Mass Re-Resignation Protest

I’m announcing a protest against how the LDS church reports its membership, especially those who’ve resigned.

Why?  Because they out right lied again last Saturday, April 6, in their General Conference.  The LDS church listed annual membership numbers as follows (See http://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2013/04/2012-annual-statistical-report.html):

·         Total membership:  14,782,473

·         2012 Increased members: 341,127

o   "children of record": 122,273

o   new baptismal converts: 272,330

If you sum the increase, you get 122,273 + 272,330 = 394,603.  This is 53,476 less than the stated 2012 increase.  What caused these losses?  Deaths, resignations, excommunications…?

Death rates in the US are about 8.4 deaths per 1,000 (See http://www.indexmundi.com/united_states/demographics_profile.html).  The 53,476 equals (53,476/14,782,473) about 3.6 deaths per 1,000.  (Also note that the birth rate on average in the US is about 13.7 per 1,000, and in the LDS numbers above computed as 8.3 per 1,000.  This seems low as well, but not close to as low as the death rate.)

Again, average death rate: 8.3/1000.
Mormon member death rate: 3.6/1000.

Does this mean that Mormons only die 43% as often, on average, as the rest of the industrialized world?  Recall, that 14+million membership includes at least half of its accounted membership from impoverished third world nations.  Likewise, are they having fewer children than the rest of the world?

So what is going on with the numbers?

What seems to be happening is that the LDS church formula assumes nearly 100% retention rates. According to BYU, the church’s university, members born in the church leave at a rate of about 34% (combined 20% never-active with 14% complete nonbelievers). For converts from 50 to 75% leave permanently.    See http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Vital_Statistics.

Apparently, the LDS church does not appear to be subtracting resigned and excommunicated members.  Also it would seem only the deaths of active members are reported to church headquarters and accounted, making its death loss much lower (3.6 in 1,000) than the actual death rate.

Thus, the additions made each year are overstated, and the subtractions are understated. This goes on year after year and the official number of members gets farther and farther from the truth.

If the correct numbers of losses were reported, the actual losses might have gone from 53,476, to around 160,000 (~40%) in 2012.  That's a large force to be reckoned with.

The LDS church has been lauded in the press as “leading way in U.S. religious growth”.  It gives the impression that the stone cut without hands is growing by leaps and bounds.  And yet, the church misleads, severely, on this stone growth.

Book of Mormon DNA critic Simon Southerton, PhD, has reported on this misleading information here: http://simonsoutherton.blogspot.com/2012/04/google-apostasy-spreads-to-united.html and you will find great analysis at his site.

I am formally announcing my call to Protest the LDS Church’s misleading membership numbers by calling for a Mass Re-Resignation.  Yes, RE-resignation.

Former members can resend our information into Salt Lake, (even if you've already resigned previously).  The possible flood of extra, redundant paperwork should get SLC-LDS-COB attention.  That which costs them money gets their attention.  Until the church acknowledges our resignation in its reported numbers at conference and to census takers, I say we annually remind them that they mislead everyone about the membership, especially our family and friends.  A Re-Resignation Protest might bring more enlightenment to inactive members.  It could encourage those who left the church but never bothered to resign to join the protest and formally resign. Publicity about the church's unethical membership accounting could have impact on many, even providing Church Office Building employees job security amidst the lay offs in LDS-land.

The date of the protest could occur between May 19 – May 25, 2013 if there's enough support.  We could also hold it at the same time as the already planned first-timer's Mass Resignation on June 29.  Let's see how others respond to this call for protest and decide on a date.

Next year, if needed, we will move it to the same weekend they report the numbers in the April 2014 General Conference.

To resign or re-resign, please follow the instructions here.  And please add more ideas below and elsewhere this protest is announced.  I don't need to keep control or lead it.  It's for everyone!

 

Rumor Rumor, Every Where, Nor Any Fact To Think?

Rumor rumor, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Rumor rumor, every where,
Nor any fact to think?
(with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, RIP)

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.

The church has become stagnate and decorated like described in another stanza of Coleridge's poem:

Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship,
Upon a painted ocean.

The anonymous GA is leading people to truth in a frozen land of hidden financed schemes.   Will the church leaders pursue the dissenting, closeted GA?  Are they going to kill the albatross and hang it around their necks? 

I'll post more rumors here in this blog as they come to me in the next week...

Hidden things won't stay that way for long.

