledge concerning the truthfulness of Mormon doctrine or scripture. Nor do they have unswerving confidence in the ability of Mormon prophets, including the President of the Church, to speak the truth. The Mormon Church is a consumate fraud, based upon myths perpetrated by its leaders in public and confessed by them in private. |
| | Thursday, Jul 21, 2005, at 07:48 AM Mormon Women Are Subservient? But How Can That Be? They've Got Relief Society Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: From Sonia Johnson to Emma Smith and Beyond Back in 1980, Mary Ann and I lived in McClean, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., where we had relocated after I graduated from BYU with a degree in political science and, with Mary Ann and our two small children, headed east to do a post-graduate internship with a Senate committee on Capitol Hill. At the time, national debate was raging over the Equal Rights Amendment. In the forefront of opposition to the ERA were legions of devout and manipulated Mormons who (with the omnipresent support and encouragement of their Salt Lake City puppet masters) were ominously warning that passage of the ERA would result in unbelievably dire consequences (up but not limited to) the complete meltdown of society as we know it. Thanks in large measure to the time and money expended by the Mormons in lobbying against it, the ERA was defeated in 1983. As many remember, at the center of the ERA battle was then-(and soon-to-be excommunicated) Mormon feminist Sonia Johnson. Like most faithful Latter-day Saints who shelved their brains in favor of obedience to the Lord’s oinked and anointed, I, too, opposed passage of the ERA. On the bright side of that mindless decision, however, Johnson’s bold stand for the ERA eventually piqued my curiosity enough that I bought her book, From Housewife to Heretic: One Woman’s Struggle for Equal Rights and Her Excommunication from the Mormon Church (Garden City, New York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1983). http://www.ffrf.org/day/?day=27&month=2 It was one of the first genuinely critical assessments of Mormonism that I had ever deliberately obtained in order to try and understand the “other side.” Johnson’s compelling story, written in a tone of courage and outrage, helped plant the seeds for my own dissent with, and eventual escape from, Mormonism. . Johnson’s personal story—that of a strong, independently-minded Mormon woman who was oppressed and abused by a misogynistic patriarchal society—also led me to seek out two other books which helped me immensely in my liberation from Mormonism’s lunacy: The first of those two was Richard S. Van Wagoner’s book, Mormon Polygamy: A History (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books, 1992) http://www.lds-mormon.com/polygamy.shtml I read Van Wagoner’s work with a combination of jaw-dropping amazement and stomach-turning disgust a few months before Mary Ann and I left Mormonism. Its sweeping exposure of polygamy helped me, like no other resource, begin to fathom the nature and scope of the oppressive Mormon institutional mindset that served to suffocate and enslave women at the hands of a male-invented-male-run-for-the-benefit-of-males Church. The second book, which I read shortly after Mary Ann and I left the Mormon Church, was Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994) http://www.irr.org/mit/enigma.html The psychological torture and abuse that she suffered at the hands of her conniving, manipulative, narcissistic and sexually-predacious husband sickened and angered me. That is why I now look back with a sense of bewilderment mixed with chagrin at the time in my past when I swallowed the lie—hook, line and sinker—that the Mormon Church supposedly accepted, respected and treated women as human beings deserving of equal treatment both under the law and within the norms of a fair and just society. Papering Over the Truth About Mormonism’s Mistreatment of Women During the height of the ERA battle in the spring of 1980, a Mormon friend of mine—first name of “David”—wrote a refutation research paper for an English class at local community college in Virginia, entitled, “THE MORMON FEMALE—A SUBSERVIENT WOMAN?” I am sorry to have to admit this but back then as a fully-endowed Mormon man-child, I assisted my friend in providing some of his research. But, hey, he ended up writing the damn thing and sticking his name to it, whereas I have since done the required penance by making my bolt from the Cult. What can one say but, “Live, learn and leave”? Below is the text of my friend’s effort, several copies which he gave to me. Little did either of us know that one day it would be presented to the world on the Recovery from Mormonism website, where it is destined to be mocked , derided and debunked through time and all eternity . The essence of my friend’s position is the patently absurd, and historically untenable, notion that Mormon women enjoy equal status with men in the LDS Church. Read this piece of apologetic nonsense and enjoy picking it apart: In an interview with the Salt Lake City-based Deseret News on November 23, 1979, Richard Johnson, estranged husband of excommunicated Mormon Sonia Johnson, declared the view of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [Mormon] to be “that the man stands aloft and the woman is subservient.” Implicit in Mr. Johnson’s statement is the charge that, compared to their male counterparts; Mormon women are denied positions of dignity, trust, and responsibility within the Church. It is the purpose of this paper to point out the inaccuracies of Mr. Johnson’s claim and, in doing so, to clarify the actual role of women in the Mormon Church. By way of brief background, much of the public misunderstanding regarding the status of women in the Church as arisen from national interest in the Church’s position on the Equal Rights Amendment, kindled in large measure by the much-publicized trial and excommunication of feminist Sonia Johnson. The Church has officially gone on record as opposing the ERA, which it regards as “a moral issue with many disturbing ramifications for women and for the family as individual members and as a whole.” In criticizing the Church’s position, Mrs. Johnson told a meeting of the American Psychological Association in New York City that Mormon males are the “real oppressors” of women in the Church. Similarly, Mrs. Johnson, before an audience of students at the University of Utah, declared that male leaders were guilty of a “savage misogyny”—or hatred of women—in claiming to hold them in high regard while denying them equal power with men. In defense of his wife and in what he claims to be a “contrary” position to the view of the Mormon Church, Mr. Johnson says he “support[s] her belief in equality for the sexes.” However, an examination of both the official statements made by high-ranking Church authorities and of the Church’s actual policy toward its women members clearly shows that Mr. Johnson’s assertions are unfounded. In February 1980, the Mormon Church published a pamphlet for members and non-members alike entitled, The Church and the Equal Rights Amendment—A Moral Issue, in which the Church officially declared itself to be “firmly committed to equal rights for women.” While it is true that Mormon women do not hold the priesthood, this is not regarded in Mormon theology as lowering women to a “subservient level.” Indeed, as stated by John A> Widstoe, a former leader in the Mormon Church hierarchy: “In the Church there is full equality of man and woman. The place of woman in the Church is to walk beside the man, not in front of him or behind him. There can be no question in the Church of man’s rights versus woman’s rights.” An example of the unique and vital role played by women in the Church is seen in the history and operation of the Church’s “Relief Society,” the oldest national women’s organization in the United States. According to Belle S. Spafford—former president of the Relief Society and past president of the National Council of Women, who has, since 1947, served as a voting delegate from the U.S. Council to the International Council of Women—the creation of the Relief Society signaled “the actual beginning of organized effort for women’s emancipation from restraints that had for years encumbered her full development and usefulness.” Mrs. Spafford’s assertion regarding the leading role played by the Relief Society in the American women’s movement is based on her observation that, prior to the organization of the Relief Society in 1842, “the rise of the American woman” had enjoyed only “faint beginnings.” The Relief Society was created in response to an appeal from Mormon women to Church leaders that the women be organized in order to more effectively serve the Church and people in general. The Relief Society was subsequently organized according to parliamentary procedures, with its major aims being to strengthen motherhood and encourage women’s learning, as well as to stimulate involvement in religious, compassionate, cultural and community pursuits. Under the direction of the presiding authorities of the Church, the women were “authorized to direct, control and govern the affairs of the society . . . in the sphere assigned to it.” Mormon women were thus, from the very beginning, granted positions of dignity, trust and responsibility in the Church. Their mental capacities were recognized, together with their right to develop their talents in full. In fact, almost since the founding of the Church in 1830, Mormon women have enjoyed the right to vote on religious matters, a privilege which elsewhere at that time was permitted for only a few men and no women. In addition to the right to vote on the sustaining of Church officers and on the appropriation of Church funds, Mormon women, as well as men, participate in vocal prayer, classroom instruction and congregational speaking. The exercise of these rights is openly encouraged, as can be seen by attending any Mormon worship service. On the political front, the Relief Society was instrumental in helping to further the cause of women’s suffrage. In 1888, it was represented at the National Women’s Suffrage Convention which convened in Washington, D.C., and whose central figure proved to be Susan B. Anthony. The chief outcome of this convention was the formation of the National Council of Women of the United States, to be made up of national women’s organizations or organizations whose programs were of national importance for women’s rights. The International Council of Women was also formed, to consist of national committees participating from the nations in attendance at the convention. In a preliminary meeting to the convention, Miss Anthony encouraged all participants to maintain the platform principles so “that our platform may be kept as broad as the universe, that upon it may stand the representatives of all creeds and no creeds—Jew or Christian, Protestant or Catholic, Gentile or Mormon, page or atheist.” Years later, Ida H. Harper, author of the Life and Work of Susan B. Anthony, expressed her gratitude to the women of the Relief Society “who were loyal and helpful to Miss Anthony to the end of her great work.” Not until 1929, however, was the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted, granting American women the right to vote and hold public office. Significantly, Utah women had been granted suffrage by a predominantly Mormon Utah State legislature 50 years earlier and were thus to emerge as prominent figures in the national women’s suffrage movement. Membership roles of the Relief Society have expanded from only eighteen in 1842 to approximately 900,000 women 18 years of age and over, representing many nationalities and operating in 64 countries. Its programs and instructional materials are currently translated into 17 different languages. In keeping with is open door membership policy, non-Mormon, as well as Mormon, women participate in Relief Society activates. In addition to sponsorship of this worldwide organization, the Church encourages its members to work “energetically for appropriate change” where specific laws and practices are know to discriminate against women. This encouragement is based on official Church recognition “that there have been injustices to women before the law and in society.” Examples of equality for women which merit Mormon support include equal pay for equal work; non-discrimination in hiring practices when a male and female apply for the same positions and are equally qualified; and equality in education, credit eligibility, housing and public accommodations. From the evidence cited above, it is clear that the Mormon Church recognized and fully supports all efforts by women to develop their full potential as human beings—to enrich their mental capacities, to develop their talents and to increase their skills—so that they may offer the world that which will be most productive, regardless of the direction their lives may take. Richard Johnson has attracted media attention while assuming the role of speaking for the Church regarding the position of women within its ranks. Whether or not this self-appointment is justified cannot dismiss the fact that, once made, Mr. Johnson took upon himself the responsibility to fairly portray the views of the Church he chose to represent. Unfortunately, in claiming that the Mormon Church regards the woman as “subservient” to the man, he has completely misrepresented both the words and actions of the Church through its 150-year history. ***** Well? :) |
| | Friday, Jul 22, 2005, at 09:33 AM Mormonism Stands For "The Dignity Of Women"--And For Men, "The Apex Of Authority" Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Now Playing, the Mormon Cult Film: “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” It is astounding, and tragic at the same time, how the Mormon Cult has done such an effective job at roto-rootering the minds of its members, convincing them that the highest level of existence one can hope for is a world where there is no equality between the sexes or independent thought between the ears. It is especially sad to see so many Mormon women lured into believing that the LDS Church actually honors and respects them as unique individuals. In fact, the opposite is true: Mormonism has done nothing less than to transform Mormon women into beasts of burden for the men who "rule the roosts;" to define for women their "proper" role in life; and to convince them to do, and to be, what Mormon man-gods command. This, women are promised by Mormonism’s sexist soothsayers, will bring them days of personal happiness, lives of glorious fulfillment, mountains of self-respect and blessings eternal and forever. The trouble is, of course, that the real world doesn't work that way. Try as hard as they might to convince themselves otherwise (thanks to the relentless pressure from Mormon male authorities to listen and obey), millions of Mormon women end up being depressed, despondent and resentful of their telestially testosteroned task masters. Who can blame them? Truth be told, the temple name for a good many of these manhandled Mormon women should be “Prozac.” Present them at the Veil and their prescription shall be granted. For countless women trapped in the Mormon Cult, it could just as aptly be known as “The Church of, Jesus Christ! Happy I Ain’t.” What is so unfortunate is to see young Mormon women who—like their male counterparts are brainwashed from the crib—stand before audiences and robotically recite the Restoration’s Rhetoric of Repression. The Proof is in the Puddin’-Heads I recently came across a talk given as part of a school assignment by one of my TBM siblings. The Mormon Jesus would have undoubtedly been proud. As pups, recall how we were constantly being obedience trained by our masters in the LDS kennels of home and church, so that we could, on command, perform stupid Mormon tricks in public. Like presentations before classmates that hold Neanderthal Man up as a role model for young girls and boys. Across the top of the front page of this talk was the handwritten name of my sib and underneath it were scribbled the words, “Approx. 4-and-a-half minutes.” 4-and-a-half-minutes to mess up lifetimes for gullible, insecure, manipulated and mistreated Mormon females everywhere. Go for it. The subject of this diligent discourse was the ERA. The Equal Rights Amendment: Tool of Satan, Menace to Mankind This amendment’s defeat at the hands of the God’s Church was, of course, declared by Mormon Maledumb to be an absolute moral imperative, ordered from Heaven Above. The text of my sib’s talk—carefully crafted in a combination of youthful pencil scrawls, inked notes and typed outlines on both blank and lined paper—unfolded as follows: "The so-called 'Equal Rights Amendment' for women has far-reaching effects that the public is not being told. "This amendment has been ratified by 30 states already, and a total of only 38 is needed for it to become Constitutional Law. "The amendment, on the surface, seems to be 'just the thing,' but the public is not being told the truth about its far-reaching objectives and results. Among other things, the amendment would: "1. Make women subject to the draft, including combat duties; "2. Nullify state laws concerning marriage and divorce . . . mak[ing] every wife in the U.S. legally responsible to provide 50% of the financial support of her family; "3. Bar the states from imposing greater liability for support on a husband than on a wife, [and] eliminate Social Security benefits and protective labor laws that women now enjoy; "4. Destroy the natural foundation of marriage and the home; "5. Force married women to leave home and children for work; "6. Lift from the husband and father any special obligations to support his family; "7. Accord to Yale law professor, Thomas Emerson, the amendment would 'prohibit the states from requiring that a child’s last name be the same as his father’s or mother’s . . . would invalidate sex laws . . .seduction and rape laws; invalidate laws especially designed to protect women . . . from being forced into prostitution . . . 'etc. "8. Integrate rest rooms in public places, including schools; demand--by law--associated locker rooms, showers and [public] rest rooms; integrate prisons sexually. . . integrate both boys’ and girls’ physical education classes in high schools and colleges . . . knock out present laws protecting women and girls from sexual crimes, such as statutory rape . . . Wipe out a woman’s present freedom of choose to take a paying job or to be a full-time wife and mother supported by her husband. "These are just a few of the manifestations of the Amendment! "Yet, there is one thing that the Equal Rights Amendment does not agree to provide. And that is the guarantee of better paying jobs, promotions and better working conditions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Act and other laws already guarantee women ”equal pay for equal work” and need only to be enforced to ensure women equal opportunity. "Where any form of hysteria sweeps the land, reason is submerged. Today we are witnessing a form of hysteria in the push by the states of the nation to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which roared through both Houses of Congress with lop-sided majorities. "Basically, the amendment provides for the establishment of what it calls 'equal rights' for women. I believe, however, that instead of elevating women it brings them down to the level of men who, under existing statutes, are burdened with heavy responsibilities. "Man, in his legislative wisdom, through the years has been fashioning laws and customs that were calculated to protect, dignify and even enable women and the family unit. "The entire foundation of our society is based upon the family, with the father assuming the apex of authority. "This mainstay is undermined with the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, for it would neutralize the obligation of a husband and a father to support his wife and children. Think of what a precious right this is. Yet, it will be one of the prime casualties if the amendment wins ratification. "Sorry, but the ERA will inevitably make for the splitting of homes. "This outrageous proposition now trumpets, in one shrill cadence, that there are no differences between the sexes. The ERA assumes that both sexes have the same hopes, the same instincts, the same ambitions and the same strength and durability, while every fact of nature tells us it isn’t so. "May I close with a statement by Dr. Jonathan H. Pincus, Professor of Neurology at the Yale Medical School: "'I would predict that the Equal Rights Amendment and many of the other goals of its proponents will bring social destruction, unhappiness and increasing rates of divorce and desertion. Weakening of family ties may also lead to increased rates of alcoholism and suicide.' "May we as Americans uphold the dignity of women and the sacredness of the family and give an overwhelming 'No' to the mis-named 'Equal Rights Amendment.' The Mormon Ability to Get Women to Denigrate Themselves Into Depending on Men It takes a village to raise a child. It takes a Cult to warp one Welcome to Mormonism--Land of the Walking Wounded, the Psychologically Battered, the Deeply Insecure, the Permanently Depressed, the Individually Unidentifiable. At least they’re properly obedient to the men folk. |
| | Monday, Jul 25, 2005, at 08:36 AM The Hinckleys And The Bensons Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| What is the relationship between the Hinckleys and the Bensons?
Well, that is a delicate question which I cannot presently address in much detail because of confidentiality concerns. Let me just say, however, that Gordon B. Hinckley has grumped behind closed doors that he thinks the Benson clan is crazy. Whether that declaration constitutes officialy-sanctioned modern-day revelation from God to His Church on the earth might be a matter of debate, but certainly is not disputed by many. :) Hinckley has also been known to sarcastically criticize Benson family members to his friends. Hinckley reportedly has also has been very inquisitive (some might say overly and inappropriately personal) in grilling members of the Benson family regarding their private lives, in areas where Hinckley appears to have an unusual and obsessive interest. Meanwhile, the Benson TBMs who I know continue to dutifully follow the "living prophet," but still preferentially, reverentially and proudly adorn their homes, parlors, desk tops and entryways with portraits of Ezra Taft Benson--their very own in-house dead prophet and grander-than-life royal family patriarch. |
| | Friday, Jul 29, 2005, at 08:21 AM How A Toe Led To Complete Forgiveness Of Sin Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Priesthood blessings can surprise the hell out of you.
Ask and ye shall receive--sometimes more than you asked for. Back when I was still in the Mormon Church, I had a health scare. A large, flat mole had suddenly appeared on the inside of one of my toes. I showed it to Mary Ann, mentioned it to my parents and they immediately recommended that I fly to Salt Lake for examination by a friend and neighbor cancer specialist. I agreed to go but before heading out of Phoenix for the Land Northward, I decided to ask for a priesthood blessing from a member of our ward who was a friend of mine. This fellow was our stake mission leader (under whom I had served as a missionary) and was very faithful and, well, intense. He had joined the LDS Church as a California convert from Zen Buddhism, after having risen to top-level black belt status in the martial arts. He studied and believed in white magic, was convinced that Joseph Smith was a practitioner of white magic himself as inspired by God to divine truth through its use, was a devoted fan of B.H. Roberts notions on the nature of the Mormon Godhead and (I learned later from him in a private conversation) had actually built himself a temple altar in his master bedroom, where he would don his complete Mormon temple clothing set and kneel at it every evening to beseech heaven in the True Order of Prayer before retiring for the night. Anyway, before flying up to Utah to have my toe tested, this ward brother and buddy came over to our home to give me the requested blessing. He entered our home, solemn and soulful, having spent some time beforehand fasting and praying to properly prepare for the moment. He commenced with the blessing, slowly and deliberately anointing my head with oil, laying his hands upon my head and, in a dramatic voice, promising me that through the power of God's holy oom-pah-pah, I would be healthy and cancer-free. Then came the bombshell. With his hands still on my head, he announced that God had forgiven me of all my sins. Nice. After the purging was completed, I politely thanked him and flew off to Zion, where my toe mole was excised and analyzed by my parents' oncologist and declared to be benign. Meanwhile, my sin-eradicating blesser friend eventually got divorced; moved to Provo to work for Stephen Covey's mega self-help corporation as a consultant, lecturer and author; got tangled up in a messy lawsuit against Covey; left Mormonism; found a girlfriend, phoned me out of the blue peppering his language with F-this and F-that., then moved to Las Vegas, where I haven't heard from him since. (His daughter, however, who had been one of our kid's best friends, did call and told us how grateful she was that her dad was now normal). By this time, I, too, had left Mormonism. My, how things change. But praise be to Elohim, at least my black-belted, white magic-led, temple altar-building friend had, through the power of the mighty priesthood, forgiven me of all my sins before both he and I lost our lease in the Celestial Kingdom and fell from grace. Amen, ramen and say when. |
| | Friday, Jul 29, 2005, at 11:28 AM CNN's Claim That Mormon Membership Is 3 Million - And The Lack Of An Official Mormon Church Response Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| A few months ago, Anderson Cooper, of CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" fame, filed an investigative report on polygamy in Colorado City, Arizona.
