Rumor Rumor Every Where, Nor Any Fact To Think? [Blog assesses 'LDS Church...not true' revelations]

Mormondisclosures.blogspot.com ^ | April 9, 2013

[Colofornian]

On April 6, 2013 Grant Palmer, former CES teacher and author of two outstanding books (1 & 2) on issues in the LDS church, released a statement through an anonymous blog about his meeting with mission presidents and a first quorum of the seventy member of the LDS church.

Many many people have called the account fable and rumor. I’ve heard these experiences since last November, and Grant alluded to them (with the mission presidents) in the exmormon foundation conference (where he also mentioned my public resignation) last October (2012). Late Sunday (April 7), Grant reconfirmed to me personally that the account is indeed from him and that the unnamed General Authority (GA) is fully aware of its posting. That does not mean that the opinions given by the mission president or GA are fact. I want it to be very clear that I believe Grant Palmer is of the highest integrity. That some of the claims aren't factual doesn't mean Grant has failed in reporting what he has experienced. It is what it is. Grant told me: "I even find some of it hard to believe. But the report is a chance to shake the tree and see what will come of it..."

Here are some of the statements and claims, bulleted.

Most probable factual claims

• The mission president and GA wish to remain unnamed/anonymous
• The GA went to MormonThink.com regularly and there found a link to Palmer’s book.
• The GA and his wife read Grant’s Insider and determined neither the church nor its foundational claims are true.
• The GA gave the book to the mission president, who is also a closet doubter.
• The GA and MP have met with Palmer three times since October 23 (a month after Mormonthink was bantered in national media).
• They are now meeting monthly (hopefully watching their collective asses now that LDS-COB know Grant is meeting these unnamed high level dissenters).
• None of the apostles have ever admitted directly to him that they did not believe.
• The apostles are entirely enmeshed in every detail of their lives in the church.
• The anonymous blog is named “journey of loyal dissent” (apparently posted by Christopher Ralph, UK member/dissenter).
• The GA and mission president both attend church each Sunday and feel hypocritical and trapped.

Less probable factual claims

• The GA had one-on-one conversations with apostles sometime in the past.
• The primary consideration of election of a new apostle is being “church broken” and fully loyal to the other apostles.
• The six senior apostles mentor the junior six who are told to obey, listen and learn.
• The six senior apostles run the show in the quorum.
• The Q12 is quite isolated from the several Q70s, which used to enjoy more contact with apostles when there was only one Q70.
• The first presidency was involved in the decision of Grant Palmer’s disciplinary court.

Highly speculative

• Each new member of the Quorum of the 12 apostles receives one-million dollars for financial obligations.
• The million dollars is called a “gift”.
• It takes two or three years for a new apostle to learn the church is in fact false.
• D. F. Uchtdorf took longer because of his non-Utah heritage.
• The GA has learned indirectly by interaction with apostles that eventually they all learn the church is not true.
• Apostles talk amongst themselves about how the church is false. (It’s not clear how this could be known)
• The apostles obedience/loyalty to each other are part of the reasons keeping them from blowing the whistle on the church.
• Apostles justify staying the course because people need the church. (It’s not clear how this could be known)
• Apostles do not like to discuss truth issues with Q70s members.
• The apostles would rather die defending the church than admit it is false.
• The church is a weakened dam about to burst with apostates.

Many of the speculative claims contradict some of the less probable or more probable claims. For example, if the GA never heard one of the apostles ever admit directly to him that they did not believe, then how could he know they talk amongst themselves about the falsity of the church? How could he know how they justify staying with their sure knowledge of its falseness? How could he know they get paid so much hush money? (Well, they could have talked about forgivable loans/gifts without referring to it as hush money.) How could he know they would rather die than to admit it’s false?

For these contradictory reasons, I have place some claims in the speculative group.

However, I have received corroborating statements (rumors) about some of the less probable and some speculative claims.

1) an unnamed source who works with land development told me independently that properties are purchased by the LDS church for apostles through a developer named Ivory Homes LTD.

2) One such home is still listed under Ivory, but presumably will be possessed by Apostle David Bednar soon.

3) A COB employee who handles financial work has seen evidence suggesting payments made for the apostles and others are part of a loan they receive which have no payment schedules correlated (i.e., gifts disguised as loans).

4) MT’s current managing editor has said that Apostle Holland told him that as a new apostle he was at the “beck and call” of senior apostles who took up most of his time when he was a junior.

5) A current exmormon who was being groomed to be a general authority said he was told by a COB employee who worked with him that the employee’s number one role was to get the man “church broke” (the first time the man had heard that term).