Post "Game" Analysis

Months have passed since the press coverage about my 30 Sept 2012 scheduled disciplinary court over my writings and activities as (then) managing editor of MormonThink.com.  There were allegations about MT editors planning the entire episode as a means to build controversy and drive traffic to the site.  While this in fact happened, my serving as editor and the controversy of my writings were not focused or primarily intended to create the conflict the church pursued.  Further, there were conspiracy theories that I had in fact outed myself and acted as a sock puppet in order to expose myself to the church so as to entice them to come after me; that I prompted Scott Gordon to forward his concerns about me to "a list of friends, including some who work in the LDS Church Office Building" (Scott’s words in SLtrib). 

The sock puppet theory comes from the claim that the IP address used by the person outing me and messages I posted in my own name were the same. I have never seen the evidence so I can’t verify it.  At this time, I can reveal that a close-relation staying at my residence did apparently discuss me to an individual who I don’t know.  The IP may be the same since there's only one internet connection (and shared computer access).  I do not know if this is the same event as what others have claimed, because I do not have access to the records and data. Now, it isn't helpful to me to spend a lot of time obsessing over it because it is a sore spot and problem for family.  At the time, many requested that I comment on this.  I declined for personal reasons in order to avoid having any close-relations potentially dragged into media spotlight.  Presently, in order to keep things peaceful, I won’t say more on this particular matter nor likely will in the future.  I don’t expect others will agree, but Mormons never were very good about accepting boundaries.

It’s reported that Scott Gordon, President of FAIR, implied that I had in fact pointed the finger at him to the NY Times saying he was the one that outed me.  Scott wrote on his newsletter:

I forwarded the links of that public blog to some of my friends. The New York Times reporter who called said my email was forwarded to Twede’s stake president. I have no way of knowing if that is true or not. I did not speak with any of his local leaders, nor did I send an email to them. I told the reporter it was more likely one of his local ward members had read his public blog and told the stake president, but she insisted I was the source as she heard that from David Twede himself.

  I want to make it clear that I did not direct the NYtimes reporter to Scott Gordon. I mentioned that FAIR had in the past been suspected of hunting down a former MT editor.  But I had no contact with Scott Gordon or any other member of FAIR during the episode.  I never saw any of their correspondence.  Scott Gordon affirmed to the SLtrib basically the same as he told the NYtimes--that he was communicating about me with "a list of friends, including some who work in the LDS Church Office Building."  The Trib also reports that none of Gordon’s contacts were a Mormon general authority, according to the FAIR president’s own claims.   Reporters push you.  They want to get you upset or make you believe that the story is already clear and that you better come clean.  They're just probing, but that's how they do it.  They get all the quotes they can from you and then choose the ones that emphasize the single point they need while ignoring the rest. I suspect that's what Gordon experienced.  Believe me, I had my share of this distasteful practice over and over in Sept-Oct 2012.
(Note: In 2010-2011 I had contact with Brant Gardener, and as far as I know that's the only contact with FAIR I've ever had.)

As such, I do not know specifically how I was outed. There is a great deal of secrecy about how Scott got my name in the first place to circulate it to other friends at the COB.  It could be likely that the initial source is a close-relation. However, the elongated chain of events went from that contact through several steps before it landed at my local stake president’s doorstop.  I had never once met the stake president or even my bishop before the day they hauled me in to interrogate me about my MT activities and to hand me the letter informing me that I was “reported to have been in apostasy”.  They did not witness my apostasy.  It was reported to them.  When I asked who reported me, the counselor in the stake presidency said, “Maybe we are inspired to know these things.”

Previous editors at MT have been outed by something akin to the Strengthening Church Members Committee who informed their local leaders of their activities.  The MT founder reports his experience here: http://mormonthink.com/resignation_letter.htm.  
These conditions have existed among “apostates” who are publicly vocal about their doubts and have influenced other members.  When the court was scheduled in my case, and in speaking with John Dehlin by phone about it before it was public knowledge, I attempted to reconcile with the stake leaders to circumvent being excommunicated.  They declined to respond and the only response I had, ten days before the scheduled disciplinary court, was that there was nothing I could do or stop doing that would halt the 30 Sept council.  Given the leadership’s determination, several of us at MT and others among my friends suggested that like with Thomas Murphy, media attention postponed his court indefinitely.  We decided to take our case to the media.  We knew that active members would not help us get the case out, so we turned to forums where critics hold out.  While the report somewhat emphasized the Romney angle, it also covered the issue of leaders probing for names and activities at MT, and the leaders insisting I do not publish my views (censorship).  The Media reported only the Romney angle, of course, and the rest is history.