During the course of his presentation, Cooper noted that the Salt Lake City-based Mormon Church had a membership of "3 million." Not 3 million active members, but 3 million members, period. I have heard virtually no official LDS response to Cooper's claim, in which it has contested those numbers. Could it be that if the Mormon Church actually stepped forward to dispute Cooper's memberhsip math with numbers of its own, it would lead sharp-smelling reporters to request to see LDS membership records that supposedly verify whatever number the Mormon Church might claim constitutes its actual, total membership? I smell a rat. The official LDS silence on Cooper's coast-to-coast numbers story is deafening. The Church's telling lack of a response might well indicate that the Mormon Spin Machine would rather remain mute on Cooper's report than run the risk of being asked to produce an actual roll call, which could be quite embarrasing for the Church in light of what have very likely been its over-inflated membership numbers claims in the past. |
| | Monday, Aug 8, 2005, at 07:17 AM The Truth On Post-Manifesto Polygamy That Got Mike Quinn Excommunicated--And The Private, Pathetic Response Of Two Mormon Apostles To Quinn’s Expose’ Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: What Got Michael Quinn Canned? Inquiries have recently been made on this board 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.shtml _____ 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_polygamy.shtml _____ 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_polygamy.shtml But wait, there’s more. Now, as they say, some more of the story. :) _____ Years Later Amongst 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 Attack 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, infact, 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. _____ 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. |
| | Monday, Aug 8, 2005, at 02:13 AM Giving Honest Answers To Honest People About Mormonism's Under-Explained Underwear And The Over-Protected Temples That Spawn It Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| It's important to follow a policy of full disclosure when sincerely interested people make inquiries about the secret Mormon temple ceremony and its accompanying performance wardrobe of fundie undies.
After all, how many of us ex-Mormons would have greatly appreciated knowing a lot more about Mormonism's temple unmentionables a lot earlier in our own lives? Certainly, inquiring minds are not going to get the full scoop from the LDS Church spin machine, its sales-pitching missionaries or its indoctrinated, cagey members who regularly lie, fudge, divert or otherwise put up smokescreens in order to protect their cult religion from meaningful scrutiny. Back in 2002, I was given the opportunity to speak at a national convention of the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The audience was overwhelmingly non-Mormon and many had questions about the LDS faith. It was a chance to speak directly, honestly and without inhibition to rational, intelligent and curious people about what really goes on behind Mormonism's thick temple doors--as well as what goes on to the behinds of Mormons in the form of their secret underwear. Below is the text of my remarks. For photos of demonstrations that took place during the presentation, see: http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/dec02/benson.php ***** Thanks for this wonderful "Emperor Has No Garments" statue. During her presentation last night, Julia Sweeney talked about how meeting Mormon missionaries helped drive her to atheism. You know, Julia, it had the same effect on me. I was a Mormon missionary and, like Julia said, we used to go door-to-door, two-by-two, bringing God's message to the unsuspecting people of Japan. As Julia said, in doing so, we announced that we were, indeed, messengers from God. I remember one evening in Okinawa, when my missionary buddy and I were out working the neighborhoods. I was brand new at this--what they called in the business a "greenie." It was my turn to do what was known as "the door approach." We stood at the entrance of one home and, as is the custom in Japan, I declared our presence by loudly yelling out in Japanese, "Please excuse us!" A tiny Japanese woman slid open her front door and seeing two ugly Americans, immediately fell to her knees and bowed her face to the floor in the traditional Japanese greeting. It was then my turn to speak. I had memorized my door approach but didn't understand a word I was saying. (Kind of like speaking in tongues without knowing what tongue.) I told the woman in Japanese, "We are messengers from God." We looked a little strange, so---who knows?--maybe she believed us. I then said, "We have brought a special message for you and your family." Then I asked, "Is your husband home?" She replied, "No, he isn't." I said, "We'll be back in this neighborhood next week and would like to drop by when he's here." At that point, the Japanese woman started to laugh, covering her mouth with her hand and "tee-hee-heeing." The Japanese are a very polite people, so for her to start laughing in my face was highly unusual. In fact, she kept on laughing and wouldn't stop, so I just gave up and we left the porch. Walking down the street, I turned to my missionary buddy and said, "What happened?" He said, "Well, you told her we were messengers from God and that we were bringing a special message to her and her family. You asked if her husband was home. "When she said 'no,' you said, 'We'll be back in this galaxy next week.' " Mormons do indeed live on another planet. In fact, they actually believe God lives on a planet called "Kolob" with his innumerable polygamous wives--and that if Mormons do what he tells them, after they die they, too, can become gods just like him, create lots of worlds, make millions of spirit babies and be Masters of the Universe. Which leads me to this "Emperor Has No Garments" award. When Mary Ann and I left Mormonism, we pointed out that the Mormon emperor had no clothes. But he still has garments. ("Garments" is the term for Mormonism's magical underwear.) I don't think that those two nice Mormon boys told Julia about this, so--what the hell--I will. I'm sure you've seen Mormon temples out in the neighborhoods where you live--those big, tall edifices with an angel statue perched on top, costing millions of dollars, and that no one is allowed to enter, unless you're a good Mormon who has first agreed to pay the admission fee: 10% of your gross income for the rest of your life. Devout Mormons go through a secret ceremony in their temples called the "endowment." During the endowment, they are each given a special set of underwear and told to wear it night and day for the rest of their lives, except when they take a bath, have sex or play sports. Workers in the temple ceremony tell Mormons during their initiation that this "garment of the Holy Priesthood," as it is called, will be "a shield and a protection" to them against both physical harm and the devil. Mormons are also told never to reveal what I'm telling you to anyone outside the temple, or they'll be in big trouble with God. That means I only have a few minutes left to educate you about this before he strikes me dead. The fact that I am sharing these things with you would be considered highly offensive by devout Mormons and even others. But the reasons for talking about them here are well expressed by Richard Packham, a former Mormon and retired attorney: "The rituals in the temples--especially the 'endowment'--are considered so sacred that Mormons are forbidden to discuss them outside the temple itself. "Even non-Mormons sometimes object to articles [giving an 'overview of the nature of Mormon temples and their rituals'] since they reveal Mormons' religious secrets to a curious--and perhaps unworthy and even mocking--world. "Many people, not only devout Mormons, feel that it is wrong to do this. Usually two reasons for the objection are given: 1) things that anyone holds sacred should not be profaned, mocked or ridiculed by anyone else, even by one who does not consider them sacred; and 2) the person who is revealing the secrets usually is someone who obtained the secrets only by swearing an oath of secrecy, and thus is breaking an oath. "As to the first objection, it seems pointless to refuse to discuss objectively and openly any subject just because someone else feels that subject is taboo. I doubt that many Mormons would refuse to discuss the sacred initiation rituals of some primitive African tribe or some Satanist cult on the grounds that the tribe or cult considered those rites sacred. "As to the second objection, the validity and binding nature of an oath or any promise depends, both legally and morally, upon the validity of the mutually accepted facts underlying the demanding and the giving of the oath. "The oath of secrecy given by a Mormon in the temple is based on the assurance and sacred promise that the oath is required by God, and that the secrets one will receive are given by God. If that assurance is in fact false, then one cannot be bound either legally or morally by any such oath, since it was obtained by a lie."1 The secret Mormon temple ceremony was copied from the Masons in the 1840s by Mormonism's founder, Joseph Smith, who himself was a Freemason. Sewn into the Mormon garment, over the right and left breasts, are the Masonic symbols of the square and compass, signifying exactness and honor in following God. Over the right knee of the garment is sewn another mark, reminding the underwear wearer that every knee shall bow to God. There is also one sewn over the navel, indicating that God is the ultimate source of nutrition--so you'd better not put a belly button ring there. Mary Ann and I have made a miniature set of the Mormon underwear (kind of like a paper doll cut-out) and stuck them on this little Emperor guy, if you'd like to come up afterwards and take a closer look. When Mormons are given their new underwear, they're also given a new name that they will eventually be known by in heaven. Mary Ann's was "Deborah." Mine was "Ezekiel." (My pet macaw's name is also "Ezekiel.") Armed with their new name and new underwear, Mormons then go through a temple ceremony in which they learn secret handshakes and passwords that they believe will be required for admission into God's presence in the Mormon heaven. When Mary Ann and I went through our temple endowment back in 1977, the ritual included oaths of secrecy in which we all simulated taking our own lives by slitting our throats from ear to ear and being disemboweled--representing the punishments we would incur if we ever dared reveal the secret handshakes and passwords. (And you thought Mormons were just good family folk who spent all that time in their temples baking cookies to bring over to their neighbors.) Mormons take other secret oaths in the temple, including promising to give everything they have--including their lives--if demanded, to the Mormon Church. They also promise to obey their church leaders and to never say bad things about them (in temple jargon, to not engage in "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"). In the temple, Mormons are also secretly married to each other "for time and all eternity." Since only worthy Mormons can enter the temple, non-Mormons are barred from attending the wedding ceremony, even if you're the parents of the bride and groom. As a tract distributed to visitors at the recent opening of the Mormon temple in Bedford, Oregon (before it was closed to the public), explains: "No music, no poetry, no photographs are allowed during the short wedding ceremony in the temple. (Although the bride may wear a traditional white wedding gown, she must wear the ritual temple clothing over the gown)." The tract also mentions another little-known fact that goes on behind the walls of the Mormon temple: "Most Mormons attending the temple rituals are doing so as proxies for the dead, in order to qualify the dead for admission to the Mormon heaven. "Probably most of your ancestors have already been posthumously inducted into the Mormon Church. The Mormons have done this for millions of dead people (this is the primary purpose of their extensive genealogical research), including deceased presidents of the U.S., many Catholic saints, and even Adolf Hitler."2 So, there you have it. I'd better stop now, before the Mormons slit my throat. Thank you very much. 1. Richard Packham, "Mormon Temples and Temple Rituals" 2. "Mormon Temples: Facts that the Mormons probably don't want you to know, by a former Mormon" |
| | Tuesday, Aug 9, 2005, at 09:52 AM Mike Quinn's Testimonial Road And Personal Trials Along The Way Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| The following is a merger of earlier comments I made in response to questions about Mike Quinn and his present state of belief vis-a-vis Mormonism.
I added some personal information that I had learned directly from Mike about what he has been through, as well relaying some general knowledge from other sources, all which provide some background into the personal trials and difficulties Mike as experienced over the last few years. In an earlier post, titled, "Information About Quinn, " "Mad_Viking" asked: "Anyone know where I can find out about Quinn? . . . I have heard that he is still a believer. I am really perplexed by this. Any insight?" I replied, referencing from a previous personal post : . . . [O]ne other matter that I never brought up in my numerous previous posts on this board. It has to do with Michael Quinn, who has been a subject of discussion here lately, and deals with why he 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. As I mentioned on this board before, 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. Now, what Mike also told me (which I have not shared before on this board) is 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, "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. |
| | Thursday, Aug 11, 2005, at 07:06 AM How Ezra Taft Benson and Spencer W. Kimball handled my Sabbath breaking Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| In 1980, Mary Ann, myself and our small family moved from Virginia to Arizona, where I was soon to start a new job. We stopped off during our final leg in Salt Lake City.
At the time, my parents were in temporary living quarters, awaiting refurbishing of their new abode up on the East Bench of the Salt Lake Valley. Until that was done, they were living in a small home, directly next door to a house that was occupied by then-president of the Mormon Church, Spencer W. Kimball, and his wife, Camilla. It was on Sunday when we pulled all we owned in a U-Haul truck over to my folks' borrowed home. We were on a tight schedule, heading down to Arizona the following morning, so we had to keep moving--literally. My parents had given us some of their old furniture to use in our own home. It was in their house next to the Kimballs and, given our time constraints, I decided to go ahead and pack it into the back of our U-Haul, even though it was the Sabbath. That same day, a guest at our parents' temporary residence happened to have been my grandfather, then-President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He had come over for a meal with the family. Being a good Mormon boy at that time, I felt nagging pangs of guilt at the thought of packing up housewares on the Lord's day. So bad did I feel about this that I decided it was worth justifying my actions to my grandfather, in the hope that he would see our predictament as a good enough reaon for violating the thou-shalt-keep-the-Sabbath-Day-holy rule. So, I said to him, "Grandpa, sometimes you have to pull the ox out of the mire." I should have known better. He responded unsympathetically, "Sometimes it's you who put the ox in the mire in the first place." Ouch. Thank you for your support. Despite his tough talk, I still had a new job to get to, so I went ahead with the van-loading anyway. It was late afternoon as I began to pile my parents' donated furniture into the U-Haul. As I was standing at the back of the truck, who should come up to the fence behind me but Spencer W. Kimball. I felt like a kid caught raiding the cookie jar, as all my sins passed before my eyes. Fortunately, standing in his backyard just a few feet from me, Kimball's demeanor put me at ease soon enough. He was smiling and pleasant, dressed in a long-sleeved shirt and tie, no suit coat. Still a bit nervous, however, and feeling a sense of guilt mixed with embarrassment, I explained to the Lord's Prophet, Seer and Next-Door Neighbor that I was having to load up the U-Haul on Sunday because me and Mary Ann needed to head south to Arizona early the next morning. I further felt compelled to relate to Kimball the exchange earlier that day between my grandfather and me about my decision to go ahead and commit labor inside a U-Haul truck on the Lord's day of rest. I told Kimball how I had explained to my grandfather that sometimes one is faced with the necessity of pulling the ox out of the mire. I then repeated to Kimball my grandfather's response: "Sometimes it's you who put the ox in the mire in the first place." Kimball smiled and said,"That sounds like something your grandfather would say." Wow--and whew. With that behind us, Kimball and I exchanged a few more pleasantries there at his fence, then he excused himself and walked back into his house through the rear porch door. I returned to my task of stuffing furniture into the back of the truck, as Satan looked on approvingly. A few minutes later, Kimball emerged from his house, walked across his backyard to the fence, smiled and handed me over the fence a plate of fresh tomatoes. He told me his wife Camilla had picked them but didn't let me in on whether she had done so on Sunday. I thanked him. Kimball smiled and went back into his house. It was an interesting and insightful experience. My grandfather had lectured me on breaking the Sabbath. In contrast, Kimball had not passed judgment, instead letting me know that he would have expected my grandfather do say what he did, then gave me tomatoes from his own garden. As they say, by their fruits ye shall know them. And as the Savior said, he who is without sin, let him cast the first tomato. _____ On that particular day, back when I was still in the tight grip of the not-too-hip Mormon Church, I thought Kimball was one cool dude. My grandfather? Well, I figured he was just being himself. |
| | Friday, Aug 12, 2005, at 09:20 AM Did The Founding Fathers Create An American Religious State Through Divine Inspiration? Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Is “God” Found in the “Inspired” United States Constitution? Inquiring Ex-Mormons Want to Know Questions raised from time to time on this board have centered on the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers and what, if any, influence those beliefs played in the development of the U.S. Constitution. Because Mormons are taught that the Founding Fathers were inspired by God to write the American Constitution, an examination of the Founders’ views on matters of faith and government are a proper subject of discussion here. It is a topic that transcends political partisanship and goes to the heart of Mormon dogma. _____ Sourcing the Delegates, the Constitutional Convention and the God Question An excellent article on the extent that “God” play in the U.S. Constitutional Convention has been authored by Martin E. Marty, entitled, “Religion and the Constitution: The Triumph of Practical Politics.” Originally published in The Christian Century,” March 23-30, l994, pp 316-327, it is available on the web at: http://www.geocities.com/peterroberts.geo/Relig-Politics/Intro.html Marty draws heavily on the massive two-volume work edited by Bernard Bailyn, The Debate on the Constitution: Federalist and Anti-federalist Speeches, Articles, and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, January to August 1788 [Penguin USA: Library of America, 1993]. Marty describes Bailyn’s contribution to the literature as “the best general access to the period in which the Founding Fathers . . . debated their Constitution of 1787 and sold themselves, each other and the public on its ratification.” He praises Bailyn’s work as a “generous sampling of the argument [that] helps contemporary readers assess the religious and metaphysical foundations and contentions of their [the Founders’] thought.” Bailyn’s volumes (and Marty’s review) are replete with actual statements and arguments made by the delegates during the Constitutional Convention of 1787-1788. _____ Beliefs of the Founders on God and Religion Before examining their arguments, however, a capsulation of the Founder’s views on god and religion is in order. Marty sums up the Framers’ general attitude toward religion in general and Christianity in particular, by citing the observation of Gordon Wood who, writing in New York History, observed: "It is one of the striking facts of American history that the American Revolution was led by men who were not very religious. At the best the Founding Fathers only passively believed in organized Christianity and at worst they scorned and ridiculed it." _____ God and Religion in the Birthing Documents of the American Nation The glaring lack of religious references in the text of the U.S. Constitution was explained by Alexander Hamilton who, in admitting their absence, reportedly said: “Upon my word, we forgot.” (see Flo Wine, “Role of Religion in the American Revolution,” http://www.humanistsofutah.org/1999/genfeb99.html ) Indeed, no mention at all is made of God in the text of the Constitution itself. Moreover, the only reference to Deity in the Declaration of Independence is to “Nature’s God,” a form of deity has been accurately described as "a God that is vague and subordinated to natural laws that everyone should know through common sense, i.e., ‘self-evident’ truths.” Neither the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence mentions the Bible. Furthermore, reference to “God” or “Jesus Christ” is absent from the voluminous writings of the Federalist Papers, aptly described as the so-called “working documents” of the American Founders. Finally, it has been noted that “the United States was the first Western nation to omit explicitly Christian symbolism, such as the cross, from its flag and other national symbols.” (see “Is America a ‘Christian’ Nation?, http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/amr/amerc.htm ) _____ ”God-Talk” in the Constitutional Convention Debates Based on an examination of Bailyn’s work, Marty offers a detailed examination of Convention debate language on religious matters, and provides his findings: References to Heaven “My marker found three favorites: at least 30 ‘Heavens,’ as in ‘merciful Heaven,’ and 15 or 20 ‘blessings of heaven’ . . .” References to the Sacred “[T]here were 15 usually casual ‘sacreds,’ as in ‘sacred liberties.’” References to God “God comes up often, but almost never in biblical terms; ‘God,’ we remember, was generic for deists and theists, philosophers and believers alike. . . . [T]here are about 20 references to God, while the Almighty and the Creator make single cameo appearances. We read at least seven times of Providence; the Supremes are here four times, as in Supreme Being and Supreme Ruler of the Universe; Lord, as in "O Lord!" or "the Year of Our Lord," turns up six times, and there is a Sovereign Ruler of Events, one Grace, two Governors (of the World and the Universe),two Nature's Gods, and, for good measure, one Goddess of Liberty. Whether the general absence of the biblical God is intentional or reflects the habits of the Enlightenment, it is significant.” References to Governance Under God “On one occasion, ‘vox populi’ is identified with ‘vox dei,’ a questionable theological concept, to be sure. Once, people are called ‘the sole governors (under God),’ and I spotted another ‘under God’ in connection with George Washington. Writers also refer to ‘the immutable laws of God’ and ‘reason,’ and ‘the laws of nature and nature's God.’ The citation of the Bible as authority is extremely rare. . . .” References to the Bible “For a people putatively schooled in scripture, these arguers use relatively few biblical allusions. I counted three references to Moses. In Noah Webster's citation, Moses gets paired with Fohi and Confucius, Zamolxis and Odin and other ‘fabled demi-gods of antiquity’ In another citation Moses joins Montesquieu as a representative genius. There are other casual allusions to the Bible, but they are slight and quickly dropped.” References to Christianity “Terribly slim pickings, these. While practical politics was the preoccupation of these debaters, they were debating what was deepest in the people's minds and hearts. Consequently, it seems strange that I found only one reference to Christology or Christian salvation: the ‘blood of the Redeemer.’ ‘John Humble,’ speaking for ‘the low born,’ at one point makes fun of ‘the perfection of this evangelical constitution’ and its claimed place ‘in the salvation of America,’ but that language does not advance the case for seeing America as a Christian country . . . “Unless my snooping eye missed some references, Americans were Christians. only once in 2,387 pages . . .” References to Church-Going “One would hardly know from these collected documents that Americans were churchgoers; I caught them at church in only one casual allusion. Denominations are rarely mentioned, though Quakers are visible, chiefly as pacifists. . . .” References to the Clergy "The clergy are almost invisible . . .” References to Americans as a Chosen People “Are the American people chosen? James Winthrop thought so, but that is about it . . .” References to Common Religion and Prayer “Historian David Ramsay wrote to South Carolinians to ‘consider the-people of all the thirteen states, as a band of brethren, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, inhabiting one undivided country, and designed by heaven to be one people,’ but the religion is unspecified. As for devotion, there is a reference to one's ‘prayer to God,’ but we 20th-century folk hear more such talk in a single presidential inaugural address.” References to Established Creeds “The established religion of England gets mentioned ten or 20 times, in every case negatively . . . The Founders allude to creeds once or twice but do not quote them from church history . . .” Reference to Virtue “One of the most serious issues in constitutional discourse was the virtue of the people, since constitutional law would be effective only if citizens respected it. Pelatiah Webster of Philadelphia was the most explicit concerning people's response to the divine when he wrote about congressmen . . . “James Madison, however, balances Webster in a letter to Thomas Jefferson about possible restraints of majorities who might persecute minorities . . . “The most sustained religious discussion in these huge volumes has to do with the line in Article VI of the Constitution that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.’ Luther Martin, a fierce opponent of ratification, reported that the ‘no religious test’ clause easily had passed at Philadelphia, but went on sarcastically: "‘However, there were some members so unfashionable as to think that a belief of the existence of a Deity, and of a state of future rewards and punishments would be some security for the good conduct of our rulers, and that in a Christian country it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism.’ . . .” References to Religious Diversity “After the ‘religious tests’ debates, the most significant treatment of religion occurred in debates having to do with pluralism, ‘the multiplicity of sects,’ republicanism and religious freedom. Most of the suspicious antifederalists were pushing for a Bill of Rights, while the federalists, feeling that rights had been assured in the unamended Constitution, opposed it. . . . “In the event, the United States in 1789 added a Bill of Rights including the religion clause to the Constitution, and the nation became the large republic with many sects that Madison foresaw and wanted.” References to Divine Inspiration “Marty also notes the “offbeat” claim by famed Philadelphia Convention participant, Benjamin Rush who argued, in Marty’s words, “that ratification was divinely mandated.” Marty also mentions Benjamin Franklin’s satirically-expressed hope that “he did not to want to be thought of as arguing that the General Convention was similarly divinely inspired” as was, in Franklin’s sardonic words “the most faithful of all Histories, the Holy Bible. . . . ” At any rate, observes Marty, “[o]ne could never be too sure from Franklin’s language where he stood . . . “ References to Religious Ambiguity In the end, Marty writes, “[i]t was Madison who reflected most on ambiguity, obscurity, complexity, the equivocal, and the noncopiousness of language. He also cast the problem against a transcendent backdrop: 'When the Almighty himself condescends to address mankind in their own language, his meaning, luminous as it must be, is rendered dim and doubtful, by the cloudy medium through which it is communicated.’” _____ Conclusion: Delegates to the Constitutional Convention Did Not Create An American Religious State Marty’s ultimate findings on the debates of the Constitutional Convention are as follows: “[From] my reading of 2,387 pages of ‘cloudy medium’ . . . [i]t's clear . . . that religious references in these primal republican political debates were rare and vague. In addition, almost no one found it easy to speak of a Christian republic or to offer a consistent theological rationale of constitutionalism. The few sustained debates about ‘religious tests’ and ‘religious freedom’ treated the potential for religious monopolies, hegemonies or majorities-and even religion itself-as a problem. Finally, the Madisonian devotion to pluralism won out over attempts to legislate metaphysical or theological solutions or to privilege particular traditions. . . . “[T]he founders' practical politics displaced and left little room for sustained discussion of the metaphysical, metaethical and theological backdrop to constitutionalism. The debates occurred at a time when there was enough Enlightenment talk about ‘Nature's God’ to compromise evangelical talk about the God of the Bible in the affairs of the United States. When one contrasts outcomes in the United States with those in Europe, one is tempted to conclude that the ‘godless’ Constitution and the reticent constitutionalists helped make possible a ‘godly’ people.” |