6) a COB lawyer affirmed that all high level church employees and volunteers who have access to any financial information at the church sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA).

7) The NDAs are life-long binding agreements whose violations have strict civil penalties and can result in having any and all property used by the employee/worker/volunteer removed immediately; force repayment of all past and current considerations, benefits and perks retained or enjoyed by the employee; revoke any and all associations, contracts (book deals) or other financial arrangements owned, leased or facilitated by church companies; and potentially revoke academic or other honors bestowed upon the employee or family of the employee which are assigned to them through their association with church companies, universities or other institutions.

8) Reported by various persons (former members in public forums) is that family members of high-level authorities in the church receive many financial and vocational opportunities of employment or business dealings because of their father/brother/grandfather’s church ranking.

9) There is legal action occurring abroad against the church which may force the financial information to open further and reveal more about the truth behind these rumors. Stay tuned. (these things take time and legal funds.)

10) Grant Palmer and Tom Phillips have been informed that likely all general authorities receive their second anointing which is another covenant to keep loyal to the church and not reveal its secrets; though not as binding as a legal NDA, it is much like a fraternity of life-long business and political associates who pledge at Ivy League.

11) In June or July, there is rumored to be another foreign GA that will come forward and even in an interview disclose additional information on these matters. Stay tuned.

My thoughts... How likely is it that all the apostles are absolute doubters? Each of them individually may fall in the spectrum of deluded conned man or full-out evil conman. But to believe that they are all deluded says that every last one of them is ridiculously idiotic about the reality they are supposedly defending. Of course, on the flip-side, one can argue, if they're all evil liars, that's a difficult-to-believe conspiracy. Many will argue that such a conspiracy is unlikely to keep a lid on. Conspiracy is a bad word. This is a corporation with corporate trade secrets. These kind of secrets are kept all the time at the top of most large, diverse companies, with the knowledge compartmentalized with those having a need to know. Even CEOs do not know all the trade secrets of the company because such details are far beyond a single human capacity to know. The kind of deals and financial arrangements made in any corporation is held tight. Secrecy in other (government) organizations is obviously not compromised as well.

But is this a criminal conspiracy? Not to the Q12/first presidency.

First of all, these men do not actually control the finances of the church. They're at its mercy. Much of their adult lives have been spun up and dedicated into one system. They are running the front-face of a massive corporation. The machinery is beyond them. But the rock-stardom it gives them reaches far into their extended family. They're all surfing a wave created by doctrinal policy sausage grinders they couldn't themselves stomach if they knew it all.

They have a lot of perks. They have fans. They have trips. They have ranches, hunting preserves, malls, cultural centers and throngs to enjoy. They have books ghost written and command austere obedience on demand. Not only do they already have many more book deals with their own bookstore (deseret book), they have families with prestige in the state of UT that brings about business opportunities for their children and many of their grandchildren.

Not one of them is actually that talented at this late point in life in scriptural scholarship or academic studies. While they may not need it to write a church dismantling tome, they will need the credibility when one of them alone stands, as an old (potentially senile) man, against a unanimous quorum. Without significant credibility, charges of senility will absolutely ring true for 99% of members.

A single book deal exposing it will fall flat. The family of that man will be utterly disgraced. The business they built and reputation they have will be dismantled. Not the church.

Better to stay the course and slowly reform it without upsetting the family apple cart. I'll post more rumors here in this blog as they come to me in the next week...

[bigheadfred]

Yeah. YOU would like that.

But my word on a forum means nothing. To some one who never understood a single WORD.

[bigheadfred]

If this were truly a Religion Forum EVERYONE would GET what I am saying.

And maybe there are some threads here that reflect that. This isn't one of them.

[svcw]

huh?

[svcw]

huh?

[ejonesie22]

Good luck with that.

[ejonesie22]

Um.

Ok.

[ejonesie22]

Can you elaborate. I have been here for sometime in these threads, even back when you were actively defending the faith and nothing really has changed.

[svcw]

It was YOU who said you could expose a variety of denominations, not I.......so again be my guest.

[svcw]

Really, please expound on these “get what I am saying”, if this were really a religion forum.
Thank you very much.

[JAKraig]

Any time I see writing by a Mormon I know that that is a “deluded” cult member, someone who has an ax to grind. Someone who has traded the objective knowledge and propositional truth of the Holy Scriptures, for personal experience, apart from facts, logic, or evidence. Yet they believe...

__________________________________________

Forgive me for writing so late, I wish I could spend more time at this but unfortunately have things to do in life beside have fun in these discussions.