I’m pretty sure Mormon apologists will continually accuse MT of setting up the "game" to slur the church.  They see it as a game, and I guess that makes this blog post-game analysis. The bottom line is that the church does not like alternative points of view that appear critical.  They sometimes choose to use disciplinary courts to quiet critics.  And most often, it works.  When it fails, the church does appear onerous in the eyes of the world for its censor-mentality.  That is laid at the feet of SLC, not at the critics.  If they had left me alone, none of this would have happened and I would have blissfully continued being a “nobody” who had perhaps a less than adoring view of the LDS church.  And probably none of you would be reading this blog.

Another question that I was asked often is whether the church was really disciplining me over my writings about Romney.  I already wrote about this to the best of my knowledge here.  
What I would like to offer now is a little “play-by-play” post analysis in the following partial transcript which I took from my memory immediately at the time I was interrogated for 45 minutes in the Stake President’s office on 16 Sept 2012.  Someday, I will offer more transcript as I am ready to do so.

After introductions and questions about who I am, what I am doing in Orlando, and a discussion about reports that I have written derogatory articles about the church…

Stake president: “We will hold a disciplinary council and ask you to come and explain your views.”

Me: “You’re saying you’re going to have a council against me…already so soon?”

SP:  “Yes, we are.”

Me: What would I have to do to avoid that?

SP: In terms of not having the council?

Me: Yes.

SP: There is nothing you can do.

Me: Really?  It’s going to happen?

SP: (nodding)  It’s going to happen.  (pause)  The council is hopefully a place for you to express and defend the views you’ve been propogating in our midst.

Me: I didn’t do any of that here.  I wrote that off-site.

SP:  You came here, and, it was very derogatory in my opinion what you wrote.  (pause)  So during this disciplinary council which will be held in two weeks—

Me: Two weeks?

SP:  Two weeks.  We will give you the opportunity to defend yourself and what you’ve been writing.

(SP went on to describe the makeup of the disciplinary council the order of the events and how I might be able to defend myself with witnesses and documents.  I was told I could not blast the church or be critical, and that they would stop me if I insisted on being negative.  I asked them if I could take down any content—the Romney pieces, the temple ceremonies at MT, my blog—and if I took it down, would that alter the outcome.  The SP said no, again.)

Me:  This seems very one sided. 

SP: (thoughtful)  This is not a witch-hunt, but we feel an obligation to protect the members of the church from apostates and anti-christs who are contrary to the teachings of the church.  (turning to the bishop)  Bishop would you like to speak?

Bishop:  Yeah, I feel that you’ve been somewhat disingenuous.  Based on your own comments in your blog: “I don’t want to be found out, I need to be careful. I don’t want anyone to know what’s happening.”  Do you see how you coming here being true but you’re showing a different face?

Me: Yes, because I feared that I would get reprisal if somebody learned that I was the managing editor at Mormonthink-dot-com.

Bishop:  But don’t you see that if it is such an honorable and good thing  and you didn’t feel in your heart it was a problem—

Me: I don’t feel in my heart that it is a problem, but I know that others do.

Bishop:  So you knew it was something that the church wouldn’t want you doing.

Me: Sure.  Obviously I do, because the church has a system in place by which they say “do not look at these materials” They believe that members should be very careful what they study and where they go online.  And there’s a reason for that—

Bishop:  But you feared?

Me: I do think the reason I didn’t want my name out there, even though in my heart I believe I am championing the truth as managing editor of mormonthink-dot-com.  I truly  believe that’s what we are doing there.

Stake counselor: Who are the other individuals you work with on MormonThink?

Me: I’m not going to discuss that. 

Stake counselor: Ok, but why would you be so secretive about who you are?

Me: Because of church disciplinary courts.

SC:  It just doesn’t make sense to me.  It’s almost like “I’ve got a secret, I’m going to hide it.” It just doesn’t make sense—you say you’re for the truth but you won’t say who’s behind the truth.  It’s like putting something out there but not the person putting it out there.  If people are truly interested in truth, as you say they are, then why would they hide their name or who they are?