| | Monday, Aug 15, 2005, at 08:02 AM The Official Position Of The LDS Church On Organic Evolution: Even Bruce R. Mcconkie, When Put Under The Gun, Wouldn't Give A Straight Answer Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Meeting with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie in a Futile Attempt to Get an Honest Answer on the Mormon Church’s Official Position on Organic Evolution When I was a student at BYU in 1978, I decided to commence a research paper on the official LDS position on organic evolution. Much of my effort to write an accurate account on the subject involved repeated, and often frustrating, attempts to solicit answers from the Mormon Church hierarchy. During my research, I personally met and spoke with Apostle Bruce R. McConkie. An account of that meeting follows below, taken from personal notes I made of our discussion, which took place at McConkie's private residence, 260 Dorchester Drive, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on Monday, 7 July 1980, from 5:45 to 7:30 p.m. _____ Ezra Taft Benson Arranges the Meeting with McConkie Earlier in the day of my one-on-one conversation with McConkie, I had visited for approximately three-and-a-half hours with my grandfather, Ezra Taft Benson, then-president of the Council of the Twelve, in his Salt Lake City apartment, located in the Bonneville Towers, 777 East South Temple. During that visit, the conversation turned to my evolution research project. In the course of that discussion, my grandfather and I talked about McConkie's recent 14-stake fireside address, entitled "The Seven Deadly Heresies," which he had delivered five weeks earlier, on 1 June 1980, in Brigham Young University's Marriott Center. In his sermon, McConkie listed as "Heresy Two" the "false and devilish" notion advanced by "those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized." Such claims, McConkie told his student audience, did not represent "true science" but, rather, "the false religions of the dark ages . . . some of which have crept in among us." Moreover, while McConkie noted that "true religion and true science bear the same witness," he declared that the theory of organic evolution could "in no way" be harmonized "with the truths of science as they have now been discovered." To believe otherwise, McConkie said, ran completely counter to "the saving doctrine" of revealed religion. That doctrine, he said, included that: . . . Adam stood next to Christ in power and might and intelligence before the foundations of the world were laid; that Adam was placed on this earth as an immortal being; that there was no death in the world for him or for any form of life until after the fall; that the fall of Adam brought temporal and spiritual death into the world; that this temporal death passed upon all forms of life, upon man and animal and fish and fowl and plant life; that Christ came to ransom man and all forms of life from the effects of the temporal death brought into the world through the fall and, in the case of man, from the spiritual death also, and that this includes a resurrection for man and for all forms of life. Try as you may, you cannot harmonize these things with the evolutionary postulate that death existed and that the various forms of life have evolved from preceding forms over astronomically long periods of time." As proof that "the theories of men" (i.e., the theories of organic evolution) were out of harmony with "the inspired word,” McConkie cited 2 Nephi 2:22-26, which he quoted in full: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the Garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. "And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. "Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. "And the Messiah cometh in the fullness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall." To believe, he said, that "the theoretical postulates of Darwinism and the diverse speculations descending therefrom" can somehow be accommodated by revealed religion denied the very atonement of Christ, which McConkie called "the great and eternal foundation upon which revealed religion rests." According to McConkie, belief in organic evolution rendered the doctrine of the atonement ineffectual for the following reasons: "If death has always prevailed in the world, there was no fall of Adam which brought death to all forms of life. If Adam did not fall, there is no need for an atonement. If there was no atonement, there is no salvation, no resurrection, no eternal life, nothing in all of the glorious promises that the Lord has given us. If there is no salvation, there is no God. The fall affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself. The atonement affects man, all forms of life, and the earth itself." http://www.lds-mormon.com/heresies.shtml I asked my grandfather if McConkie's address represented the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. In asking that question of him, I also mentioned that my father, Mark A. Benson (Ezra Taft's second son), was seriously considering writing President Spencer W. Kimball to ask the same question. In response, my grandfather lowered his head, smiled slightly and replied in careful and measured tones that he did not want to say too much, for fear that he "might slip." He did, however, tell me that prior to its delivery at BYU, McConkie's address had been reviewed by "the Brethren." He said that McConkie himself had offered to make any changes in the prepared text, but that none were requested. Nonetheless, my grandfather twice emphasized to me that "it was understood that the talk represented the views of Elder McConkie." At this point in our conversation, my grandfather suggested that it might be good for me to speak directly with McConkie on this matter. Still a true believing Mormon at the time, I replied that I would consider it to be a great honor to meet a man whom I considered to be one of the greatest living scriptorians in the Church. I added, however, that I did not want to be an imposition. My grandfather assured me that McConkie would be happy to speak with me, assuming that an appropriate time and place could be arranged. I told my grandfather I would be available to meet with him anytime, anywhere, and would only want to take a few minutes of his time to clarify in my own mind some of the important questions that seemed (at least to me) to be in need of definitive answers regarding the official position of the Mormon Church on the theory of organic evolution. At this point (approximately 3:45 p.m.), as I looked on, my grandfather went over to the phone and made a personal call to McConkie, who was still in his Church office. After chatting with McConkie for a few minutes, my grandfather hung up and informed me that the meeting had been arranged for 5:30 that same afternoon, at McConkie's home. Once the initial excitement had somewhat subsided, I expressed concern to my grandfather that, in the upcoming question-and-answer session with McConkie, I did not want to appear to be lacking faith and testimony in McConkie's divine calling and apostleship. In particular, I was somewhat anxious that my inquiries, although sincere, might be misinterpreted and prove offensive to McConkie, who was known for his forthright, uncompromising views--which views appeared to some to reflect a certain degree of sternness and even harshness, when "laying down the law" in areas of Church doctrine. My grandfather reassured me that McConkie was "a very gracious man," with sons my own age (at the time, I was 26 years old). He encouraged me to be as frank with McConkie in my questioning as I had been with him. _____ Close Encounters with the McConkie Mind By coincidence, I had already planned to meet my father in downtown Salt Lake City after my visit with my grandfather and be driven to my parents' residence, where I was staying during summer vacation. When I slid into the front seat of my father's car at 5:15 that afternoon and informed him of the scheduled meeting with McConkie in 15 minutes, he was pleasantly surprised. He offered to take me to McConkie's home, which I hoped he would do, since I had not other means of getting there in the few minutes remaining before the scheduled appointment. As we drove to McConkie's home, I told my father that while I was certainly not adverse to having him sit in on my conversation with McConkie, I regarded the visit as a unique opportunity to directly ask McConkie whatever questions I felt were necessary to provide a clearer understanding of the LDS Church's official position on the theory of organic evolution, as well as of the connections, if any, between that Church's official position and the position of McConkie, as outlined in McConkie's "Deadly Heresies" BYU sermon. My father said he understood and offered to drop me off at McConkie's home, then return to pick me up after our visit was concluded. I did not feel that was necessary and suggested that we "play it by ear." If McConkie invited both of us into his home, as I expected he would, I felt I would not be inhibited--as long as my father honored my request to be able to interact freely with McConkie, without interruption--no matter how well intended that interruption might be. McConkie greeted us warmly at the door, presenting an image quite different from the Bruce the Concrete-Hearted that I, and millions of others, had come to expect from his stiff-as-a-board-for-the-Lord General Conference talks. He was dressed in an open-necked yellow sports shirt, slacks and house slippers. (And all this time I thought he came out of his mother’s womb in a dark blue suit). He turned to me, grinned and asked if there was anything I did not want my father to hear during our conversation. I said no, whereupon McConkie ushered us into his comfortable, sun-lit living room. My father and I sat on a sofa, approximately ten feet across from McConkie, who seated himself in a chair next to a lamp stand on which rested his scriptures and some miscellaneous papers. His demeanor was relaxed and helped put me at ease. The atmosphere throughout our conversation was open and friendly. McConkie encouraged me, on more than one occasion during our discussion, not to hesitate in asking whatever I wanted. In keeping with my previous request, my father sat and listened silently. _____ McConkie, Self-Professed Student of Science I asked McConkie if he thought organic evolution was true. Not surprisingly, he replied that he did not. In fact, he said the theory of organic evolution was "logically and scripturally absurd." McConkie told me, however, that he had taken some science classes as a student at the University of Utah "but never felt that they were the ultimate truth." McConkie also confessed that he would answer final exam questions the way he thought his professors expected, in order to pass the courses. I found this interesting coming from a man who had denounced the education system for teaching deadly heresies. _____ McConkie Explains the Scriptures, One-Celled Amoebas, Dinosaurs in the Mud and Noah’s Flood McConkie attacked organic evolution from holy writ, telling me that "Adam was the first flesh of all flesh, more than just the first man." He also had his opinions on matters of vegetation. "Plants," he said, "are created by seeds being planted. If the Lord has made worlds without number, why would He use evolution from a one-celled amoeba?" On the question of dinosaurs, McConkie claimed that they were probably killed by Noah's Flood, based on the fact that "large concentrations of their bones have been found in mud." _____ McConkie Rejects Science in Favor of Religion In the end, McConkie did not rely scientific evidence (at least as he defined “evidence”) to debunk organic evolution. He told me: "I don't attempt to harmonize the theory of organic evolution with revealed truth. I'm not going to talk about the truth or falsity of organic evolution. I'll leave that up to biologists. I accept revealed religion. If science and religion don't harmonize, then I reject and discard science." _____ McConkie’s Wiggle-Waggle on Whether His “Seven Deadly Heresies” Speech Rose to the Level of Official LDS Church Doctrine I mentioned to McConkie that several members of the LDS Church, particularly students and professors at BYU, were openly asking if his 1 June 1980 "Seven Deadly Heresies" fireside address constituted the official position of the Church. In response to my direct inquiry, "Does your talk represent the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution?" McConkie said that the Church did not have to submit questions concerning doctrine to its membership in order to make them "the stand of the Church" (the latter was a phrase which he emphasized frequently during our conversation). In reference to his "Seven Deadly Heresies" speech, McConkie said, "This is my view on what I interpret to be the stand of the Church." As he subsequently built a scriptural case to support his interpretation, McConkie often used the same phrase: "This is my view," when explaining the doctrinal stand of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. It was clear, however, that he saw his view as being the right view. McConkie mentioned that, in the wake of his "Deadly Heresies" sermon, his office had been inundated with requests for copies, with 35 phone calls received by his secretaries in a single two-hour period. In fact, he said, there was greater interest in this particular address than in all other speeches he had previously given. He went on to say that while he had not intended for his remarks to appear to be directed primarily at the theory of organic evolution, judging from the response he had received to his discourse he perhaps should have devoted his entire speech to the topic. _____ McConkie’s Opinion on Whether Kimball Knew What He Was Talking About I asked McConkie about the fact that, in personal correspondence with then-Church President Kimball on the LDS stand regarding organic evolution, Kimball admitted to me that he was not aware of the official position of the Church as found in a First Presidency statement entitled "The Origin of Man," issued in 1909. (Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder and Anton H. Lund, "The Origin of Man," Improvement Era, vol. 13, November 1909, p. 75-81) McConkie responded by insisting that Kimball did, in fact, know about it. He said "he just forgot" that he knew. Interestingly enough, that is almost exactly what Arthur C. Haycock, secretary to the First Presidency, had told me over the phone in 1979. _____ McConkie Trashes the Living Prophets I asked why President Joseph F. Smith, while Prophet/Editor of the Improvement Era, had told inquiring Church members that God had not fully answered the question of how the bodies of Adam and Eve were created. McConkie informed me that, in fact, this "was not [Joseph F. Smith's] position." I asked him how he knew that. He said, "Joseph Fielding Smith told me so." McConkie went on to explain that sometimes the living Prophets just don’t get it: "A prophet is not always a prophet. I can be just as wrong as the next guy. Prophets can be wrong on organic evolution, of course. And have been wrong. I informed McConkie that David O. McKay, while President of the Church, had told BYU students in a campus speech that organic evolution was a beautiful theory. (David O. McKay, “A Message for LDS College Youth." Speech to BYU student body. 10 October 1952) McConkie responded by saying that if McKay made such a statement, he was "uninspired." I also told McConkie that McKay and other Church presidents had authorized the sending of letters to inquiring Church members, informing them that the Mormon Church had not official position on the theory of organic evolution. McConkie dismissed such correspondence as "underground letters" and said it differed fundamentally from the First Presidency's 1909 statement on the origin of man. (About that statement, McConkie, in his "Deadly Seven Heresies" sermon had warned: "Do not be deceived and led to believe that the famous document of the First Presidency issued in the day of President Joseph F. Smith and entitled, 'The Origin of Man,' means anything except exactly what it says"). McConkie also criticized President Brigham Young for teaching the Adam-God doctrine, which McConkie told me was "false." Furthermore, he criticized then-Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, telling me he was "out of his field" in trying to use science against organic evolution in his book, Man: His Origin and Destiny. McConkie said, "He should have stayed in the areas in which he was trained: scriptures and theology." McConkie warned me that straying from the scriptures--even if one was a Prophet--was to ask for trouble because, he said, people end up "quoting authority against authority." In the end, he said, "seeing authoritative statements doesn't solve the problem. People are always seeking authoritative statements. Authorities conflict." Besides, he cautioned me, "Cults are created by the endorsement of certain authorities." _____ McConkie Declares That the Truth Concerning Organic Evolution Is Found in the Scriptures, Not in the Statements of the Living Prophets If the reliability of Church leaders was suspect, then I wanted to know from McConkie where to turn in order to find the official, authoritative Mormon stand on the theory of organic evolution. McConkie replied slowly: "This is my view on what I believe to be the stand of the Church: The doctrinal stand of the Church is found in revealed scripture." With sweeping disapproval, he declared: "Organic evolution does not and cannot account for a paradisiacal earth, the millennium, an exalted earth and man, the resurrection of man and animals and the pre-existence." McConkie argued that, ultimately, God's truth was found in the canonized Standard Works, not in the words of living prophets. He told me that the Standard Works are called such because they are the standard against which all other claims are measured, including those made by Mormonism’s living Prophets. _____ McConkie Refuses to Directly Answer the Question About What Constitutes the Official Mormon Position on Organic Evolution I asked McConkie what was the stand of the LDS Church on organic evolution, as found in the scriptures. He replied by telling me that the Church would never accept the theory of organic evolution as being true "as long as it fails to show that there was no death before the Fall of Adam." I pressed him by asking him to explain for me the actual official LDS Church position on organic evolution. McConkie responded by letting me in on some inside information. He said that the First Presidency had been considering whether to issue a statement on the theory of organic evolution for "over a year." Sometime during that period, he said, they had "sat down and listened to the entire 1909 statement." McConkie said they had also sat and listened to him. He claimed he was asked to write a statement on organic evolution for possible use by the First Presidency. The directive came, McConkie said, after Kimball walked into McConkie's office carrying a letter I had earlier sent to Kimball, along with enclosures. My grandfather confirmed that his episode took place. In a September 1979 phone conversation with me, he said McConkie had been given a copy of one of my letters to Kimball, together with attached statements made by Mormon Church Presidents Joseph F. Smith and David O. McKay on the theory of organic evolution). McConkie told me that Kimball and one of his counselors, Marion G. Romney, had "personally agreed" to have McConkie draft the statement. McConkie said the remaining counselor, N. Eldon Tanner, "did not participate" in making the recommendation. McConkie told me he responded by putting together what he called "a special statement prepared for the First Presidency," a 42-page document entitled "Man: His Origin, Fall and Redemption." (My grandfather, in the same earlier phone conversation, also had informed me that McConkie's paper had been "considered favorably by the First Presidency." He said that McConkie had, in fact, discussed his paper with members of the First Presidency on 30 August 1979 and that they "agreed with it"). I asked McConkie what his document included. He said it quoted President John Taylor, whom he described as "definitely anti-evolution." He also informed me that a scaled-down version of his paper was eventually delivered in the form of his BYU "Seven Deadly Heresies" sermon. (Following my meeting with McConkie, I wrote him a letter, thanking him for the chance to meet and asking if he might send me a copy of that paper of his, "Man: His Origin, Fall and Redemption," so that, as I told him, I might "more fully understand the scriptural reasoning behind your treatment of these subjects." McConkie never responded). In our conversation, I also asked McConkie if there would be a current First Presidency statement issued on the Mormon Church's official stand on the theory of organic evolution. He answered by insisting that just because the sitting First Presidency had not issued an official statement on the subject did not mean it did not have one. I asked McConkie why, if the LDS Church actually had an official position on organic evolution, did it not go ahead and make it known? McConkie said it had not done so because the Church did not want to pick fights with its vulnerable members: "It's a matter of temporizing, of not making a statement to prevent the driving out of the weak Saints. It's a question of wisdom, not of truth." He compared it to calling the Catholic Church "the Church of the Devil." He said while such a statement was true, one had to be careful about saying it, so as not to offend Catholics. By now, I was feeling increasingly frustrated. I pressed McConkie further, asking him what he thought the position of the Mormon Church on organic evolution might be. He replied: Don't be deceived. The Church is not neutral. It has taken a stand. I asked him what that stand was. He replied, "Henry Eyring's position is President Kimball's position." McConkie didn’t explain what Eyring's position was. In any event, since when had Henry Eyring become President of the Mormon Church? In 1979, however, I had written Kimball, requesting that he tell me the official position of the Church on the theory of organic evolution. In a 24 May 1979 reply, Kimball asked me, "I am wondering if you have read the book of Henry Eyring, The Faith of the Scientiest [sic].' Undoubtedly, this book will be found in the library at BYU. I would be glad to hear from you concerning this matter." I was familiar with the book, having been given a copy by my grandfather some years earlier. I wrote Kimball back, taking him up on his offer to share my thoughts about Eyring's book. In my letter to back to him, I noted how Eyring said that science benefits religion by helping it sort fact from fiction. I asked Kimball just how scientifically reliable the scriptural stories were that proclaimed the earth to be merely 6,000 years old and that declared there was no physical death before Adam. I suggested the Genesis account did not seem to square with strong physical evidence pointing to old rocks, long-dead fossils and evolved humans. I concluded my letter by telling Kimball that it appeared to me the Church was avoiding taking an official position for or against the theory of organic evolution. I asked him if he would not mind commenting on that observation. Kimball never wrote me back. And McConkie never answered my question. _____ Conclusion: The Meeting Ends I sensed McConkie and I had reached the point of no further return on investment. The visit ended politely, but incompletely. |
| | Wednesday, Aug 17, 2005, at 09:24 AM The Most Energized I Ever Saw The Wife Of A General Authority Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| We all know the typical image of the faithful GA wife: silent, supportive and sitting in the shadows.