You snidely say “They have feelings”. Isn’t that all any of us have, isn’t that what faith is after all. If you start looking for facts then you are need to look somewhere besides Christendom. Most religions are not about facts, evidence or even logic.

... They believe a civilization covered Meso-America from sea to shining see - full of vast metal works and millions of people and mythical creatures like cureloms. Despite there being no buildings, no foundations, no rusting metal, no curelom bones, etc. Why?

Why isn’t there a Noah’s ark. Which is more fantastic, a worldwide flood or a book of gold plates? I’ll bet it was pretty tough getting all the animals on earth in that boat.

What evidence do you have of Christ raising Lazarus? The Bible? Sure that’s cute, the Catholic Church over 1500 years ago decided what would be in the Holy Bible and burned everything else they could get their hands on. The reality is that the Mormons have a number of witnesses of whom there are birth certificates and death certificates and grave yards with them in it that swear they saw the plates and angels. I’m not saying that makes it so but it certainly qualifies as logical deduction to facts.

They believe something created and non-eternal, can become God. Despite their ignorance of logic leaving them in the position of ignoring God’s character as omnipotent (all powerful), and instead accepting the falsehood of lots of gods, of whom none are omnipotent. Still they believe. Why? They have feelings! . . . .

You misstate what they believe and I suspect you know exactly what you are doing. They do not believe that anything created and non-eternal can become God. They believe all life is eternal in some form. They believe that the children of God can become heirs with Christ of all His Father has. If you have everything that God has then you must need be by definition “god”! The Apostles taught this same doctrine.

... They believe their God and Goddess breed in the heavens, rutting continually to produce an onslaught of spirit children to populate new worlds. Even worse, they have accepted that they have the potential to aspire to godhood, continually bedding goddesses and ruling over a planet of their own. Despite all the Bible teaches about the nature of God, it is swept aside to make Him into a creature. Why? They have feelings!

What rudeness you ascribe to God who is the Father of us all. Just how again was Jesus “created” in mortality? You believe that it was some rutting instinct? God is our Father, that is the title He uses, He does not call Himself our Creator but our Father. Fatherhood implies many things, I see nothing ugly in those things.

I’m not sure I criticized anybody, much less any ex-Mormons. Saying someone has an ax to grind is not a criticism just an expression of an attribute.

I don’t have anything against Mormons, I do however have a thin skin when people who live in glass houses start throwing stones.

Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. Christianity is a religion of feelings, not facts.

Christianity is a religion of Christ, Christ commanded us to love all men, even Mormons, even Catholics and even Protestants. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are part of all men and so are those that come after them. When you question their beliefs and motives you are accusing them of evil. I’ve met a lot of Mormons, I haven’t met the evil ones yet.

[MHGinTN]

It is my OPINION that the focus has changed subtly from exposing the vagaries of ther ISM and the blashphemous aspects, to degrading and ridiculing the adherents of the ISM. This is a mixed bag, such as Elsie's great passages quoted directly from the ISM documents which make up the foundations of the ISM, to ridiculing specific sects of the ISM and speciifc beliefs that paint the adherents as 'rubes' for believing such 'fool-der-all'.

Some threads start out as purely exposing a belief aspect of the ISM, but slowly (and sometimes not so slowly) these threads turn into ridicule of the adherents.

When Mitt Romney was seeking the nomination of the republicant party, the switch of focus often happened immediately, aimed at ridiculing Romney more than the ISM he adhers to. Doesn't that strike you as suspiciously 'covert politicization'?

[svcw]

I’m not sure I criticized anybody

Except Christians every chance you get.

[Colofornian]

I had an uncle who was a wildman. And his kids followed that example. But he married (second marriage) a Mormon woman—my aunt—who loved him with all her heart. He never converted to Mormonism. But love did change him. Over the years you could see that change in him. And in his later years he was a most enjoyable person. I’m going to his funeral on Friday. He died peacefully at 85. In his home. With the people he loved. With the people who loved him. RIP Uncle Lyle.

Fred, is it possible that a number of your comments on this thread equate to you speaking out of your grief here? If so, I can understand that you are wanting to honor your Mormon relatives & their loved ones, some of whom are also grieving at this time.

I've attended a Mormon relative's funeral within the last several years...Twas a need then to rally around those Mormon relatives; there's nothing wrong with that. Go for it.

[Colofornian]

The Mormons walked away from the tyranny of the US Government and those adherents. They made their own way. I’m not standing up for what they believe—per D&C, the Book of Mormon, or any other dispensation. But I don’t listen to any of the other established trains of thought. I’m standing up for people who do what they want without causing major harm to the others around them...And the main point. I was raised to be free. With love. By people who understand.