Me: You remember that Joseph Smith used code names for the revelations in the D&C and the founders used anonymity in the federalist papers? But the truth behind the federalist papers is not less valid just because they hid their names. 

SP: But Joseph Smith feared for his life and he had real reason to fear.  Your life is not in jeopardy.

Me:  People can lose more than the life of the body.  They can lose family, friends, business associates and more social connections if they dare come out as a church critic.  There are different ways to lose one’s life by stamping your name to controversial subjects. 

SC: But there are no modern Danites.

Me:  There’s a saying: If you want to know who controls you, think of who you don’t dare criticize.  I think a lot of members inside fear the Mormon church.

Them: (Laughter)

(I’ll put up more later.)

Two of us editors from MT attending my ward on 30 Sept 2012,

the day scheduled for my disciplinary court.

There's a Tiger in the Mountain West

(Editor note: I have added another important case to the study below)

Do Mormon members really have the ability to sway God and his anointed?

If the LDS church is truly run by revelation given to inspired prophets that have dedicated their long lives to humble devotion to the Lord, then one would expect them to be very in-tune with God’s will. Mistakes will be made, but the Lord would let them know before the common member, would he not?

(In fact, the doctrine is just that, as stated in OD-1: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray.")

Recently the LDS church has reported changes in doctrine, policy and interpretation of its history.  Four of these are particularly interesting.  I’ve commented on two of these in the past, including:

1 – The declaration that the discrimination against black members was unfounded and not doctrinal.  The official canon heading language goes:
"Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

The press release about this goes:
"It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago...We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

2 – The soft-pedaling on how Joseph Smith translates ancient documents, particularly the Book of Abraham.  In the past, the church undeniably characterized Smith’s translation of the Egyptian on the so-called Book of Abraham papyri as a direct translation of a book written by the hand of the Patriarch himself.  The latest change to the book’s introduction inserts the thought that in fact, it was merely an inspired work, not a strict translation.

Both of these changes come after a near continual (minority) onslaught from a vocal wing of progressive members and ex-members for the church to come clean on the issues surrounding these controversies.  The church discreetly listened and, quietly without acknowledging that they listened, made subtle changes or comments to soften former approaches to race issues and claims on Smith’s linguistic capabilities.

3 – A third change that seems to be driven by outside pressure is the changing of how the LDS church views members with same-sex attraction.  Until only in recent years, church leaders had expressed a concern that even the mere presence of attraction for the same sex was sin (a lie and of the devil, said they).  The current sitting and senior Apostle, Boyd K Packer, has said:

There is a falsehood that some are born with an attraction to their own kind, with nothing they can do about it. They are just 'that way' and can only yield to those desires. It is a malicious and destructive lie. While it is a convincing idea to some, it is of the devil. No one is locked into that kind of life... Boys are to become men – masculine, manly men – ultimately to become husbands and fathers. ("To Young Men Only")

The LDS affiliated program Evergreen from the 1980-1990s was an example of the mindset.  However, due to pressure from 10's of thousands of LDS members, many who have family or friends with same-sex attraction, policy and viewpoints have changed in the church.  Pressure from the world at large to accept gay marriage even seems to have spawned a "SSA favorable" (at first glance) website sponsored directly by the church ( http://www.mormonsandgays.org/ ).  While the church still backs banning gay marriage, they now admit "the [same-sex] attraction itself is not a sin".  This transformation happened in a short few years.

4 – The fourth change I mentioned?  Back in January, there was a push by members (especially females) to allow the sisters to pray in general conference.  Now, a couple of weeks before conference, the church has tipped its hat at allowing women to pray in its general meetings.  Again, pressure from the outside is changing divine (or not divine) policy that has been in-place since its founding. 

Why did it take near protests to get the change? 

In the past, the issue of racism and of completely fallacious translation has been the sore spot of not just individual protest, but of mass resignations.  Resignations of members have increased in recent years.   John Dehlin performed far-reaching surveys on ex Mormons and found that the reasons for leaving are not what most members think.  The Book of Abraham issue and race issue top the list, as well as issues on the Book of Mormon DNA or other archaeology concerns.  The church is listening quietly and seeing that when they leave the response to FAIR or other organizations, it is not satisfying members.  They want change, not elaborate discombobulating papers from Daniel C Peterson or  Scott Gordon.

The SL Tribune reports that one of the women who led the “Let Women Pray” drive for change, Analisa Estrada, said "It’s the kind of thing that came out of a lot of personal prayers on part of the organizers and the letter writers."