Well, for me, that image was brutally shattered--in a culturally strange sort of way--back in the 1980s when I had the opportunity to attend a BYU Cougar football game in one of the skyboxes. I don’t even remember who the Cougs were up against that day but what I beheld that afternoon in the skybox was, I'm sure for the Mormons who witnessed it, an experience of shock and awe. The skybox was a luxurious and sound-proofed place, encased in glass, full of soft seats for the high and mighty, finger food for everyone in attendance and all of it offered in air-conditioned comfort high atop the stadium, far from the maddening crowd. Indeed, I noticed how quiet and subdued the box was, not at all like being out on the hard seats with the regular folk, shouting and cheering and guzzling whatever they were able to sneak in at the turnstiles. Anyway, who should come in and sit down a couple of rows in front of me but Robert E. Wells, then-member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, and his wife, Helen—the proud parents of Utah's own prim-and-proper Miss America, Sharlene Wells, who as we all remember was subsequently awarded the crown after the previous winner, Vanessa Williams, was busted and bounced down the runway when nude magazine photos of her making passionate love to another woman inconveniently surfaced. Once the game got under way, Helen Wells started to raise a little hell—and, yes indeed, it was a wondrous sight. BYU was having a rather tough time on offense that day, struggling to make its typical whopping yardage with its vaunted aerial circus under the command of the Cougars' mythical ringmaster and Moroni-like general, Lavelle Edwards. During some of the tougher series of downs for the Cougars, Sister Helen Wells would get visibly--and I mean visibly--frustrated with the lack of progress, jump to her feet and scream her big-haired head off, shouting through the sound-proof glass toward the field of play, hundreds of yards down below in the gladiator pit. The scene would go like this: Bosco would drop back into the pocket to pass, looking for receivers downfield but in Helen’s opinion, taking way too damn long to get the ball rolling. At this point, she would leap to her feet, yelling loud enough to permanently disturb the rings of Saturn: "BOSCO!!! BOSCO!!! THROW THE BALL!!! THROW THE BALL, BOSCO!!!!! BOSCO!!!!!!! Or, if Bosco wasn't listening and wouldn’t throw, then Helen would decide it was time for him to pick up yardage on the ground. Again, she would explode out of her seat, hands above her head, and shriek with all her might: "RUN, BOSCO, RUN!!! BOSCO, RUN!!!!! BOSCO!!!!!" No one else in the skybox carried on even remotely in such outrageous fashion. In fact, hardly anyone was cheering or making noise throughout the game. It was almost like a Mormon Church meeting, with the only thing missing being the crying babies. Everyone else in the skybox would just stare at good Sister Wells, some in disbelief, others whispering in embarrassment to each other, as she continued her vocal and opinionated outbursts throughout the duration of the contest. Meanwhile, being the quiet, supportive husband sitting in the shadows that he was, Elder Robert E. Wells would simply smile at his wife during and after she screamed, not saying much of anything. In conclusion, my dear brothers and sisters, it is my hope and prayer that in the future, if Sister Helen Wells--wife of our beloved and now First Quorum of the Seventy emeritus member, Robert E. Wells—is given the opportunity to stand before groups of young MIA women or even primary children, that she will raise her hands high above her head and holler with all of her might: "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES, GIRLS!!! GET OUT OF THIS DAMN CHURCH BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE, BEFORE THEY CRUSH YOU, MOLD YOU, SUFFOCATE YOU, SQUEEZE THE LIFE OUT OF YOU AND MAKE IT SO OPPRESSIVE FOR YOU THAT IT WILL BE SEEN AS STRANGE AND UNBECOMING FOR THE WIFE OF A GENERAL AUTHORITY TO STAND AND SCREAM AT FOOTBALL GAMES, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE!!!" In the name of--Jesus Christ, throw the ball, Bosco!--Amen. |
| | Thursday, Aug 18, 2005, at 06:58 AM "Some May Push And Some May Pull"--Remember This: The Story's Bull Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: As Far as Pushing Its "Glorious" Handcart Myth, the Mormon Church Can Shove It In the four years between 1856 and 1860, Brigham Young pushed an experimental scheme using human guinea pigs in a relentless effort to funnel thousands of new Church members to Salt Lake City, designed to people Young's vision of a theocratic kingdom over which he would ruthlessly rule. Mormonism's marionette-like "historians” in the employ of LDS Inc. have (as they so often do) gone to great lengths in their propagandistic zeal to spin the Great Handcart Debacle as a well-intended and, ultimately, glorious undertaking. It was, indeed--at least for the undertakers. Below are some of the faith-promoting, fact-ignoring rewrites designed to deceive the mindlessly-believing Mormon flock, as well as the unsuspecting public at large. A "Most Remarkable" Endeavor "By the mid-1850s LDS Church leaders needed less expensive ways to move poor immigrants to Utah. The Perpetual Emigrating Fund that loaned to the needy was depleted, and costs for wagons and ox-teams were high. Therefore, Brigham Young announced on 29 October 1855 a handcart system by which the Church would provide carts to be pulled by hand across the Mormon Trail. As a result, between 1856 and 1860 nearly 3,000 Latter-day Saint emigrants joined ten handcart companies--about 650 handcarts total--and walked to Utah from Iowa City, Iowa, (a distance of 1,300 miles) or from Florence, Nebraska (1,030 miles). This was, according to historian LeRoy Hafen, ‘the most remarkable travel experiment in the history of Western America.'" http://historytogo.utah.gov/thisplace.html _____ Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, this murderous, on-the-cheap trek ordered by the Mormon tyrant, Brigham Young, has been divinely dubbed by some as not only a "remarkable travel experiment" but as a downright "exalting experience." A Story of Amazing "Spiritual Stamina" "Handcarts, assembled at outfitting points in Iowa City, and then Florence after 1857, resembled carts pulled by porters in large cities. The carts had hickory or oak wagon beds and hickory shafts, side pieces, and axles. Wheels were as far apart as normal wagon wheels. Each cart carried 400 to 500 pounds of foodstuffs, bedding, clothing, and cooking utensils, and needed two able-bodied people to pull it. Five people were assigned to each cart. Adults could take only seventeen pounds of baggage, children ten pounds. Families with small children traveled in covered or family carts which had stronger axles made of iron. "Handcart company captains were men with leadership and trail experience. Each company included a few ox-drawn commissary and baggage wagons, at least one per twenty carts. Wagons or carts carried large public tents, one for every twenty people. A 'Captain of Hundred' had charge of five tent groups. Five companies in 1856 and two in 1857 outfitted in Iowa City and needed a month to move 275 miles on existing roads over rolling prairie to Florence, averaging eight to nine miles per day. Passing through partly settled areas, they obtained some supplies along the way. After resting at Florence, these seven companies followed the Mormon Trail to Salt Lake City; on this stretch the first three companies spent an average of 65 days, covering 15.7 miles per day. Later companies leaving Florence needed an average of 84 days. By comparison, LDS wagon trains from Florence in 1861 needed 73 days to make the journey. . . . "Pulling carts was hard, tiring work. Handcart pioneers were exposed to rain, wind, dust, and insects. Food was tightly rationed. Most made the trek safely; but the 1856 Martin and Willie companies met disaster. They left Iowa City late, in part because more people came than expected, causing delays to assemble more handcarts and tents. The two companies crossed Iowa in normal time, but repairs at Florence slowed them. Then, on the Mormon Trail, extra flour added to the carts slowed and damaged them. Expected flour at Fort Laramie never came. Short rations and lack of warm clothes drained the travelers' energy. Severe snowstorms caught them, dropping snows up to eighteen inches deep and temperatures below freezing. Food ran out; cattle died; rescue trains from Utah had difficulty reaching the exposed and hungry sufferers. Despite heroic efforts by company members and Utah rescuers, about 200, or one-sixth of the companies, died, and dozens were maimed by frostbite and deprivation. This tragedy was the worst disaster in the history of western overland travel. Rescue wagons carried survivors to Utah over roads kept open by teamsters driving wagons back and forth to pack the snow. "Despite the tragedy, the Mormon Church did not give up on the plan. It sent a missionary company east with handcarts early in 1857, and it had sponsored five more westbound handcart companies by 1860. Overall, the ten companies proved that handcart groups not traveling late in the season were effective, efficient means of moving large numbers of people west at low cost. Low costs enabled hundreds in Britain, mostly factory and agricultural workers who otherwise might not have come, to decide to emigrate to America. "The handcart trek was an exalting ordeal for body and spirit and required spiritual stamina to complete. Sculptor Torlief Knaphus' statue of handcart pioneers has become one of Mormonism's best known symbols, representing the thousands of devout Saints who by cart or wagon 'gathered to Zion' in Utah." http://historytogo.utah.gov/handctco.html ____ Other LDS spinmeisters have sought to portray the use of handcarts by the Mormon pioneers as a necessity born of poverty, not a cheap conveyance encouraged by Brigham Young at the expense of his human beasts of burden. Carts Heroically Pulled by the "Persecuted," but Patriotic, Faithful "In the 1850s, the Mormons were being persecuted in their own country. To escape further difficulties, their leader, Brigham Young, led them on an arduous journey to Utah. Because they did not have enough money for wagons, many made their own handcarts and loaded them up with their families and belongings. These they pulled behind themselves on a thousand-mile trek on foot." http://www.ldsfilm.com/Handcart/Handcart4.html _____ But enough of the fluff. Now, for the real--and really repulsive--stuff. Brigham Young’s Greedy and Horrific Handcart Disaster In her book, Wife No. 19, former spouse of Brigham Young, Ann Eliza Webb, exposed the tragic, inept, corrupt and selfish nature of Brigham Young’s handcart scheme. As to the person of Wife No. 19 Webb, the following biographical notes explain that: "In 1868 Brigham Young, at age sixty-seven, married Ann Eliza Webb, an attractive twenty-four year old divorcee with two children. Young had already married dozens of other women. . . ." Regarding Webb's tumultuous and short-lived relationship with Young, LDS scholar, Jeffery Johnson, writes: ". . . [I]n 1873, Ann Eliza Webb applied for a civil divorce [from Young]. The case came to trial in 1875, and the court ordered Brigham to pay $500 per month allowance and $3,000 court costs. When he refused, he was fined $25 and sentenced to a day in prison for contempt of court (Arrington 1985, 373). There is no record of application for a Church divorce, but she was excommunicated 10 October 1874 and devoted much of the rest of her life to publishing her somewhat sensational memoirs and giving anti-Mormon lectures." http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/brighamyoungswives.htm (Of course, one would expect many, if not most, faithful LDS scholars to minimize criticism of Mormon leaders by labeling it as "sensational." Indeed, that's been par for the course for Mormon apologists ever since this fanciful frontier faith popped out of Joseph Smith's rock-laden hat). In Chapter 11 of her book entitled, "'DIVINE EMIGRATION'--THE PROPHET AND THE HANDCART SCHEME," Webb writes in graphic detail about Brigham Young's prolonged and deliberate abuse of Mormonism's pushed-and-pulled pioneers. Unparalleled Mismanagement Under the Guise of a "Divine Plan" "In the history of any people there has never been recorded a case of such gross mismanagement as that of gathering the foreign Saints to Zion in the year 1856. "Until this disastrous year the emigrants had always made the journey across the plains with ox-teams . . . The able bodied walked, and those who were too young, too old, or too feeble to perform the journey on foot, went in the wagons with the baggage. . . . Tedious and wearisome, to be sure, but in no way perilous, as plenty of provisions, bedding, and clothing could be carried, not only for the journey, but sufficient to last some time after the arrival. "The cost of emigration in this way was from £10 to £12, English money, or nominally $50 to $60 in gold--not very expensive, surely, for a journey from Liverpool to Salt Lake City; but to Brigham, in one of his fits of economy, it seemed altogether too costly, and he set to work to devise some means for retrenchment. During the entire winter of 1855-56, he and his chief supporters were in almost constant consultation on the subject of reducing the expenses of emigration, and they finally hit upon the expedient of having them cross the plains with hand-carts, wheeling their own provisions and baggage, and so saving the expense of teams. The more Brigham thought of his plan, the more in love he grew with it, and he sent detailed instructions concerning it to the Apostle Franklin D. Richards, the Mormon agent at Liverpool, who published it in the Millennial Star, as the new 'divine plan' revealed to Brother Brigham by the Lord, whose will it was that the journey should be made in this manner." Duping and Grouping the Faithful "My father was in England when the ‘command of the Lord concerning them’ was given to the gathering Saints, and their enthusiastic devotion and instant acceptance of the revelation showed how entirely they entrusted themselves to the leadership of their superiors in the Church, implicitly believing them to be inspired of God. They were told by Richards, in the magazine, and by their missionaries in their addresses, that they should meet many difficulties--that trials would be strewn along their path, and occasional dangers meet them--but that the Lord's chosen people were to be a tried people, and that they should come out unscathed, and enter Zion with great triumph and rejoicing, coming out from the world as by great tribulation; that the Lord would hold them in special charge, and they need not fear terror by night nor pestilence that walketh at noonday, for they should not so much as hurt a foot against a stone. "It was represented to them that they were specially privileged and honored in thus being called by the Lord to be the means of showing His power and revealing glory to a world lying in darkness and overwhelmed with guilt, deserted by God and given over to destruction. Considering the class of people from whom most of the converts were made, it is not at all strange that all this talk should impress their imaginations and arouse their enthusiasm. Emotion, instead of reason, guided them almost entirely, and they grew almost ecstatic over the new way in which they were called to Zion." Brigham Young Needed Warm Bodies for His Cold-Hearted Theocratic Blueprint "The United States government was beginning to trouble itself a little about Utah; and in order to make the Church as strong as possible, in case of an invasion, Brigham was anxious to increase the number of emigrants, and requested Apostle Richards to send as many as he possibly could. To do this, the elders counseled all the emigrants, who had more money than they needed, to deposit it with the Apostle Richards for the purpose of assisting the poor to Zion. The call was instantly and gladly obeyed, and the number of Saints bound Zion-ward was thereby nearly doubled. In the face of the disaster which attended it, it has been the boast of some of the missionaries and elders that this was the largest number that ever was sent over at one time. So much greater, then, is the weight of responsibility which rests upon the souls of those who originated and carried out this selfish design, made more selfish, more cruel, and more terribly culpable for the hypocrisy and deceit which attended it from its conception to its disastrous close. . . . "On the 14th of March, 1856, my father, who was at Sheffield, England, engaged in missionary work, received a telegram from Richards, telling him to come at once to Liverpool for the purpose of taking passage for America in the mail-packet 'Canada' . . . He had no time to say good-bye to his friends, but made his preparations hurriedly, and left Sheffield as soon as possible. On arriving at Liverpool and consulting with Richards, he learned that he had been sent for to assist in the proposed hand-cart expedition, and that his part of the work was to he performed in the United States. He, being a practical wagon-maker, was to oversee the building of the carts. . . ." Callous Unconcern for the Loyal Little People "He expected, of course, to go to work at once, and was very impatient to do so, as it was very nearly the season when the emigrants should start to cross the plains, and the first vessel filled with them was already due in New York. He knew that it would be a waste both of time and money to keep them in Iowa City any longer than as absolutely necessary; besides which, after a certain date, every day would increase the perils of crossing the plains. But when he arrived, Daniel Spencer, the principal agent, was east on a visit, and did not make his appearance until an entire month had expired; and there was all that valuable time wasted in order that one man might indulge in a little pleasure. What were a thousand or more human lives in comparison to his enjoyment? Less than nothing, it would seem, in his estimation. "Not only were there no materials provided to work with, but no provision had been made for sheltering the poor Saints, who had already commenced to arrive by ship-loads. Their condition was pitiable in the extreme; they had met nothing but privation from the time they left England. The trials that had been promised them they had already encountered, but so great was their faith, that they bore it all without a word of complaint, and some even rejoicing that it was their lot to suffer for the cause of their religion; they were sure they should all be brought to Zion in safety, for had not God promised that through the mouth of His holy Prophet? Their faith was sublime in its exaltation; and in contrast to it, the cold-blooded, scheming, blasphemous policy of Young and his followers shows out false, and blacker than ever. To have deceived a credulous people by wanton misrepresentation is wicked enough, but to do it 'in the name of the Lord' is a sin that can never be atoned for to God or man. It is the height of blasphemy, and I fairly shudder as I endeavor to comprehend, in some slight degree, the magnitude of such an offence. "They had been crowded and huddled together on shipboard more like animals than like human beings; their food had been insufficient and of bad quality; the sleeping accommodations were limited, and there was not the proper amount of bedding for those who were compelled to sleep in the more exposed places. Some of the persons who saw the emigrants, say that it was like nothing so much as an African slave-ship, filled with its unlawful and ill-gotten freight. The air in the steerage, where most of the emigrants were, was noxious, and yet these people were compelled to breathe it through all the days of the voyage. Many were too ill to leave their beds, and a change of clothing was out of the question. The entire floor was covered with mattresses, and it was impossible to walk about without stepping over some one. Men, women, and children were huddled in together in the most shameless fashion. "Affairs were not much bettered when they arrived at New York; the Apostle John Taylor, whose duty it was to provide for them there, was too deeply engaged in a quarrel with Apostle Franklin D. Richards, as to which of the two who were thrown on his protection, penniless and helpless, was higher in authority, to attend to these poor creatures, in a strange country. But everyone must understand that his personal dignity must be attended to and his position maintained, if all the poor Saints that were emigrated, or dreamed of emigrating, should die of starvation and exposure. I think the great body of Saints must have learned before this time that it is by no means safe to trust to the tender mercies of a Mormon Apostle. When, after a while, the Apostle Taylor's imperative personal business allowed him a moment in which to think of the unhappy emigrants, he started them for Iowa City, where they arrived only to experience a repetition of their New York sufferings, and see another illustration of apostolic neglect. Nothing had been prepared for them either in the way of shanties or tents, and they were compelled to camp in the open air, their only roof a sky that was not always blue. While in camp, there were several very severe rain-storms, from which, as they had no shelter, there was no escape; they got completely drenched, and this caused a great deal of severe illness among them. They were unprotected alike from burning sun and pitiless, chilling rain, and it is no wonder that fevers and dysentery prevailed, and that hundreds of longing eyes closed in death before they beheld the Zion of their hopes. "It would have been strange if the faith of some had not wavered then; yet none dared complain. There was nothing to do but to go on to the end. They were thousands of miles from home, with no means of returning, and they were