Well, you know what?...LOTS of various "religious"-oriented people of EVERY religious stripe -- Christians, Jews, Hindu, etc. have parents who may have "raised them free" to live out their various faiths and to practice "what they want" ... but what do Mormons come and do with their post-death reputations by "baptizing" the dead?

Fred, if you REALLY believed in "fighting" for those who lived out their religion as they wanted, then where have you been on the FR threads talking about THESE topics?

* Fox News: Gandhi’s grandson responds to proxy posthumous baptism by LDS church
* NY Times: Anne Frank, a Mormon?
* Washington Post: Elie Wiesel calls for Romney's help to end Mormons' proxy baptisms
* Salt Lake Tribune: Newest Catholic saint baptized and 'sealed' to wife in LDS temple?

In this last case, Mormons even "married off" a deceased single Roman Catholic priest from Hawaii in a temple ritual to a nun! (Do you think that is honoring the memory of this priest's freedom to honor his vows of chastity and single-eyed devotion to His Lord?)

Do you think it's honoring the freedom of Mahatma Ghandi, a Hindu, or Anne Frank, a Jew, or the parents of Simon Wiesenthal (Simon was a holocaust survivor; his parents were not) for them to be labeled as "Mormons?"

Fred, I'd like to see a little consistency from you on these points: If all of this bothers you, then you need to speak out forcefully vs. Mormon necro-baptism.

I mean if the Scientologists suddenly came up with some post-death "clear" dunking ritual which made all such "cleared" people a Scientologist post-death, and if somebody made your uncle Lyle a "Scientologist" post-death, how would you feel about the honor of his memory being distorted from the freedom of how he chose to live his life?

[Colofornian]

Time for some "reality checks" JA:

Any time I see writing by an ex-Mormon I know that that is a “disaffected” Mormon, someone who has an ax to grind. If you hate the Mormons just say you hate them. [JAKraig, post #28]

I’m not sure I criticized anybody, much less any ex-Mormons. [JAKraig, post #70]

ALL: JA automatically assumed above (post 28) that EVERY ex-Mormon "hates" his/her former associates and JA judges ALL of these complete strangers to him who express that as "grinding axes."

How is it that you omnisciently know this, JA?

(And then you have the complete gall to claim you didn't criticize them??? Are you aware of what your keyboard types out?)

[Colofornian]

I don’t have anything against Mormons, I do however have a thin skin when people who live in glass houses start throwing stones. [JA Kraig, post #70]

Well, let's see...I pointed out your crits against an ex-Mormon in my last post. I suppose for you to criticize ex-Mormon Grant Palmer that MUST mean you don't live in a "glass house." (Otherwise, you wouldn't have dared to critique Palmer per your own proverbial standard, right?)

And, of course, these statements you made in this same post...these aren't "crits" at all, right?

"Why isn’t there a Noah’s ark. Which is more fantastic, a worldwide flood or a book of gold plates? I’ll bet it was pretty tough getting all the animals on earth in that boat." [JAKraig, post #70]

"What evidence do you have of Christ raising Lazarus? The Bible? Sure that’s cute, the Catholic Church over 1500 years ago decided what would be in the Holy Bible and burned everything else they could get their hands on." [JAKraig, post #70]

Please DO tell us, JA, what your house is built of...and how it is that you -- and seemingly you alone -- manage to escape application of your "glass house" proverb?

[MHGinTN]

Even in opposition to some of the directions these threads take, I would not identify any of the offerings as generated by hatred for Mormons. That sort of specious accusation is aimed at trying to marginalize the poster, and perhaps shut them up from further exposure.

[Colofornian]

AMPU,

Since JAKraig was addressing you in post #70, meant to also ping you re: posts 75-76

[Colofornian]

Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. Christianity is a religion of feelings, not facts.

(1) ALL: Notice that JAKraig says this as if it was a "fact" -- and not simply something based upon his personal "feelings" -- nor not emerging from his "anti-faith" posturing.

(2) THE KEY CLAIMS of Christianity -- are things that had the Jerusalem Gazette been around circa 30 A.D. -- would have covered: The death on the cross of Jesus Christ; the empty tomb & claims of His resurrection while appearing to around 500 individuals...& claims of His ascension.

That's why Christianity focuses on the "Good News" -- the literal meaning of the word "Gospel." It's NEWS...not just "Good dogma based upon blind faith" -- a stark contrast to JA's claim that our faith is somehow "blind" & operating only in the dark

The apostle Paul told the Corinthian church that if Jesus wasn't resurrected, that we were still in our sin and to be pitied among all men as having an empty faith. No resurrection, no Christian faith.