Does this mean that until now Heavenly Father has been waiting to see just how earnestly and prayerfully women wanted to pray in general meetings? Does this mean that the women 183 years in the church’s past were just not earnest enough?  It’s not like the doctrine and policies are subject to the whims and pressures of common members, right?  Because the LDS church is run by Jesus Christ through his prophet Thomas S Monson.

Anyone thinking a little more about this will realize that most of the controversial changes of the past half-century were due to pressures from below.  Members are actually guiding the church now.  They have the power because they have voted with their feet and resignation letters.  Tithing drops when the members cast against the brethren in quiet foottreads and keyboard pecking.  The brethren are listening.

What will the members come up with next?  Pants for women at church?  Bishops with beards? 

Many hope that they push for substantive change that will actually alter the course of the church from its racist, sexist, defamatory and narrow-minded viewpoint; rather than just the appearance the church makes in public.  So far, while encouraging, the members aren’t asking (with SSA as an exception) for meaningful change.  But give them time. I think there’s a tiger in the mountain west, and it ain’t no cougar.

If members ever do realize the power they have and exercise it, it will be a tipping point.  They will find that with that power comes the demise of their delusion that God is in control of the church through the prophet.  At that tipping point, more of them will want change because they will realize they guide the church. And so goes the feedback...

...Members will begin seeing that the LDS church is a glass jaw bully.

• Round 1. A small protest changed a small policy on women praying.
• Round 2. A well organized campaign can change celestial doctrine about what couples can be "married in heaven".
• Round 3. Members realize the LDS church has a glass jaw and the leaders are nothing more than blowup punching clowns with sand in their feet.
• Round 4. The members finally realize that the temple worthiness question about sustaining the leaders as prophets is ridiculous.
• And then for the knock out...

Change is on the horizon. Does it bode uncertainy or good tidings?

Some believe it would be better that the LDS church not change and

sink itself in a morass of antiquated views.

Canonbombed!

Last Friday, the LDS church announced a newly released digital edition of the LDS canon, which includes "adjustments" (as they call them).  Many have called the changes a bomb detonated to revise history, especially on troubling issues such as racism and polygamy.

The reason for the changes?  The first paragraph of official discussion on the "adjustments" says this:

"The current printing masters of the 1979 edition of the King James Version of the Bible and the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price have deteriorated because of age and long use. The quality of the typeface is no longer as clear and sharp as it should be. Therefore, in the process of preparing new printing masters, the Church has taken the opportunity to make adjustments."

(See http://www.lds.org/scriptures/adjustments?lang=eng )

Printing masters? In the digital age of desktop publishing they actually expect us to believe they had to do this because they were losing the printing masters?

The LDS church has all its scriptures, guides, footnotes, headings and more online, in digital format. When newspapers can daily transfer digital editions to printing masters for bulk volume, rapid prints, the church's reasoning that it was deteriorating printing masters looks like a ... lame excuse.

So why did the church take the "printing master" change-out opportunity to make "adjustments"? 

Late last year, I posted a blog called the Infallible FAIL! which highlighted how the Mormon church's position on why they engaged in racist doctrinal practices in the past is a huge chasm to their claim of divine revelation.  I will repeat a little of it again here.

One of the most significant 2013 edition changes is the heading to the Official Declaration 2, which states the following:

"Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."

But then, in the preceding Official Declaration 1 are these words:

"The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. "

 

It is also taught in official church manuals.

Preceding the O.D.2 heading change on racism, in 2012, the church released a press statement that read: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago...We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

This statement and the one in O.D.2 on racism are very profound.  They, together with the statement in O.D.1, that the prophet not permitted to lead the church astray, tacitly admits that the previous statement, that the Lord won’t allow a prophet to lead the members astray, is false.  For nearly 150 years the prophets have led the people astray with racist policies and the current prophet administration does not know why this happened, they just know firmly, racism is wrong.  That repudiation of the former policy, of hundreds of statements made by Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, John Taylor, Bruce McConkie, and many more effectively opens the gate to an understanding that the current administrating prophets could be absolutely dead wrong on policies they have in place currently.

The other most interesting changes which many have already noted are those that change the headings. Removing the History of the Church references in the D&C reduces the influence of Joseph Smith's journal on the official history and allows them to keep sliding down history revisionism.

The other change is the Book of Abraham Introduction, from:

"A Translation of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."