taught, too, that it would be a curse upon them to turn their backs on Zion. So there they remained through the long summer days, waiting helplessly until they should be ordered to move onward." Gross Criminal Negligence: Turning Out Handcarts on the Cheap "At length my father saw his way clear to commence his work, and he went to work with a will, pressing everyone who could be of actual assistance into his service. But here the trouble commenced again. He was instructed to make the wagons on as economical a plan as possible, and every step that he took he found himself hedged about by impossibilities. The agents all talked economy, and when one did not raise an objection to a proposal, another did, and difficulties were placed in his way constantly. "They did not wish to furnish iron for the tires, as it was too expensive; raw hide, they were sure, would do just as well. My father argued this point with them until at last the agents decided to give up raw hides, and they furnished him with hoop iron. He was annoyed and angry, all the while he was making the carts, at the extreme parsimony displayed. A thorough workman himself, he wanted good materials to work with; but every time he asked for anything, no matter how absolutely necessary it was to make the work sufficiently durable to stand the strain of so long a journey. the reply invariably was, '0, Brother Webb, the carts must be made cheap. We can't afford this expenditure; you are too extravagant in your outlay;' forgetting, in their zeal to follow their Prophet's instructions, what the consequences would be to the poor Saints, if delayed on their way to the Valley, by having to stop to repair their carts." Handcart Companies Forced Into an Ill-Timed Launch with Short Supplies "As soon as was possible they started companies on the way. My father strongly objected to any of them starting after the last of June; but he was overruled, and the last company left Iowa City the middle of August, for a journey across arid plains and over snow-clad mountains, which it took twelve weeks of the quickest traveling at that time to accomplish; and in the manner in which these emigrants were going it would take much longer. He also opposed their being started with such a scanty allowance of provisions. He insisted they should have at least double the amount; but in this attempt, also, he was unsuccessful, and one of the survivors of the expedition afterwards said that the rations which were given out to each person for a day could easily be eaten at breakfast. They consisted of ten ounces of flour for each adult, and half that amount for each child under eight years of age. At rare intervals, a little rice, coffee, sugar, and bacon were doled out to the hungry travelers, but this was not often done. Many of the people begged of the farmers in Iowa, so famished were they, and so inadequate was their food which was supplied them by the agents. They were limited, too, in the matter of baggage, and again my father tried to use his influence, but all to no purpose; so much might go, but not a pound more. "Almost discouraged, and altogether disgusted with the meanness and heartless carelessness which were exhibited throughout the whole affair, as far, at least, as he had experience with it, he yet made one more attempt to aid the unfortunate travelers, whose trials, great as they had been, had really not fairly begun. His last proposition was, that more teams should be provided, so that the feeble, who were not likely to endure the fatigues of the long march, should have an opportunity of riding; but he was met again with the inevitable reply, 'Can't do it, Brother Webb. We tell you we can't afford it; they must go cheap.' It was dear enough in the end, if human lives count for anything. "My father never speaks of those days of preparation in Iowa City that he does not grow indignant. It might have been averted had not Brigham Young been so parsimonious, and his followers so eager to curry favor with him, by carrying out his instructions more implicitly than there was any need of doing. They were only quarreled and found fault with, and reprimanded publicly in the Tabernacle for their faithfulness to him, when it became necessary to shield himself from odium in the matter. Nothing more would have happened if they had obeyed the instincts of humanity, and deferred a little to their consciences, and they certainly would have been better off, as they would at least have retained their own self-respect, and the regard of their unfortunate charges, which, it is needless to say, they lost most completely. "When some of the last companies reached Council Bluffs-- better known to most Mormons as 'Winter-Quarters'--there was considerable controversy whether it was best to try and go any farther before spring. Most of the emigrants knew nothing of the climate and the perils of the undertaking, and were eager to press on to Zion. Four men only in the company had crossed the plains; those were captains of the trains--Willie, Atwood, Savage, and Woodward; but there were several elders at this place superintending emigration. Of these, Levi Savage was the only one to remonstrate against attempting to reach Salt Lake Valley so late in the season. He declared that it would be utterly--impossible to cross the mountains without great suffering, and even death. "His remonstrances availed about as much my father's had done in regard to their starting. He was defeated and reprimanded very sharply for his want of faith. He replied that there were cases where 'common sense' was the best guide. and he considered this to be one. 'However,' said he, 'seeing you are to go forward, I will go with you, will help you all I can, will work with you, suffer with you, and, if necessary, die with you.' "Very soon after the departure of the last company of the emigrants from Iowa City, my father, with the other elders, started for the Valley in mule teams, intending to return, if they found it necessary, to bring succor to the poor wandering people. In the company with my father were Apostle Franklin D. Richards, and Elders W. H. Kimball, G. D. Grant, Joseph A. Young, Brigham's oldest son, and several others, all of whom were returning to Utah from foreign missions, and all of whom had been engaged in the expedition. "They overtook the emigrants at their camp on the North Fork of the Platte River, and camped with them over night. Richards was told of the opposition which Savage had made, and he openly rebuked him in the morning. He then informed the Saints that 'though it might storm on the right hand and on the left, yet the storms should not reach them. The Lord would keep the way open before them, and they should reach Zion in safety.' It may be that he believed all this nonsense himself. It is to be hoped, for charity's sake, that he did. If that were the case, however, it is a pity that he had not been endowed with a little of Levi Savage's common sense. It would have been much better for the Saints than all his vaunted 'spirit of prophecy.' "It is a significant fact, that in the very face of his prophecy, delivered to the victims of his zeal in the cause of Brigham Young, he was anxious to hasten his arrival in Salt Lake in order to send assistance back to the patient handcart emigrants, who, he must have seen, would soon be in sore straits for food and clothing. The rations were scanty, and would soon have to be lessened; the nights were chilly, and fast growing cold; and already the seventeen pounds of bedding and clothing allowed to each one were scarcely sufficient protection; and as the season advanced, and they approached the mountains, it would be totally inadequate. It was fortunate that they did not know the climate of the country, and the terrible hardships to which they were to be exposed, else their hearts would have failed them, and they would have had no courage to have recommenced the journey. My father realized it, and so did most of the party with him; yet they had no idea how horrible it was to be, else they would have insisted upon their remaining in camp until spring. Even the usually indifferent heart of Joseph A. was touched, and he hurried on to impress upon his father the urgent need for immediate assistance for those poor, forlorn creatures whom he left preparing to cross the mountains, where they would of a surety meet the late autumn and early winter storms, and where so many of them must of a certainty perish of exposure and hunger. He had no faith in the apostolic prophecy, which seemed a mockery to all those who knew the hardships of the journey which lay before these faithful souls before they could reach the Zion of their hopes. "My father had been four years absent from us, yet such was his concern for the poor people whom he so recently left, and who had been his care for so long, that he could only stay to give us the most hurried greetings. His gladness at his return, and our responsive joy, were marred by the thought of the sufferings and privations of those earnest, simple-hearted Saints, who had literally left all to follow the beck of one whom they supposed to be the Prophet of the Lord. After all these years of absence, he only staid two days with us--as short a time as it could possibly take to get the relief-train ready with the supplies." Blood on His Hands for His Handcart Crimes: Brigham Young’s Ultimate Guilty Conscience "I think Brigham Young's heart and conscience must have been touched, for he really seemed for a while to forget himself in the earnestness with which he pushed forward the preparations for relief. He fairly arose to the occasion, and held back nothing which could contribute to the comfort and welfare of his poor, forlorn followers. Yet he was only acting as both justice and decency commanded that he should act. He was the cause of all this terrible suffering, and he felt that he should be made answerable. Such a transaction as this could by no means remain unknown. It would be spread over America and Europe, and used as a strong weapon against Mormonism and its leader, already unpopular enough. He realized the mistake he had made when too late to rectify it, and, with his usual moral cowardice, he set about hunting for somebody on whose shoulders to shift the blame from his own. Richards and Spencer were the unfortunate victims, and he turned his wrath against them, in private conversation and in public assemblies, until they were nearly crushed by the weight of opprobrium which he heaped upon them. He was nearly beside himself with fear of the consequences which would follow, when this crowning act of selfish cupidity and egotistical vanity and presumption should be known. Love of approbation is a striking characteristic of this Latter-Day Prophet, and he puffs and swells with self-importance at every word he receives, even of the baldest, most insincere flattery, and he cringes and crouches in as servile a manner as a whipped cur, when any adverse criticism is passed upon either his personnel or his actions. A moral as well as a physical coward, he dares not face a just opinion of himself and his deeds, and he sneaks, and skulks, and hides behind any one he can find who is broad enough to shield him. "My father's disgust at a religion which submitted to such chicanery, and his distrust of Brigham Young, were so great, that he was very near apostatizing; but my mother again held him to the church. She argued and explained; she wept and she entreated, until he said no more about it. But though, for her sake, he took no steps towards leaving the Church and renouncing the faith, he felt daily his disgust and distrust increasing, and he never again believed so strongly in the Mormon religion, and ever after regarded Brigham with much less awe and respect than formerly." http://www.antimormon.8m.com/youngchp11.html _____ Conclusion: "How the West Was Spun" in the Wake of Brigham Young's Forced Handcart March Wyoming writer Annie Proulx, in a recent article for the London Guardian entitled, "How the West Was Spun," examines the creation and maintenance of certain "heroic myths of the American frontier." Proulx notes that Americans (and this certainly holds true for fanciful-minded Mormons) hold on to and promote cherished myths, often at great detriment to the truth: "The heroic myth of the American West is much more powerful than its historical past. To this day, the great false beliefs . . . prevail: that [these] were . . . brave, generous, unselfish men; that the West was 'won' by noble White American pioneers . . . and that everything in the natural world from the west bank of the Missouri to the Pacific Ocean was there to be used by human beings to further their wealth. "These absurd but solidly-rooted fantasies cannot be pulled up. People believe in and identify themselves with these myths and will scratch and kick to maintain their Western self-image. The rest of the country and the world believes in the heroic myth because the tourism bureau will never let anyone forget it." One of those stubbronly-entrenched myths that Proulx mentions is the "Mormon Handcart Journey," which is annually and magnificently mimicked by enthusiastic LDS stand-ins: "Much of the West's past is literally acted out each year by enthusiasts called 're-enactors,' who don appropriate costumes and take on pageant-like roles in such events of yesteryear as a . . . Mormon Handcart Journey. For a few days it is real enough. . . ." http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/history/story/0,6000,1513940,00.html But how real is it? William Grigg, in his article, "Mass Murder in the Desert," cites renegade Mormon historian Will Bagley's searing description of Brigham Young's Mormon handcart debacle as what it really was--a fevered flight of religious fanaticism, undertaken on the backs of thousands of devout, brainwashed Mormons who became Young's unwitting and unfortunate victims: " . . . [F]or nearly the entire first century of the [Mormon] religion's existence--beginning with the Missouri-era threats to redeem 'Zion' by bloodshed-- faithful Mormons were marinated in hatred toward 'Gentiles' and taught the redemptive power of sanctified violence. "In the early 1850s, the sense of besetting persecution by unbelievers so central to the Mormons' communal identity became outright paranoia after Mormon leaders unveiled the previously disavowed practice of polygamy. The nascent Republican Party identified polygamy and slavery as 'twin relics of barbarism' and declared war on both. . . . "Like despots both ancient and modern, Brigham Young eagerly seized on this external threat to consolidate his power. He also ramped up Mormon recruitment efforts in Great Britain and Scandinavia (where Mormon missionaries carefully concealed the doctrine of polygamy) as a way of building up his kingdom. To cut down on the time and expense involved in bringing new Mormons to 'Zion,' Young ordered the construction of handcarts--rickshaw-like vehicles used to carry the pilgrims and their possessions across the plains. "The handcart initiative led to disaster in late 1856 as two companies of Mormon immigrants (known as the Martin and Willie companies), promised by Mormon leaders that God would hold back the winter snows, were caught in an abnormally early and severe blizzard. More than 200 men, women, and children died, making the Martin/Willie debacle 'the worst disaster in the history of America's overland trails,' recalls Bagley. "Despite the fact that the handcart disaster was a direct outgrowth of Young's 'inspired' immigration scheme, 'Mormon leaders refused to shoulder any blame for the catastrophe,' Bagley continues. Jedediah Grant, high-ranking first counselor in the Mormon Church presidency, 'laid the blame on the victims. . . . [He] blamed the death and suffering of the handcart Saints on "the same disobedience and sinfulness that had induced spiritual sleepiness among the people already in Zion."'" http://libertyunbound.com/archive/2003_12/grigg-murder.html So it was with Brigham Young's ruthless "Handcarts to Hell" undertaking--and so it remains (all gussied up and sanitized, of course) in the historically-disfigured annals of Mormon folklore. |
| | Tuesday, Aug 23, 2005, at 07:23 AM Tales From The Cult: Personal Accounts Of Patriarchal Abuse At The Hands Of High Mormon Church Leaders Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Making Priesthood Punching Bags Out of Mormon Women The LDS Cult is an abusive, ham-handed good ol’ boys club, invented and run by men for the benefit of men (just like most religions), whose make-believe God has (in their minds, at least) put them in charge with all of his mighty, imaginary power. Mormonism represents a dark, depressing and hopeless dungeon for millions of trapped women where, as a matter of LDS doctrine and practice, they are disrespected and depersonalized by their insecure, power-hungry male handlers. Throughout this demeaning process, Mormon men attempt to brainwash their female hostages into believing that the relentless dehumanization of their gender at the hands of priesthood "leadership" is actually glorious proof of the special status granted females by a loving Mormon male God--a god who places women, bound, chained and gagged, atop his patriarchal pedestal, from which they are commanded not to move, under threat of eternal punishment. Such hostility toward women can be seen in how Mormonism abuses women in their day-to-day lives. For purposes of this examination, below are some of the experiences from the lives of my wife Mary Ann and myself, which serve as stark examples of Mormon patriarchal abuse. _____ Mormon Male Meddling in Our Wedding Plans--From the Head of the Quorum of the Twelve The Ezra Taft Benson family had an outlandish tradition of screening any would-be marriage partners who were anxiously, nervously and properly poised to join the, ahem, prestigous inner ETB circle. According to this prehistoric priesthood protocol led by Ezra himself, entry of foreign objects into the Benson sanctimonious sanctuary was strictly forbidden until the wedding applicant was first offered up by a petitioning member of the Benson family to the scrutinizing ETB clan, where the proposed mate was secretly subjected to a sustaining, up-or-down show of hands. In other words, if a non-Benson prospect didn't get the required vote of approval from the Benson thoroughbreds, they were, well, shuck out of luck. In the spirit of this sort of master race/family pre-nuptial check-up, my grandfather--invoking his position as President of the Quorum of the Twelve--had intervened years earlier (in the winter of 1979) to break up my engagement to Mary Ann. He had done so at the insistence of my mother, who thought Mary Ann was too tall, had too big of bones and was using her body to seduce me. My parents even made snooping inquiries among family members in the Cache Valley area where Mary Ann was from, as to any genetic diseases that she might pass on to our children, in the event that we got married. (Mary Ann has subsequently noted--in disgust of the Benson superiority complex--that the feared genetic flaws which prompted my parents to do some pre-nuptial investigating were found to actually flow through the "royal" Benson bloodline, in the form of life-threatening asthma and persistent eczema). But I digress. I remember the day my grandfather dropped the engagement-ending A-bomb of authoritarian abuse. It was a cold, gray February morning when he phoned me at my off-campus BYU apartment. He told me he was not calling me as my grandfather but, rather, as President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. He commanded me to call off our engagement, go home, "mend the family" and be blessed by the Lord for it. I objected, telling my grandfather that I loved Mary Ann. He responded by telling me I should follow the "wisdom" of my parents who, he said, had my best interests at heart. Mary Ann and I were heart-broken. We drove up into the snowy canyons of Provo that day, held each other and cried. Reluctantly, I did as commanded, pulled out of BYU and left for my parents’ home in Dallas, where my mother had visions for me of socially-elevated young Mormon wedding prospects dancing in her head. Soon enough, however, I had enough of trying to make others happy at my and Mary Ann's expense. I didn't bother to date anyone during my brief detour in Dallas. Hell, why should I? Mary Ann and I were in love. So we decided to do what what young people in love do--we went ahead and got married anyway. I went back up to Salt Lake and met with my grandfather in his Church office during the next General Conference. There, I told him that we had broken off our engagement twice in unsuccessful attempts to appease other family members. My grandfather acted surprised, confessing to me that he didn't know we had done so twice. (I figured inspired prophets were supposed to know these sort of things but I thought it best to keep my mouth shut). My grandfather told me there in his office that any young man who had served an honorable mission and who kept his temple covenants was entitled to receive personal revelation as to whom he should marry. He then told me to go ahead and proceed with plans to get married to Mary Ann. Very well, but I asked him how I should deal with my mother's expected strong objections. My grandfather told me not to worry--that he would take care of it. Over the strenuous protestations of my mother who complained loudly about The Priesthood interfering in family affairs (interference which, oddly enough, she hadn’t minded when she manipulated Ezra Taft Benson into breaking up our engagement in the first place), my grandfather performed the ceremony in the Salt Lake temple. My mother had tearfully predicted (the very night before our wedding in a family testimony meeting at the Benson cabin in Midway, Utah) that we would get divorced. She then got up and ran, literally screaming, out the door and into the night--then showed up the next day at the temple, all smiles for the cameras. As Mary Ann has noted with delicious irony, over