(3) Well...since this one is longer...I will post it next comment... No incarnational Jesus, no Christian faith.

[Colofornian]

Christianity is a religion of faith, not facts. Christianity is a religion of feelings, not facts.

(3) [cont'd from last post]:

ALL: Many who claim that Christianity ONLY involves "faith," are essentially implying the following:

1. That faith is somehow against reason.
2. OR...that faith is somehow a free-floating ethereal thing (outthere somewhere);
3. That the Christian faith somehow falls outside history. (Sorry, but Christ's death and resurrection talks about a man who claimed to be God in time & space -- who died, and whose resurrection would have made "Local News @ Five" had broadcasting been around then)
4. That somehow the testimony that Jesus appeared to about 500 (1 Corinthians 15:6) is irrelevant...the eye-witness testimony is that (a) Jesus visited the apostles (John 21); and (b) for 5-6 weeks popped up to meet/teach from the Mount of Olives, near Bethany (Luke 24:50-51; Acts 1:3-11).

Sorry, JA...but the CHRISTIAN faith is in a person (Jesus Christ). Such faith doesn't stay "bottled up" within a person; it gets transferred. Toward the object of that faith (Jesus Christ). And Jesus is not simply a free-floating divinity "out there" somewhere. Jesus Christ lived and died and rose again in a time-space continuum. We know he was born -- probably 4 B.C...likely about April 25 (NOT Dec. 25)...and died about 33 years later. That means that the Christian faith IS rooted in history. And history can be tested from a variety of angles, most notably the eye-witness history and the consequences of Jesus Christ on the lives of His apostles and eventual followers!

Note what author Kenneth Samples has to say about Jesus' resurrection:

"The story's natural details conform well to what is known historically. Far from being a myth or legend, the report of the empty tomb...
[1]...has a very early date... [meaning it wasn't a tale that simply arose a generation later]
[2]...fits with archaeological data (burial customs, construction of tombs, timing of ceremonial events)...
[3]...and was never challenged, let alone refuted, by the contemporary enemies and critics of Christianity.
[4] In addition, the Jews or Romans could have immediately squashed Christianity by producing Christ's body. The disciples could not have proclaimed a bodily resurrection if the body could be brought forth. [Kenneth Samples, Without a Doubt, Baker books, 2004, p. 138]

What key reports re: the empty tomb am I referencing? (The following is a paraphrase of Do the Resurrection Accounts Conflict and What Proof is There that Jesus Rose from the Dead? by John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon):
We know Joseph took the body of Christ/wrapped it/placed it in the tomb (Matt 27:59; Mk 15:46; Lk 23:53); and Nicodemus assisted him (John 19:39).
We know Roman soldiers were assigned to guard the tomb (Matt 27:62-66; 28:11-15) @ the request of Jewish leaders (Matt 27:27, 65); early church writers Justin, Tertullian & a few apocryphal accounts also mention this) [You don't post guards to guard an empty tomb, right?].
And we know from history that the penalty for a Roman soldier deserting his post was death (Polybius, among other early historians, noted the strictness of Roman camp discipline).
This place of burial was common knowledge -- observed by both Jesus' friends as well as His enemies (Matt 27:61, 66).
We know the "extremely large" stone (Mark 16:4) put in front of the tomb was marked with a royal seal to safeguard it -- and that these stones weighed 1-2 tons.
We know Jewish authorities didn't question the report of the guards that the tomb was empty (Matt 28:11-15)

"When even your enemies at both the immediate time of the event and for two thousand years afterwards are forced to acknowledge that the tomb was empty, the case for the Resurrection becomes more than credible. Again, no one anywhere at any time ever doubted the empty tomb: 'A.M. Ramsey writes: ...Paul Althaus states that the resurrection 'could not have been maintained in Jerusalem for a single day, for a single hour, if the temptiness of the tomb had not been established as a fact for all concerned.'"
"Paul L. Maier concludes: '...no shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy, or archaeology that would disprove this statement.' (Ankerberg & Weldon, p. 122)

Bottom-line: There's enough historical eyewitness testimony about Jesus' resurrection. (Remember: Eye-witness testimony has been "enough" to send many men to their deaths)

What JAKraig wouldn't do in criminal and civil cases or in much of the most solid history books that have been published -- diss eyewitness testimony -- he seems ONLY to readily -- and subtly do -- when it comes to the HISTORY within the Christian faith!