To:

“An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

They no longer admit, as Joseph Smith wrote in History of the Church, that it was written by the hand of Abraham. (History of the Church, 2:235–36, 348–51).  Rather, it is an "inspired" translation.  This is an obvious migration to one of the several solutions advanced by LDS apologists to overcome the deficit on the proven inability of Joseph Smith to actually translate Egyptian.  Instead of claiming that Smith literally translated off of the actual papyri, the church appears to be evolving the story to one where Smith was inspired by the papryi, which acted as catalyst for an inspired account of Abraham's tale.  It's actually a very clever, almost underhanded move. 

The church leaders know they cannot directly, humbly address the concerns of members and critics who find the official claim of origins of the Book of Abraham highly suspect.  They are now addressing them through a sliding of words that help re-define history, removing references to the source of these issues (the History of Church by Joseph Smith) and claiming that these changes are just minor necessary adjustments needed as the printing masters have aged.

In any case, the church is moving further from Joseph's claims about his "inspired translation" or revelation. I don't believe they will ever be able to completely remove Joseph Smith from the church, but this goes a long ways toward the beginning of marginalizing him.

My view is that LDS church leaders know that an onslaught of members have serious concerns, which cannot be addressed, mostly surrounding Joseph Smith. However, as is almost always seen in typical con-men modus operandi, they don't admit in humble honesty that Joseph Smith was an arrogant dictating opportunist, but rather try to carefully and slowly alter the equation without admission. They change without really admitting why they change. For as long as they can, they deny deny deny, but if forced, they change the problem without a lot of admission.

The LDS church treats history like a canal boat. 

They can raise the water or lower it at will, allowing

some claims passage and others to be dry-docked.

 

Patriarchs: Psychic Supremacists

Recently I spent a few hours in the Florida village of Cassadaga, which is home to a psychic center with dozens of mediums, spirit stores and even a new age chapel.  The businesses all had that slightly dilapidated, old America homey feel to them.  The hotel, shops and medium stations were grouped together along a few crowded streets in an otherwise remote Florida region.  In addition to the hundreds of books, tarot cards and potions, the curio shops had a lot of seer and divination stones of various types. 

Mediums and spiritualist kept session schedules on white boards and were booked solid during the weekend.  They believe they have a gift, a power and a spiritual skill that enables them to perform the service that others, apparently, cannot. At $60-$100 per hour rates, they were carving out a living in a very affordable village.  One thing stood out in my mind, it didn’t matter who you were or what you did--rich or poor, black or white, tall or short, skeptic or believer--you (and your credit card) are welcome in Cassadaga. 

By comparison, in the LDS church, the Patriarch is a role filled in almost all stakes (units of many congregational wards), where a male priesthood holder is called, usually for life, to pronounce blessings which look suspiciously like psychic foretelling and readings, but with a very Mormon feel to them.  For example, mine (received when I was 19) begins with the following:

“Brother David Twede, in the name of Jesus Christ and by authority of the Holy Melchizedek Priesthood in me vested, I lay my hands upon your head and seal upon you a patriarchal blessing. I pray that the Spirit of the Lord will guide and direct you in those things that you should do, that you may receive an understanding of those questions that are in your mind, that you will be blessed and guided as you travel through life by the precepts of this blessing.”

 

Here we see a similar claim of gift, power and skill to pronounce guidance that will answer questions needed to travel through life.  It’s really a lot like a psychic reading, minus the cards, stones and credit card charges (there was a fee at one time -- note 1 at end). After telling me that I am special, that I was a good little spirit boy before coming to earth, further on, my blessing makes predictions such as:

•  “It will be your opportunity to serve a mission”
•  “You will go to a very special mission”
•  “You will come to love your mission president with a deep and abiding reverence”
•  “You will be a leader among men “
•  “There is a young lady who the Lord is preparing now for this great experience with you”
•  “The work you do to make your living will be of great pleasure to you”
•  “Your name will be known for good throughout the annals of the church”
•  “Your life will be one of direction, achieving goals and great understanding”

Basically, promising me fame, love and even happiness in pursuing my fortune. Repeatedly I am told I am special, loved, have purpose and will achieve great things, have deep relationships and find meaning as well as a (implied wealthy) career.  Throughout my young life, I read and reread the blessing, parsing every nuanced word and sentence to tease out meaning about what would befall me in life.   I remember being told by the Patriarch that I should be careful not to share my blessing except with those I trust.  Like many things in the LDS church, it was sacred, not secret.  But why?