a quarter of a century later we're still married but divorced from the Mormon Church. I stand all amazed that Mary Ann even put up with such pretensious poop. _____ Protecting the Personal Piggy Bank Against the Piggish Priesthood Before making our bolt from the Cult in October 1993, Mary Ann had quit paying tithing altogether, born of her disdain for the patriarchal grip that Mormonism’s chauvinistic leadership had around the collective throat of LDS women. Mary Ann cut the LDS Church off from access to her personal, hard-earned money because she concluded she could no longer give financial support to an institution that had lied to her about its history and betrayed her about its treatment of women. The condescending and controlling attitudes of Mormon authorities toward Mary Ann, combined with their attempts to control her, were (for lack of a better word) nauseating. _____ Permission Denied for Mary Ann to Teach Sunday School Lessons That Praised Strong Women at the Expense of Weak Men Mary Ann and I had jointly taught a lesson one Easter Sunday to a group of young people in our ward, in which she extolled the courage and loyalty of the women who stood by Jesus at the time of his trial and execution, while his male apostles abandoned him and headed for the tall grass. Our priesthood-holding stake youth director (who had monitored the lesson from the back of the classroom) waited until after class was over (and Mary Ann and the students had vacated the premises) to tell me that Mary Ann should not teach lessons to the young people of our ward that could undermine devotion to priesthood leadership. Apparently, he didn't have the guts to tell Mary Ann this himself, so I passed on the news to her. She was astounded and angry. _____ Covering Up for Sex Abuse Mary Ann was also outraged by the Church's deliberate inattentiveness to the festering problem of sexual abuse within its ranks, particularly since members of her own family had been its innocent victims. _____ Unwanted Visits to Our Home in the Name of Pompous Priesthood Pre-Eminence Irritating, arrogant Church encroachment into our lives continued. Later, when my public statements about the Church were causing intestinal upset among the Mormon faithful, our stake president, Craig Cardon (who also happened to have been my younger brother’s mission president in Italy) asked Mary Ann if he could come over to our home to pray and sing hymns with her and the children. Mary Ann said thanks, but no thanks. She assured him she was fine and would contact him, if and when she felt it necessary. The stake president responded that he had been prompted by the Holy Ghost to come over and visit her. He somberly informed Mary Ann that if she did not allow him to follow those promptings, then he would become "spiritually blocked" in other areas of his life. (This same stake president later wrote me letters, instructing me to stop "denigrating" the Mormon Church by doing editorial cartoons calling for equal treatment of women held captive by their priesthood trainers). _____ The Ward Relief Society Swimsuit Brigade Spies on Mary Ann The priesthood-controlled Relief Society president of our Emerald Bay Ward in Gilbert, Arizona (and wife of the eventual stake president), also got into the act in attempting to control the life and choices of Mary Ann, who at the time was a member of the Relief Society presidency. Mary Ann was tattled on to the Relief Society president by our next door neighbor for having been spotted walking over to the community pool dressed ready to swim, rather than in the regulation garments. This "sin" was considered especially egregious, given Mary Ann’s position in the Relief Society presidency. Mary Ann acknowledged to the Relief Society president that she had made the trip to the pool in her swimsuit but said she had ventured outside so attired in order to prevent the peering eyes of the world from catching a glimpse of Mormonism's holy underwear in the community pool's public dressing rooms. The Relief Society president responded by saying she appreciated Mary Ann's intent but insisted that it was better for Mary Ann to remain shielded on the way over to the pool by the holy garments of the priesthood. Besides, she said, Mary Ann had to set an example for ward members who looked up to her. _____ Mormon Male Dominators, Neal Maxwell and Dallin Oaks, Explain to Us the "Proper" Role of Women Prior to (and shortly before) having our names officially cloroxed from the membership rolls of the Mormon Church in the fall of 1993, Mary Ann and I met with LDS Apostles Neal Maxwell and Dallin Oaks in Maxwell’s Church office in downtown Salt Lake City. The purpose of the encounter was to ask these two men for some direct answers regarding Mormon history, doctrine, policy and practice that were deeply disturbing to us. During the course of that meeting, we addressed the role of women in the Mormon Church. Mary Ann, being the no-nonsense straight shooter that she is, put it to the Blue Suits bluntly: "Where is,” she asked, “the voice of women in the Church?" Both Maxwell and Oaks seemed unsure of what she meant so she explained her concern that LDS women did not have a female role model to follow. Mormon women knew essentially nothing, she pointed out, about their Mother in Heaven. She also expressed her concern for the plight of women and children in the Church who had been physically, sexually or emotionally abused by its domineering males. She shared with Oaks and Maxwell obnoxious comments made by Boyd K. Packer in an address to the "All-Church Coordinating Council" in which he declared, "The woman pleading for help needs to see the eternal nature of things and to know that her trials, however hard to bear, in the eternal scheme of things may be compared to a very, very bad experience in the second semester of the first grade." (Boyd K. Packer, "Talk to All-Church Coordinating Council," 18 May 1993, transcript copy, p. 6) In response, Maxwell assured Mary Ann that the LDS Church did indeed care about women. As proof of that, he handed her a photocopy of a General Conference sermon he had delivered, entitled, "The Women of God," reprinted in the Ensign. This sermon of his, Maxwell assured her, demonstrated the high esteem in which LDS women were held. Mary Ann glanced at the article and was struck by how much younger Maxwell appeared in its accompanying photo than he did in our meeting. She later admitted that her first thought was, "Gee, you look so young in this photograph. Haven't you said anything more recent on the topic?" Mary Ann, however, kept this reaction to herself and thanked Maxwell for the talk. She then noticed the date it was published: May 1978, 15 years prior to our meeting when Maxwell was not even yet a member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles. Mary Ann did not bother even reading the article. Years later, I got around to reading Maxwell’s talk (something Mary Ann has yet not felt inclined to do). His condescending view of women reminded me of the kind of suffocating, insufferable patriarchy that Mary Ann lamented had, in times past, "dripped from the walls" of her "own home." Maxwell intoned: "We are accustomed to focusing on the men of God because theirs is the priesthood and leadership line. But paralleling that authority line is a stream of righteous influence reflecting the remarkable women of God . . . "We men know the women of God as wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, associates, and friends. You seem to tame us and to gentle us, and, yes, to teach us and to inspire us . . . In the work of the Kingdom, men and women are not without each other, but do not envy each other, lest by reversals and renunciations of role we make a wasteland of both womanhood and manhood . . . "We salute you, sisters, for the joy that is yours as you rejoice in a baby's first smile and as you listen with eager ear to a child's first day at school which bespeaks a special selflessness. Women, more quickly than others, will understand the possible dangers when the world self is placed before other words like fulfillment. You rock a sobbing child without wondering if today's world is passing you by, because you know you hold tomorrow tightly in your arms . . . "When the real history of mankind is fully disclosed, will it feature the echoes of gunfire or the shaping sound of lullabies? The great armistices made by military men or the peacemaking of women in homes and in neighborhoods? Will what happened in cradles and kitchens prove to be more controlling that what happened in congresses? . . . "No wonder the men of God support and sustain you sisters in your unique roles, for the act of deserting home in order to shape society is like thoughtlessly removing crucial fingers from an imperiled dike in order to teach people to swim. "We men love you for meeting inconsiderateness with consideration and selfishness with selflessness. We are touched by the eloquence of your example. We are deeply grateful for your enduring us as men when we are not at our best because—like God—you love us not only for what we are, but for what we have the power to become. "We have special admiration for the unsung but unsullied single women among whom are some of the noblest daughters of God. These sisters know that God loves them individually and distinctly. They make wise career choices, even thought they cannot now have the most choice career . . . "Notice, brethren, how all the prophets treat their wives and honor women, and let us do likewise!" (Neal Maxwell, "Women of God," Ensign, May 1978, pp. 10, 11). During the meeting, Oaks told Mary Ann that he appreciated all the women in his life, especially his wife. He said that because she took care of the household, drove their daughters to music lessons, etc., he was able to do his work for the Church. _____ Mary Ann Makes Up Her Mind About Further Patriarchal Mormon Mugging—and Decides She's Had Enough Mary Ann and I had just experienced the unique (and highly disappointing) opportunity of spending roughly three hours in a revealing give-and-take, two-one-two with a couple of the Lord's slickest apostles. We had come to the meeting wanting, and expecting, to get answers to our deep and growing doubts regarding the Mormon faith. Mary Ann recalled how she had traveled to meet with Oaks and Maxwell because she had hoped that they could answer her questions and concerns, repair the damage to her belief (which she described as "severe cracks in the walls and foundation" of her Mormon faith) and help her rebuild her testimony. It did not happen. After meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, she decided she had had enough. Upon our return home to Arizona, she felt exhausted and manhandled. As she later told me, "It felt like a wrecking ball had been swung through the remaining walls of my faith and now I was left standing in a pile of rubble." On 16 September 1993, a week after meeting with Oaks and Maxwell, Mary Ann wrote her no-nonsense, notarized letter of resignation from the Mormon Church, addressed to our bishop and stake president: "Dear Bishop Annison: "I am hereby directing you to remove my name from the records of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "I fully understand the ramifications of the decision; i.e., my baptism, temple sealing and blessings will be cancelled. "I realize that you and others may want to discuss this with me, yet my decision is final. I cannot be dissuaded. Therefore, I do not want you or anyone else to call or in any way try to contact me. "I want you to immediately forward this written request along with a completed Report of Administrative Action form on to [Stake] President Cardon as well as remove my name, address, phone number and personal information from the ward roster. "Sincerely, "Mary Ann Benson "cc: President Craig Cardon" I followed up a few days later by writing my own letter and, together, we hand-delivered them to the homes of our bishop and stake president. _____ Conclusion: The Meat Grinder of Latter-day Sexism The male-run Mormon mind-munching machine is a brutally dehumanizing device designed to produce sausage-like Saints who are testaments to linkage without thinkage. In Mormon production-line brainwashing from cradle to grave, compliant sacrificial offerings to the LDS God-Men are lined up, stuffed in, ran through and spit out as the praying, paying and obeying herds of blindly obedient believers that their patriarchal priesthood pork producers expect--and demand. What emerges is a product line without substance and without individuality. What it does demonstrate, however, is a complete willingness to serve as the hot dogs (and “dogettes”) for consumption by the Top Dogs. Oink. Burp. Grin. Mission accomplished. |
| | Sunday, Aug 28, 2005, at 06:43 AM A Confession: How I Helped Build Up The Cause Of Zion By Tearing Things Down Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| On this board there's been a lot of understandable finger-pointing, anger and raised big stink at Mormon, Inc., for its filthy-lucre focus on shopping mall investments and other mogul-minded money-making schemes.
Yeah, the Temporal Temple at Crossroads Mall hardly seems like the kind of devotional center that Jesus had in mind when he commanded his apostles to abandon purse and script and hit the road spreading the Gospel. http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon... While I was still a BYU undergrad in 1978 (when Mary Ann and I had been married less than a year), I landed a summer job working for a demolition company, A.J. Mackey and Sons, in Salt Lake City, where we focused on preparing for the great and dreadful day of the coming of the Profits. Me and another BYU student (a RM who went to Australia on his mission and whose name I can no longer remember, other than it was "Elder" something) would get up early each weekday morning, don our bibs and boots, grab our hard hats and gloves and make the daily round-trip journey to Mormonism's Moneyed Mecca and then back to Provo, on a search and destroy mission. (One of my regrets is making that trek up I-15 to Salt Lake and, in the process, running over a little white cat around the Point of the Mountain that was ambling down the middle of the freeway, minding its own business when it got pancaked from behind. Had it not been for my subcontract with the Great and Abominable Church of the LDS Devil, that little fella would have lived to procreate like good little Mormon cats should. Returning later that afternoon down the same freeway, I saw the poor thing--now just a tiny blackened tuff of unrecognizable fur--snuffed out on that hell-bent highway of death). One of our big demolition contracts involved clearing the way for the building of what was to eventually rise from the asbestos ashes as Crossroads Mall. We spent weeks tearing down old, dilapidated buildings within the shadows of Temple Square, scavenging for resaleable copper tubing, hauling off reusable toilet heads and fixtures and salvaging antique bricks for use in the private homes of rich people. We'd put our feisty little Bobcat scoopers to work knocking over walls and ripping down ceilings of many a sad and condemned structure, scouring out the downtown area to make way for Deseret Book, the Inn at Temple Square and other monuments to the Almighty God of Mormon Moola, where the hordes of faithful could shop til their garments dropped. I feel so bad about it now, sniff! After we had basically leveled the place, I spent some time working a big fire house, tapping down the dust as we cleaned out and prepped the gaping subterranean holes that were to receive holy placement of what were to be the firm foundations of rebarb and poured concrete, upon which was to rise yet another edifice to Mormon Greed. And I did it back then for next to nothing in Federal Reserve Notes. I'm so sorry. I confess my sins to you here, for all to see. I hang my hard hat-less head in shame and ask that you forgive me. If I had to do it all over again, I'd ask for a demolition contract on the Church Office Building. And would throw in the Temple next door for free. |
| | Sunday, Aug 28, 2005, at 06:44 AM A Tale Of Two Present-Day Tyrants--Nigazov In Turkmenistan And Hinckley In Utah: Comparing Their Respective Repressive Rhetoric Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Blood Brothers--A Smothering Dictator in Central Asia, Along with His Kissing Cult Cousin in Utah, Preach
Against Modern Corruption of the Youth Religion makes the strangest bedfellows--and some of the worst ones, at that. Reading through the newspaper recently, I came across an Associated Press article headlined, “Turkmen president bans lip-synching performances” (Arizona Republic, 24 August 2005, section A, p. 17). The president, Saparmurat Niyazov, has laid down the law in his country with regard to what he has officially declared to be unacceptable in terms of music, dance, hairdos and body decoration don'ts. Good gawd, for a minute I thought Gordon B. Hinckley had been cloned. On closer examination, I discovered that he had. Compare the utterances of these two clowns, er, clones, and see for yourself how both of them rule with iron fists over their own Cult Kingdoms. Opening with the news story: "ASHGABAT, Turkmenistan—He has outlawed opera and ballet and railed against long hair and gold teeth, but now the authoritarian president of Turkmenistan is determined to wipe out another perceived scourge: lip synching." President Saparmurat Niyazov on Bad Music "President Saparmurat Niyazov has ordered a ban on lip-synching performances across the tightly controlled Central Asian nation, citing 'a negative effect on the development of singing and musical art,' the president’s office said Tuesday." President Gordon B. Hinckley on Bad Music "I told the Relief Society of secret underground drug parties that go by the name of Rave. Here with flashing lights and noisy music, if it can be called that, young men and women dance and sway. They sell and buy drugs. The drugs are called Ecstasy. They are a derivative of methamphetamine. The dancers suck on babies' pacifiers because the drug makes them grind their teeth. The hot music and the sultry dancing." ("Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children," LDS General Conference, October 2000, http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-138-22,00.html ) _____ President Saparmurat Niyazov on Bad Television "Unfortunately, one can see on television old voiceless singers lip-synching their old songs, Niyazov told a Cabinet meeting in comments broadcast on state TV on Tuesday 'Don’t kill talents by using lip-synching . . .Create our new culture.'" "Under Niyazov’s order, lip synching is now prohibited at all cultural events, concerts, on television and at private celebrations such as weddings." President Gordon B. Hinckley on Bad Television (as well as on Bad Computers, TV’s Nefarious Twin) ". . . [U]se that most remarkable of all tools of communication, television, to enrich [your children’s] lives. . . . Let those who are responsible for any efforts to put suitable family entertainment on television know of your appreciation for that which is good and also of your displeasure with that which is bad. In large measure, we get what we ask for." "We live in a season of war. We live in a season of arrogance. We live in a season of wickedness, pornography, immorality. All of the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah haunt our society. Our young people have never faced a greater challenge. We have never seen more clearly the lecherous face of evil.’" "If they [LDS boys] want to get involved in pornography, they can do so very easily. . . . They can sit at a computer and revel in cyberspace filth." "I fear this may be going on in some of your homes. It is vicious. It is lewd and filthy. It is enticing and habit-forming. It will take a young man or woman down to destruction as surely as anything in this world. It is foul sleaze . . . " ("Living in the Fulness of Times," LDS General Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 2001, http;//www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-225-1,00.html ; "In Opposition to Evil," First Presidency Message, Ensign, September 2004, http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-225-1,00.html ; and "Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children," LDS General Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 2000, http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-138-22,00.html ) _____ President Saparmurat Niyazov on Gold Tooth Caps and Long Hair "Last year [2004], he called for young people not to get gold tooth caps and urge authorities to crack down on young men wearing beards or long hair." President Gordon B. Hinckley on Multiple Earrings, Body Piercings, Tattoos and Long Hair "Now comes the craze of tattooing one's body. I cannot understand why any young man--or young woman, for that matter--would wish to undergo the painful process of disfiguring the skin with various multicolored representations of people, animals, and various symbols. With tattoos, the process is permanent, unless there is another painful and costly undertaking to remove it. "Fathers, caution your sons against having their bodies tattooed. They may resist your talk now, but the time will come when they will thank you. A tattoo is graffiti on the temple of the body. "Likewise the piercing of the body for multiple rings in the ears, in the nose, even in the tongue. Can they possibly think that is beautiful? It is a passing fancy, but its effects can be permanent. Some have gone to such extremes that the ring had to be removed by surgery. The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have declared that we discourage tattoos and also ‘the piercing of the body for other than medical purposes.’ We do not, however, take any position ‘on the minimal piercing of the ears by women for one pair of earrings’--one pair." ("Great Shall Be the Peace of Thy Children, " LDS General Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, October 2000, http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-138-22,00.html ) *** More from President Gordon B. Hinckley on the Subject of Mormon-Opposed Body Piercings "I submit that it is an uncomely thing, and yet a common thing, to see young men with ears pierced for earrings, not for one pair only, but for several. They have no respect for their appearance. Do they think it clever or attractive to so adorn themselves? I submit it is not adornment. It is making ugly that which was attractive. Not only are ears pierced, but other parts of the body as well. It is absurd." "May I mention earrings and rings placed in other parts of the body. These are not manly. They are not attractive. You young men look better without them . . . As for the young women, you do not need to drape rings up and down your ears. One modest pair of earrings is sufficient." (Gordon B. Hinckley, "Your Greatest Challenge, Mother," Ensign, Nov. 2000; and satellite broadcast of Hinckley talk to LDS youth and young single adults, Conference Center, Salt Lake City, Utah, 12 November 2000) *** "'[President Gordon B.] Hinckley Warns Youth Against Tattoos, Body-Piercing' "At the first Church-wide fireside directed to LDS youth in many years, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley repeated his call for youth to avoid pornography, tattoos, body-piercing and 'lascivious' rock music. Hinckley's remarks repeated his recent calls in the LDS Relief Society's general meeting . . . and the Priesthood session of General Conference . . . for parents to keep their children from these practices." (Mormon News—All the News About Mormons, Mormonism and the LDS Church, week ending 17 November 2000, http://www.mormonstoday.com/001117/ ) ***** Mormon Propaganda Published and Aimed at LDS youth, Under the Regime of President Gordon B. Hinckley "'Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? . . . The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are' (1 Corinthians 3:16–17). "Your body is God’s sacred creation. Respect it as a gift from God, and do not defile it in any way. Through your dress and appearance, you can show the Lord that you know how precious your body is. You can show that you are a disciple of Jesus Christ. "Prophets of God have always counseled His children to dress modestly. The way you dress is a reflection of what you are on the inside. Your dress and grooming send messages about you to others and influence the way you and others act. When you are well groomed and modestly dressed, you invite the companionship of the Spirit and can exercise a good influence on those around you. "Never lower your dress standards for any occasion. Doing so sends the message that you are using your body to get attention and approval and that modesty is important only when it is convenient. . . . "Young men should . . . maintain modesty in their appearance. All should avoid extremes in clothing, appearance, and hairstyle. Always be neat and clean and avoid being sloppy or inappropriately casual in dress, grooming, and manners. Ask yourself, 'Would I feel comfortable with my appearance if I were in the Lord’s presence?'" "Someday you will receive your endowment in the temple. Your dress and behavior should help you prepare for that sacred time. "Do not disfigure yourself with tattoos or body piercings. If girls or women desire to have their ears pierced, they are encouraged to wear only one pair of modest earrings. "Show respect for the Lord and for yourself by dressing appropriately for Church meetings and activities, whether on Sunday or during the week. If you are not sure what is appropriate, ask your parents or leaders for help. Read Alma 1:27." (in For the Strength of Youth pamphlet, under topic of "Dress and Appearance," published by the LDS n Church under the presidency of Gordon B. Hinckley, 2001, cited in Robert T. Robb, "First Peter Chapter 3:1-7," 1 August 2004, http://www.thoughts-for-talks.com/Love-at-Home/1Peter3.html ; see also, Earl C. Tingey, member of the Presidency of the Seventy under Hinckley, "For the Strength of Youth,” LDS General Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, April 2004, where Tingey admonishes LDS youth, "In the For the Strength of Youth booklet, the following standards, among others, are like a North Star to you: choose friends with high standards, do not disfigure your body with tattoos or body piercings, avoid pornography, do not listen to music that contains offensive language, do not use profanity, date only those who have high standards, remain sexually pure, repent as necessary, be honest, keep the Sabbath day holy, pay tithing, keep the Word of Wisdom," http://www.lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-439-19,00.html ) _____ President Saparmurat Niyazov’s Long, Tyrannical Grip on His State of Turkmenistan "Niyazov has led the former Soviet republic for 20 years." President Gordon B. Hinckley's Long, Tyrannical Grip on His Church/State of Utah "[Gordon B. Hinckley] [t]he President of the Church [since 1995,] is the only person on Earth who directs the use of all the keys of the priesthood . . . This means that the President holds the power and authority to govern and direct all of the Lord's affairs on Earth in the Church. . . . [A]ll the keys are exercised by the President alone . . . The authority to perform ordinances and teach the Gospel comes from the Lord, but the orderly use thereof is regulated by those holding keys given to Joseph Smith and passed on to his successors." (J. Lynn England and W. Keith Warner, "President of the Church," http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/organization/priesthood/President_EOM.htm ) *** "The title of the person making [the Mormon Church’s] articles of incorporation is 'President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.' He and his successor in office shall be deemed and are hereby created a body politic and corporation sole with perpetual succession, having all the powers and rights and authority in these articles specified or provided for by law . . . " ("Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, United States of America, State of Utah, County of Salt Lake," http://www.xmission.com/~research/central/chorg3.htm ) *** "The Corporation of the President is . . . a special legal entity, embodied in a single individual (traditionally, the minister of a congregation — in this case, the president of the LDS church), which has particular privileges, enshrined in English Common Law, and the actual laws of a number of countries (the US among them)." ("Nick," nickbenn@twinsongs.com , posted on Recovery from Mormonism website, http://www.exmormon.org , http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agor... ,26 August 2005, 04:51 hours) *** "Two certificates of [incorporation] authority filed in May 1989 gave absolute control over the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to counselors Gordon B. Hinckley and Thomas S. Monson." (Salt Lake Tribune, 15 August 1993 p. C 1; http://www.watchman.org/lds/young.htm ) _____ Conclusion: Fee-Fi-Fo-Fum, Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb One is a brutal political tyrant lording over a remote kingdom in Central Asia. The other one is a brutal religious tyrant leading his backwater battalions in the mountains of America’s Intermountain West. Each laying down the law and throttling their respective oppressed citizenry in the name of ultimate goodness and government. Together, they spell: Gordon Saparmurat B. Niyazov Hinckley. Blood brothers. Joined at the hip. One a socialist; the other a capitalist--but both oppressive opportunists. Separated at birth but sharing a heart of darkness. Both on a mission to cleanse the world of all that is corrupt--as they, of course, define it for the rest of us. Dedicated to remaking the planet--through a combination of brute intimidation and force of law--in their own primitive image. Lordy, help us all. |
| | Tuesday, Aug 30, 2005, at 07:25 AM From The Land Of The Book Of Abraham: Calls For Polygamy On The Rise Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Joseph Smith would certainly be proud of this woman--and even more certainly eager to get her into bed.
In an article strikingly reminiscent of Humpin,’ Jumpin’ Joe’s line that polygamy is the way of Heaven and the solution for what ails society, an Egyptian wife is endorsing multiple wifery. The news appears in a story by Mariam Fam of the Associated Press--dateline Cairo--headlined, “Egyptian wife promoting polygamy” (Arizona Republic, 29 August 2005, p. A10). http://www.azcentral.com/php-bin/clic... _____ Keep married men happy and devoted. Help fight divorce, adultery and other societal ills. Solve problems within the family. Provide single, widowed or divorced women with a well-off man who can look after them. Do God's will. In short, practice polygamy. Sound familiar? _____ Read on: ”Hayam Dorbek wants her husband to get married. Again. “In urging him, and the rest of Egypt, to be more open to polygamy as approved by Islam, the 42-year-old journalist has set off a lively debate in her country and the rest of the Arab world turning in on satellite TV. “Durbek says she felt her work was keeping her so busy that her husband needed a second wife. She says he refused, ‘but my son is helping me promote the idea,’ she said. “She feels the Islamic concept of polygamy is the answer to many of Egypt’s social ills. She has written articles with titles like, ‘One wife is not enough,’ and has helped form an association that promotes polygamy. “Some are furious, saying it . . . is bad for women, tantamount to ‘displaying them in a slaves’ market,’ according to Nihad Aboul-Qomasan, head of the Egyptian center for Women’s Rights. “The debate exemplifies the tug-of-war between conservatives and liberals in a country brimming with Western symbols and ideas while also becoming Islamic. “Many revivalists of conservative Islam have taken up a modern rhetoric, presenting themselves as an alternative to a decadent West. Dorbeck recasts the license that Islam gives men to marry up to four women and gives it a modern flavor. “'I’m calling for women’s rights: their right to get married even if to a married man,’ Dorbeck told the Associated Press. Polygamy is a ‘license from God to stabilize society and solve its problems.' “To familiar problems of family life, like adultery and divorce, Dorbeck adds ‘spinsterism’: women remaining single into their 30s and being possibly stigmatized as easy prey for men or temptresses preying on men for sex. “Her solution: hitch single, widowed or divorced women to married men who can financially support and provide far more than one family. “This will stop the men from having affairs and provide the women with a caretaker, she argues. “Egyptian law permits polygamy, but . . . it’s expensive. For another, some TV programs and movies tend to stress its downside: husbands unable to cope with multiple wives, and wives in emotional pain. “’The secular currents in society muzzle the Islamic voices and drown them out,’ Dorbeck said. ‘I call on Arab and Muslim women to accept God’s laws.’” (emphasis added) |
| | Thursday, Sep 1, 2005, at 09:53 AM The Victims Of Hurricane Katrina Vs. The Self-Sanctified Saints Of Crime-Ridden Utah: Who Are The Real "Wicked"? Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: Forget New Orleans and Those Surrounding Swamps of "Sin"--Utah is the Den of Iniquity Ripening for Godly
Destruction Arrogant Mormons wax obnoxiously confident in their bigoted belief that the catastrophic sufferings currently being experienced by millions of Americans unfortunate enough to have been caught, injured, killed and/or rendered possession-less in the path of Hurricane Katrina are nothing less than a sure-fire Latter-day sign of God's punishment of the wicked. Mormon smug self-righteousness is fueled by the bloated boastings of high LDS Church leaders themselves. Exhibit A in this regard is the cocky observation of Joseph Fielding Smith, eventual Dictator of Mormondumb, who declared: "[Mormons] are, notwithstanding our weaknesses, the best people in the world. I do not say this boastingly, for I believe that this truth is evident to all who are willing to observe for themselves. We are morally clean, in every way equal, and in many ways superior to any other people." (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol.1, p.236) _____ This kind of insulting swagger is manifest today in the hateful judgments made of Katrina's non-Mormon victims by pompous Latter-day "Ain't Saints." Sitting contentedly on the sidelines, casting their supposedly sinless stones at those who suffer, they make fools of themselves and disgrace humanity in the process. Permit a few examples, from their own mouths. In an earlier RFM post, "Rationalis" noted that on the "we-are-far-holier-than-the-rest-of-the-world" FAIR board, members of the LDS Cult are currently weighing in mercilessly on the plight of those suffering at the hands of Nature. One monstrous Mormon preached: ”"I think you guys are looking at this in the wrong light. Do I think God sent a vast amount of storms to destroy New Orleans and the surrounding area? No. Could it have been prevented had it been a more Christ-like area? . . . yes." Another obnoxious "Saint" opined: "80% of New Orleans is now flooded. A friend expressed to me that it was his understanding that New Orleans is one of--or perhaps the most wicked--city in the USA." ("Here they go again. New Orleans was wicked and so . . . . . . . .," post by "Rationalis," mail address: perapera77@yahoo.com, Recovery from Mormonism board, http://www.exmormon.org, 30 August 2005, 23:03 hours) _____ Similarly, "Battle-Ax,” in a previous RfM post, detailed the heartless response of a TBM to news that killer storm Katrina had violently slammed into the coastal regions of the United States: "Early Monday morning I was talking to a TBM business associate about the hurricane that was hitting the Gulf Coast and New Orleans. I was shocked when he started to joke about it and say that, 'Well, I guess God is going to Baptize New Orleans whether they want it or not.' He also said 'it was about time God cleaned out that pit of sin.’ "I was shocked, this was right when we were not sure if we were going to loose thousands of lives. Now we know that New Orleans missed a direct hit and instead hit Mississippi. I guess God has a hook in his aim and he needs to work on it. "How can someone think this way? As I watch the devastation in New Orleans and in Mississippi today it makes me sick to see what has happened to peoples' lives. "I bet you money that in many wards this coming week someone will make a comment that, 'Well, this is the last days and God will punish the wicked.' "How can normal generally good people be trained to think this way? This attitude is not only in the Mormon Church but when the tsunami hit, some Christian leaders said God was punishing Islam. "The one thing I'm ashamed of is I sat there and said nothing back. Later, I was mad at myself for not saying anything, that will not happen again. In a sick way, I think some Church members take delight in seeing this because it proves the Church is true and the last days are just around the corner. "It will also be interesting to see that next month in Conference if there is a talk that will express sympathy for the victims and will brag how much the Church has helped out but then go on to say, well you shouldn't be surprised these are the last days." ("A Mormons view on Katrina," posted by "Battle-Ax," Recovery from Mormonism board, http://www.exmormon.org, 30 August 2005, 12:09 hours) _____ Hold your high-and-mighty horses, you Sons of Helium. Before stiff-necked LDS gas bags break their collective arms by patting themselves too vigorously on the back (or break their chosen necks by falling off their Rameumptoms during orgies of self-adulation), they should take a closer look at the crime-infested Mormon state of Utah. Then they should ask themselves, "Where are the sinners, really?" Look in the mirror, you sanctimonious Morons. Utah’s own official crime statistics tell the tale of a hypocritical state of wickedness that is very much alive, well and growing in the Tops of the Everlasting Hills. _____ Utah’s Index Crime Rate (from the Last Fully-Reported Year, 2003) is Increasing in Nearly Every Major Category Take a look at Utah’s overall index crime rate: "Index crimes include murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft and arson. Utah’s total index crime rate in 2003 was . . . a 0.5% increase over the 2002 rate . . ." Now, let's break it down. _____ Utah’s Violent Crime Rate "Violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Utah’s violent crime rate in 2003 was . . . a 4.9% increase compared with 2002. . . . Although Utah's violent crime rate is about half of the national rate, it is trending upward while the national rate is trending downward." _____ Utah’s Homicide Rate "Utah’s murder rate in 2003 was 2.5 per 100,000, a 25.0% increase compared with 2002. This is a large increase compared with the 2002 rate. . . . Over the past 30 years, Utah's murder rate has remained relatively constant, with peaks occurring during some years." _____ Utah’s Property Crime Rate "Property crimes include burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft, and arson. Utah’s property crime rate in 2003 was . . . a 0.2% increase over 2002." _____ Utah’s Robbery Rate "Utah’s robbery rate in 2003 was 53.4 per 100,000, an 8.5% increase compared with 2002. . . . "Utah's [robbery] rate trended up in 2003 while the national rate trended down." ____ Utah’s Motor Vehicle Theft Rate "Since its peak in 1997, Utah’s motor vehicle theft rate has been decreasing for the most part, although the 2002 rate was a noticeable increase over the 2001 rate. The 2003 rate was nearly the same as the 2002 rate. "After converging in the mid-1990s, Utah's motor vehicle theft rate and the national rate have been moving apart. The gap between the national rate and Utah's rate narrowed somewhat in 2003." _____ Utah’s Hate Crime Rate "Reported hate crimes increased from . . . 2002 to . . . 2003 [by] . . . 9.09% . . ." _____ Utah’s Rape Rate "Utah’s rape rate continues to be higher than the national rape rate." _____ Utah’s "Crime Clock" On average, one index crime is reported every 5.31 minutes in Utah. In an average 24-hour period in Utah, there are 0.12 homicides, 3.38 robberies, 2.31 rapes, 9.32 aggravated assaults, 40.16 burglaries and 196.84 larcenies committed. ("2003 Crime in Utah," Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Identification, pp. 2-5; and "Utah Crime Statistics Assessment," 2003, Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice) http://bci.utah.gov/Stats/2003.pdf http://www.justice.utah.gov/ _____ Utah’s Rate of Domestic Violence "Domestic violence is one of the fastest-growing and most serious violent crimes in Utah today. Over the past few years the frequency and intensity of this abuse has increased. Countless victims and survivors of domestic violence are enduring more severe beatings and life-threatening situations than those in years past. In Utah, domestic violence is becoming more aggressive and brutal." In fact, Utah’s domestic violence crime rate is higher than that of 22 other states. "Utah’s [homicide rate among female victims murdered by males in single victim/single perpetrator incidents] was 1.13 per 100,000 per population. In 2002, Utah ranked 28th in the United States in the rate of female victims murdered by males in single victim/single perpetrator incidents." (Utah Domestic Violence Annual Report, January 2005, pp. 3, 14) http://www.justice.utah.gov/DV2005.pdf _____ Utah’s Rate of Child Abuse and Neglect "Is child abuse a problem in Utah? Oh, yes! There were more than 7,800 supported cases of child abuse or neglect in 2003. Child abuse cases increased by 33.8 percent from 2000 to 2003." http://smallbiz.ksl.com/speak-11593i.php _____ Utah’s Index Crime Rate in Comparison to the Crime Rate Throughout the Rest of the United States "Utah’s [index crime] rate has paralleled the national rate over the past 40 years. In 2001, Utah's rate was marginally higher than the national rate, a gap that is widening through 2002 and 2003. Utah's higher than average larceny rate, which accounts for nearly three-quarters of the total index crime rate, drives our total rate higher than the national rate." ("Utah Crime Statistics Assessment," 2003, Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice) _____ Conclusion: Before Mormons Go Casting Their Stones . . . these holier-than-thou hypocrites--so eager to declare that innocent, non-LDS victims suffering through natural disasters are somehow deserving recipients of God’s wrath--should look deeply into their Moron Mirror. When they do, they will find themselves breaking the glass of their own glass house--a dungeon of deceit tucked away in the crime-covered hilltops of Utah's Church/state. The undeniable evidence shatters the Mormon-mouthed myth of supposed Latter-day Saint superiority. The truth is in the stark details--a truth that uncovers the cold reality for all to see: Yes, Brothers and Sisters of the Most High Mormon God, crime of all sorts is wickedly on the rise in the backyard of the supposedly "best people in the world." So, drag out the sandbags. Your Lord is coming to get you. |
| | Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005, at 08:12 AM The Case Of Stormin' Ex-Mormon Norman Hancock: Heralding The Courageous Ex-Mo Who Helped Bring To A Halt The LDS Cult's Arrogant Abuse Of The Excommunication Process Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| For decades, the Mormon Cult, as a matter of course, used the unjust, immoral, vindictive and personally-violative sledgehammer of excommunicating dissidents as a way to publicly humiliate and punish them--while at the same time sending a not-so-subtle message to other members of the LDS faith that they faced a similar fate should they dare go "too far" in messin' with the Mormon Mafia.