You can view the P. blessings of many former members who've decided to put them up for public viewing at this link.

Most members who receive the blessing are cleared for worthiness by their bishop and instructed to go fasting and prayerful to the Patriarch’s home in preparation for their blessing.  A skeptic or unworthy person would not be welcome to receive it.  That in and of itself may not be such a big deal, except, one element found in every blessing is insidious:  the declaration of Abrahamic lineage. 

The most official LDS definition (http://www.lds.org/topics/patriarchal-blessings?lang=eng ) I could find on this says:

“A patriarchal blessing includes a declaration of lineage, stating that the person is of the house of Israel—a descendant of Abraham, belonging to a specific tribe of Jacob. Many Latter-day Saints are of the tribe of Ephraim, the tribe given the primary responsibility to lead the latter-day work of the Lord.

“Because each of us has many bloodlines running in us, two members of the same family may be declared as being of different tribes in Israel.

“It does not matter if a person's lineage in the house of Israel is through bloodlines or by adoption. Church members are counted as a descendant of Abraham and an heir to all the promises and blessings contained in the Abrahamic covenant.”

  My own blessing says:

“I bless you to know that you are of the house of Joseph through the loins of Ephraim…”

Why would I say this is insidious? Because it is racism at some level.  All of Abraham’s descendents, as described in the bible story, are white Middle Eastern tribal people.  LDS church doctrine declares that:

“For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. They become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham, and the church and kingdom, and the elect of God.” (D&C 84:33-34)

According to LDS doctrine, if you are not directly part of or adopted into the lineage of Abraham, you cannot fulfill the requirements of salvation and exaltation.  When one gets a patriarchal blessing, the declaration of lineage is always made to that race.  Implied strongly in this is that Asians, Blacks, Indians, Amerindians, and others are not chosen.  They must at some level (blood or spiritual) declare and align themselves with the race of a Bedouin tribe or else be damned.

While I found my curious visit to Cassadaga entertaining, it wasn’t any more insidious than visiting a used car sales lot.  At least the psychics don’t universally all spout a racist declaration when giving you a reading.  Patriarchs, while mostly humble, good intentioned men, are serving a supremacist cause at the LDS church’s bidding.

The Coral Castle in Homestead, FL is believed to have been erected by magic.

Many who've recevied a P. blessing have said that they feel it was revelatory.  There were personal things said during the blessing that know one else could've known.  There were experiences in life fulfilled that seemed dead-on predicted by the blessing years before.  You would get the same kind of testimony from customers of psychics at Casadagga.  They will marvel and believe it is magical. 

The techniques used by psychics has been studied by many skeptics. A great summary is found here.  Listed in this are the following standard techiques (in Guide to Cold Reading).

1. You must act with confidence. You don't need to be arrogant. In fact, you will probably benefit by pretending to be humble. ...
2. You must do your research. You have to be up on the latest statistics... You have to know what people in general are like from polls and surveys. Also, you must pick up in casual conversation before a performance any information that might be useful later...
3. You must convince the mark that he or she will be the reason for success or failure. ...
4. Be observant. Does the person have expensive jewelry on but worn out clothes? Is she wearing a pin with the letter 'K' on it. ...
5. Use flattery and pretend you know more than you do.

And so on.  Some argue that a difference is, the patriarch is pronouncing a blessing while the psychic plays 20-questions and guides the mark to where the personal information lies.  Most patriarchs will interview and converse with the blessee before the pronouncement.  Patriarchs are given general guidelines in a short manual (which is guarded closely much like the Mission President's Handbook was).  They become practiced in expanding on the guidelines as they pronounce more and more blessings, and have already gained much experience as a priesthood holder giving healing blessings, ordinances, father's blessings and more for decades.  The tradecraft follows closely to the steps outlined above. 

1. The patriarch does hold the authority and yet they are humble.
2. The pre-blessing dialogue and interview helps the patriarch to pronounce personalized blessings.
3. The fulfillment of a blessings is always predicated on worthiness. This is an out for anything not fulfilled and leaves the mark feeling insecure about their standing in the church, and thus reliant on it.
4. Most patriarchs have personal knowledge of the blessee and his/her family, who lives in the same stake as the patriarch.  Mormon communities are close-knit.
5. Loads of flattery and very little negative content exist in P. blessings.