However, this punitive and pernicious process was dealt a formidable body blow when resigned Arizona Mormon and former bishop Norman Hancock boldly stood up to the Latter-day Saint inquisitional hatchetmen and told them in no uncertain terms to take their dirty hands off him, keep their prying noses out of his decision to voluntarily exit the Mormon Cult, do not dare excommunicate him in the process--or face a hefty lawsuit if they didn't back off. Mormonism's arrogant hitmen made the serious mistake of not taking Hancock seriously. As one would expect of "we-thank-thee-oh-God-for-our-profits" LDS, Inc., money eventually talked and Hancock walked. Below are eye-opening and informative links to Hancock's story of personal bravery, resolute determination and independence of spirit in facing down the Mormon Cult's attempt to belittle, besmirch and behead him. They include pertinent suggestions on how to effectively go about kicking the Mormon theological thugs out of the way as one goes about clearing the path for escaping from the LDS Alcatraz. For those who today are able to leave Mormonism's clutches by simply sending in their resignation directive to the LDS Cult's increasingly busy Membership Removal Department :), they have, in large measure, Stormin' Ex-Mormon Norman Hancock to thank. http://www.mormonalliance.org/caserep... http://www.geocities.com/kathywut/htm... http://home.teleport.com/~packham/lea... |
| | Friday, Sep 16, 2005, at 08:15 AM Drawing The Line On Religion Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| This afternoon I received a letter from a colleague of mine in the news business, mentioning an article written less than a year after Mary Ann and I had our names removed from the membership rolls of the Mormon Church. I had not thought about that interview piece for awhile so I looked it up and, for what it’s worth, offer it below:
Drawing the Line on Religion By Walt Jayroe for Editor & Publisher 1994 Editorial cartoonist Steve Benson has steered through a stormy year marked by "great distress" in the wake of his 1993 Pulitzer Prize. He now faces the prospect of being remembered more for the spoken word than any of his drawings. Less than three months after winning the Pulitzer, Benson, now in his second stint at the Arizona Republic, Phoenix, found himself embroiled in a highly publicized feud with the Mormon Church about what he calls a "cocoon of deceit," a flap that brought him to grips with his journalistic principles on one side and his religious faith on the other. Benson recently traced his post-Pulitzer year in a four-hour interview, a session in which the aftershocks of his emotional odyssey often rose to the surface. "My training as a journalist began to compel me to seek honest answers to my questions. I wanted the Church to shoot straight with me, and it wasn't," he said. The cost proved dear. Benson renounced his membership in the Church in October [1993] and to a great extent was ostracized by his family and Mormon friends. Though a self-described "opinionator," Benson said he knows a hard, objective fact when he meets one. Few journalists have seen the inside of Church power in the way that Benson has, via family ties. His grandfather, 94-year-old Ezra Taft Benson, is the president and prophet of the Mormon Church, a worldwide religious organization based in Salt Lake City, Utah, and officially known as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. At one time, the elder Benson was a national political figure and served two terms as secretary of agriculture under President Eisenhower. "A born-in-the-bed Mormon," the younger Benson calls himself. His father, Mark, is a stake president, and an uncle, Reed, is a professor of ancient scriptures at Brigham Young University, the Mormon-run school in Provo, Utah. The younger Benson was baptized in the Church, graduated from BYU and did missionary duty in Japan. He once held a seat on his stake's High Council in Arizona. "Cut me," he said, "and I bleed Mormonism. Even though I'm out of the Church, I'll still be, in a cultural sense and a moral sense, a Mormon to the day I die." The decisive episode in Benson's discontent with the Church arose not long after his grandfather ascended to the presidency in 1985. Family and others of the inner circle noticed a decline in the elder Benson's mental and physical state. Benson said his grandfather would stumble through sermons and sometimes lose track of his words, leading to long silences and discomfort of audiences. A series of strokes led to impaired speech and invalid status. Personal letters to family began to arrive signed by signature machine, Benson said. While his grandfather slipped into a "semisenile" condition, Benson said, Church leaders acted as if all was well, that the prophet was in charge of Church affairs. Benson said he soon began to see it as a hoax, a giant cover-up from rank-and-file members. The Church, he believed, had boxed itself into a theological corner. Benson said Mormons sell their Church on the premise that "it is being led today by a modern-day, living prophet . . . and his name is Ezra Taft Benson. And he is the sole mouthpiece to whom God reveals his truth to a troubled, searching world. "As long as the prophet's alive, he's got to be functioning, he's got to be leading, he's got to be revealing." Fearing a loss of power and validation if they admitted that the prophet was incapacitated, Mormon leaders went to great lengths to perpetuate an illusion, Benson said. "They'd take him out to a function where he's supposed to turn a spade of earth," he said. "They'd put his foot on the shovel and take a picture. Or he'd be seen waving to a crowd with a handler manipulating his arm." All photos were taken from his grandfather's left side to hide the medical tube permanently affixed to the right nostril, Benson said. "He's been treated like a dimestore mannequin in a window while the business of the enterprise has been conducted behind closed doors, " he said. At the interview, Benson wore a cap with "Dave" written in front, an allusion to the movie by that name in which the U.S. president is incapacitated and a look-alike takes over. Benson said he remained silent for a long time about his grandfather' s condition. He at first thought that if the Church was not open about it, there must be a reason. He said his father urged him to remain silent, saying the press couldn't be trusted. "And here I was," Benson said, "a member of the press and the oldest grandchild of Ezra Taft Benson. I found myself caught in this quagmire, this dilemma." Contacted about his grandfather's health by reporters in Utah, Benson said, he soon fell into a role as "deep throat," an anonymous guide. "I felt," he said, "I had this obligation as a journalist not to hide the truth, to go after the truth, to try to be honest and forthright and deliberate in everything that I said. So rather than tell untruths, I went off the record with reporters and encouraged them through their own investigative effort to come up with the story, and then I would confirm it on conditions of anonymity." A Sunday morning question from his son, Eric, provided the last straw, Benson said. "He asked, 'Why do they call [great-] grandpa a prophet when he can't do anything?' His great-grandchildren could see it; anyone could see it. It was a dirty family secret." A short time later, Benson said he called Vern Anderson, an Associated Press reporter in Salt Lake City, and told him that he would speak on the record for the first time about his grandfather's condition should he want to do a story. "D-Day," as Benson called it, was July 10, 1993. With the Republic' s blessing, Benson said, he first told his story to Anderson. The Republic used Anderson's story as a basis for its own, he said. The stories revealed a prophet too weak to run the Church. An uproar quickly followed. Benson said he received more than 100 letters condemning him. One critic wrote, "Quite a guy. He wins the Pulitzer and thinks he can run the Mormon Church." Benson's cartoons regularly home in on religious issues, including Mormon ones. He rendered numerous unflattering cartoons in the mid-1980s of then-Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham, a Mormon. But this time, Benson refrained, a noticeable departure from his credo, "I don't aim. I just shoot." "It was determined," he said, "because I was a player in this story, I was a source, I was a family member close to my grandfather, that it might appear to be self-serving if I were to do an editorial cartoon on it . . .. I think I made my stand unequivocably clear in the observations I gave to the reporters." Those observations caught many by surprise, especially his parents and siblings. "My family was dumbstruck," Benson said. "They were aghast. They were angry, disappointed. They could not understand why I would undermine the family." Benson said a family member told him that he would not be allowed to see his grandfather again, that he couldn't be trusted. The threat later was withdrawn, he said. "The issue to me was the Church as an institution, taking tithe-payers at the rate of upwards of $15 million a day and doing it in the name of supporting a prophet-led Church," he said. Though some Church members supported him, harassment continued on a local and individual basis. He was criticized by his local bishop, and fliers attacking his statements were disseminated. Then his alma mater's Brigham Young Magazine decided to delay publication of a profile of him, written in light of his Pulitzer. The magazine's action stung. Benson has fond memories of his years at BYU and "the glory days of the student newspaper," the Daily Universe. "I still have my pica pole I was given when I left BYU, which says on the back, 'Truth, energy and talent.'" Benson said he received a review copy of the manuscript, "a pleasant puff piece." The magazine's editor admitted that Benson's public comments about the Church were responsible for the delay in publication, Benson said. He requested that the article be scrapped permanently, and it was. "I didn't want to be a part of any enterprise allegedly done in the name of good journalism that was kowtowing to fear and pulling its punches . . . for fear of what the boys with the hands on the purse strings might think. "Ironically, the thrust of the article was 'Steve Benson made his reputation at BYU by poking pontificating balloons of self-importance, goring sacred cows and troubling the administration . . .." Benson's views seemingly were verified by an article in the Salt Lake Tribune, Salt Lake City. A reporter at the paper sifted some eye-popping information from Utah's corporation records. The published report said the corporation that manages the Church effected in 1989 a transfer of power from Ezra Taft Benson to his two counselors, Gordon Hinckley and Thomas Monson. That was done the same year that his grandfather last was seen in public, Benson said. "This is what's so ironic," he said. "The Church leaders and members are saying, 'Steve, where's your faith? Don't you have faith God could raise Ezra Taft Benson to speak and lead the Church?' But in secret the leaders of the Church had amended the faith that God would do that . . .. They put their faith not in God but in the lawyers who transacted the papers and who actually assured the transfer of power to them." Benson has made himself available to media in Utah and to other groups interested in hearing his story. He helped line up interviews for a Republic reporter doing a story on the Church's recent wave of excommunications. In September [1993], Benson was granted a special audience in Salt Lake City with two of the Church's leading apostles, Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell. He was allowed to ask questions of a confidential nature about Church matters only because of his family ties to the prophet and his professional status as a member of the media. Later, Benson said, he broke the confidence when he believed that Oaks had lied to a reporter about what was said in the meeting. "He has committed a public act of deception, dishonesty and moral criminality," Benson said. "What do you do? I really wrestled with that." Not long after that, he and his wife submitted their resignations from the Church, and in November [1993], the resignations were accepted. The couple will let their children decide on their own whether to stay in the Church, he said. "I will not allow myself to be abused in this kind of dysfunctional system, where they try to manipulate me, control me, silence me, try to deny my right to speak out," Benson said. "Because if we don't have the individual right to speak out, what are we?" Months later, old family ties continue to fester, he said, especially those with his parents. "There's a sense of pain and a loss I detect every time I talk with them. I think they kinda wish things would be back the way they were, but they never will. I know there's a price to be paid." His grandfather's condition remains unchanged, Benson said. "This is really the ironic and wonderful thing," he said. "He's the one who encouraged me to go into editorial cartooning. He said, 'We need people to stand up against the established order and tell us the truth as they see it.'" Benson said he did not time his public criticism of the Church to follow his winning the Pulitzer. "All the Pulitzer did," he said, "was give additional focus to what I was saying. It was an amplifier. I didn't use the Pulitzer as a platform." He now refers to his former Church as "Red Square on Temple Square," a reference to the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City. The Church is going through "a totalitarian mode," he said. "I wanted to be a good Mormon, but at the same time, I wanted to be truthful, I wanted to be honest and I wanted to be a good journalist. I found over time I could not be a good Mormon and an honest individual. I kinda had to make a choice." http://www.lds-mormon.com/benson1.sht... |
| | Friday, Oct 14, 2005, at 12:55 PM The Day The Music Died: Efforts To Shut Up Glen Campbell At A Benson Family Reunion Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Our Benson family reunion, under the inspired :) personal leadership of my grandfather Ezra Taft, was held in Nauvoo, Illinois, in the summer of 1979. One of our activities was a boatride on the Mississippi River. After being out on the Mighty Miss for awhile with Grandpa and the clan, things, quite frankly, got pretty boring so I began looking around for something to liven the place up a bit. I spotted a jukebox at the rear of the boat, on the main deck, so I went over and checked out the selections. Being a child of the '70s who loved good ol' rock and roll like Creedence Clearwater Revival, Sly and the Family Stone and Chicago, I was disappointed in the old machine's meager offerings. Finally, out of desperation, I settled on a Glen Campbell tune that I had never heard before--"Southern Nights"--and dropped in a quarter. The tune had a mild rock beat--and, as I was soon to find out, unacceptably suggestive lyrics. Below are the words. See if you can pick out the Satanic verses: Southern nights, Have you ever felt a southern night, Free as a breeze, Not to mention the trees Whistling tunes that you know and love so. Southern nights, Just as good even when closed your eyes, I apologize To any one who can truly say That he's found a better way. Southern skies, Have you ever noticed Southersn skies, Its precious beauty Lies just beyone the eye, It goes running through the soul, Like the stories told of old. Old man, He and his dog that walk the old land, Every flower touched his cold hand, As he slowly walked by, Weeping willows would cry for joy. Joy . . . Feels so good, Feels so good it's frightening, Wish I could Stop this world from fighting, La-da-da-da-da, da-la-da-da-da, Da-da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da. Mystery, Like this and many others In the trees, Blow in the night, In the southern skies. Southern nights, They feel so good it's frightening, Wish I could Stop this world from fighting, La-da-da-da-da, da-la-da-da-da, Da-da-da-da, da-da-da, da-da. So, where's the beef? If you're puzzled over proof of the song's perniciousness, you obviously are stumbling around in sinful darkness, utterly bereft of the guiding light of the Holy Ghost. The tune was just getting into its oh-so-nasty "feels so good" part when my Aunt Beverly Benson Parker (daughter of Ezra Taft and Flora) came marching over to the jukebox, where I was standing trying to connect to the jungle throbbing of Campbell's corrupt crooning. Aunt Beverly--smothered as she always was in thick layers of make-up and hair-sprayed so thoroughly that she snapped, crackled and popped when she moved--was a walking, stalking case of Mormon sexual hang-ups on a mission from God. In short, the Aunt from Hell. (This, by the way, was the same Aunt Beverly who, at a wedding banquet for my younger sister Meg, had, after listening to the father of the groom get up and offer a few remarks, leaned over and smugly observed, "Well, we know which family was blessed with the spirituality," causing one of the Benson sisters-in-law--May Hinckley who was married to my Uncle Reed--to get up in disgust and leave the table). But I digress. Scowling so deeply that I was worried huge slabs of her make-up might fall off, crash through the deck and sink our boat, Bevy the Heavy told me in no uncertain terms that the song's lyrics were completely unacceptable and sternly ordered me to turn off the jukebox. I informed her that the jukebox could not be stopped in mid-song and that the tune would have to play itself out. Frustrated, Aunt Beverly suggested that I unplug the contraption but I did not consider that to be a reasonable option. She became quite perturbed and waited impatiently until the jukebox had stopped its Luciferian lyrics. In the meantime, I spotted my grandfather up toward the front of the boat, dancing to "Southern Nights" with one of the grandkids. Which, I guess, made him a fallen prophet and led him to give the sermon, "The Fourteen Fundamentals of Dancing with the Devil." |
| | Thursday, Oct 27, 2005, at 10:25 AM How The Mormon God Selectively Respects Sexual "Sinners" Posted By Steve Benson STEVE BENSON - SECTION 2 -Guid- | ↑ |
| Introduction: How the Mormon God Selectively Respects Sexual "Sinners" Mormons eagerly, and dishonestly, declare at every turn that they, their God and their Church are "no respecter of persons." As one devout LDS Cult member has proclaimed: God is no respecter of persons, and every soul, in the ultimate sense, is just as precious in his sight as the souls of those who are called to positions of leadership. Because he operates on principles of eternal, universal, and never deviating law, any individual who abides the law that entitles him to get revelation can know exactly and precisely what President Kimball knows, can entertain angels just as well as Joseph Smith entertained them, and can be in tune in full measure with all of the things of the Spirit. (Ted L. Gibbons, “This is the Spirit of Revelation,” Doctrine and Covenants/Church History, Lesson #5 [Doctrine & Covenants 6, 8, 9; and Joseph Smith History, vol. 1, pp. 8-17) _____ The same claim which holds that the Mormon God is supposedly bound to the eternal law of treating everyone equally is found in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, under the subject heading of "God." The Cult-selected author (with an appropriate last name of "Yarn") writes: The Father, as God, is omnipotent, omniscient, and, through his spirit, omnipresent (see Light of Christ). He is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness. His course is one eternal round. He is a God of truth and no respecter of persons. He personifies love. (David H. Yarn, Jr., “God,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, vol. 2, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992) _____ Using the Morals Charge to Excommunicate Critics of the Mormon Church and Others Who Threaten the Cult's Institutional Interests Those unlucky enough not to be well- and powerfully-connected to the Mormon Cult's elite inner circles--and who find themselves caught in alleged hanky-panky--can expect to feel the impact of Mormonism's unholy and hypocritical hammer. _____ The Case of the Sexually-Active DNA Expert Take, for instance, the recent fate of Simon Southerton, author of Losing a Lost Tribe. Southerton has been an outspoken critic of outlandish and discredited Mormon beliefs of non-existent genetic connections between Native American and Mediterranean-area Semitic peoples. Southerton explained what eventually happened to him at the hands of a Mormon ecclesiastical court (known in LDS lingo as a “disciplinary council"): I was excommunicated for "having an inappropriate relationship with a woman" when I was: --a) a member of the church (not attended for 5 years at the time and no contact from the church in that period); --b) married to my wife (separated for several months by then); and --c) a priesthood holder in the church (they really get into this priesthood, men only crap . . . The Stake President denied that they were avoiding the issue of apostasy and that the charge they were investigating was more important. I seriously question this claim. I am now convinced that they were intent on avoiding a council on the charge of apostasy. I was clearly instructed before the meeting that if I attempted to talk about "DNA" and my apostasy that the council would be immediately shut down and that it would be completed in my absence. http://www.nataliercollins.com/weblog/20.. _____ The Case of the Polygamously-Active Apostle Even those who happen to be high-ranking members of Mormonism’s good-ol’-boy inner circle--and who have been convicted of sexually-sinful heresy--find themselves booted from Church membership when their activities are viewed by Cult leaders as potentially political embarrassments to the interests of the Cult. Take, for example, the case of excommunicated Apostle Richard L. Lyman: In 1943, the First Presidency discovered that Lyman was cohabitating with a woman other than his legal wife. As it turned out, in 1925 Lyman had begun a relationship which he defined as a polygamous marriage. Unable to trust anyone else to officiate, Elder Lyman and the woman exchanged vows secretly. Despite the fact that both Lyman and the woman were in their seventies, Lyman was excommunicated on November 12, 1943 at age 73. The Quorum of the Twelve provided the newspapers with a one-sentence announcement, stating that the ground for excommunication was violation of the Christian law of chastity, even though many believe the real reason was his practice of post-Manifesto polygamy. For years after his excommunication, some apostles worried that Apostle Lyman might join the Mormon fundamentalist movement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R._Lyman _____ Reality-Checking the Double Standard: The Mormon God Very Much Respects Persons--As Long as They Have Important Family/Power Connections to the LDS Cult Which Serve the Cult’s Interests--And Even If They May Have Engaged in Cult-Condemned Sexual Activities Two examples come to mind, the details of which I have been provided by highly-credible sources within the Mormon Church. (Names, detailed family background information and other potentially identifying factors are withheld here for confidentiality purposes). _____ The Case of the Well-Connected, Sexually-Active Returned Missionary In this case, I personally know, and have spoken directly with, the individual involved. This individual is closely related to a former high-ranking (now-deceased) Mormon Church leader and has a name that would unmistakably identify him as such. This individual returned from a two-year mission several years ago and subsequently became sexually-involved with a young woman in his stake. Eventually, he went to his stake president, acknowledged that he had been sexually-involved with the woman, informed the stake president that he had instigated the sexual relationship and requested that he, not the young woman, be punished. This person told me that his stake president responded by telling this individual that no person having that young man’s family name would be excommunicated from the Mormon Church. _____ The Case of the Well-Connected, Sexually-Active Mission President’s Wife In this case, I spoke with sources, very well placed within Mormon circles, whose credibility and reliability are unimpeachable. I was informed that several years ago, the wife of a mission president then serving in a United States mission field, became sexually involved with two Mormon elders in that mission. The mission president was related, through family, to prominent authorities in the high ranks of LDS leadership (also now deceased). Furthermore, the mission president did professional work for the Church that LDS, Inc. viewed as highly important and necessary. The wife of the mission president was in a very unhappy personal situation with her husband at the time her sexual relationships with the young, in-the-field missionaries occurred. The matter eventually became known to Mormon Church authorities, a Church disciplinary hearing was held and the woman was not excommunicated. When later asked by a personal friend how she was doing, the woman replied that she had contemplated suicide but said that what had prevented her from doing so was her fear that she might go to the other side and discover that God was related to the family of her husband _____ Conclusion: How "Respect" Works in the Mormon Cult For all the high-minded, moralistic talk of Mormon Church leaders about God supposedly being no respecter of persons, the plain fact of the matter is that if you want to engage in so-called sexual "hanky-panky" as a Mormon--and happen, at the same time, to be connected by power and family to the inner circles of Mormondumb--there exists a good chance you’ll get off scot free, to be sent on your way with a wink and a nod. In short, with Mormonism, family and business connections talk. The "guilty" walk. |