I'm willing to bet that if patriarchs could go back to charging for the blessing, as they could in the 19th and early 20th centuries (see note 1), most members would go back time and time again for updates.  Instead, the church ensures one pays tithing to be worthy for the blessing, and teaches that future promises are predicated on continued worthiness (e.g., paying tithing).

Appearing to accurately predicting events that seem too unqiue to be just coincidence is actually not that difficult when viewed in hindsight.  Take a look at this page to see how a high number of nearly identical coincidences between US Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy make it appear they were both destined to be assassinated.

This article from the NY Times highlights more importance of statistical significance and mere coincidence.

Lastly, it was pointed out to me that the Forer Effect could be at play in P. blessings.  The effect "is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. This effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some beliefs and practices, such as astrology, fortune telling, graphology, and some types of personality tests."

Just because it feels meaningful doesn't mean it isn't common.



[1] From  D. Michael Quinn, "The Mormon Hierarchy--Extensions of Power" Chap 6, Signature Books, 1997.
"For several decades only the Patriarch had a set compensation, while other General Authorities depended on haphazard donations from the rank-and-file or ad hoc appropriations from general Church funds. In 1835 the Presiding Patriarch was authorized a salary of $10 a week, plus expenses.
"Both the Presiding Patriarch and local stake patriarchs charged a fee. In the 1840s the fee was $1 per patriarchal blessing at Nauvoo; by the end of the nineteenth century it had increased to $2 per blessing. Joseph Smith, Sr., gave patriarchal blessings without payment of a fee, but would not record them. 'Uncle' John Smith commented that he 'lived very poor ever since we left Kirtland Ohio' in January 1838 until January 1844. Then his nephew Joseph Smith ordained him a patriarch 'through which office I obtained a comfortable living.'
"Financial incentive is another explanation for the fact that individual Mormons received more than one patriarchal blessing in the 19th century, often at the invitation of the patriarch. In October 1877 John Taylor criticized the monetary motivation of some stake patriarchs. He said they were using their patriarchal office as 'a mere means of obtaining a livelihood, and to obtain more business they had been traveling from door to door and underbidding each other in the price of blessings.'
"In addition, patriarchs received fees for giving unrecorded blessings of healing to the sick. In fact, Apostle Francis M. Lyman commended Patriarch Elias Blackburn for 'doing a great deal of good among the sick, without receiving very much pay for his services.'
"Patriarchal blessing fees ended in 1902, although patriarchs were allowed to accept unsolicited donations. Not until 1943 did church authorities prohibit patriarchs from accepting gratuities for giving blessings."

Alma the Aviator Saves Hostages, Leaping over Tall Estates on a Single Modest-Stipend

Many New Order Mormons (NOMs) and some traditional members feel Apostle Dieter Uchtdorf is the most honest, humble and interesting Apostle in the LDS church.  This may very well be true, especially given the others in the quorum.   On 13 January, 2013, Elder Dieter gave a church education devotional.  

 At around 33 minutes into the broadcast, Dieter says the following:

"…Remember that in this age of information there are many who create doubt about anything and everything at anytime and everyplace. You will find even those who still claim that they have evidence that the earth is flat. That the moon is a hologram. It looks like it a little bit. And that certain movie stars are really aliens from another planet. And it is always good to keep in mind just because something is printed on paper, appears on the internet, is frequently repeated or has a powerful group of followers doesn't make it true."

  True, how true.  This may include the opening paragraph of Dieter’s biography at LDS.ORG.

(click on image to expand)

From this bio, (apparently penned by Jeffrey Holland) we learn that Dieter flew a small group of emergency personnel to follow the hostages in a hijacked 737.  His company president ordered Dieter “to negotiate for the release of the plane, the pilots and the hostages.” He was told after having accomplished this, he should fly the recovered aircraft back to Frankfurt headquarters, which apparently happened without bloodshed.  Reading the bio, it would seem Uchtdorf was at the center of negotiating, rescuing, apprehending and recovering the hijacked hostages and plane.  That’s major hero action.

Uchtdorf gave the church permission to relate a story that apparently isn’t corroborated in other accounts of the hostage event.  See the references & sources of this Wikipedia article to get the facts.

A lot of this has been discussed in forums online (here & here) already this week.  Still some ask, is Dieter F. Uchtdorf pulling a Paul H. Dunn?  Is he as trustworthy as some believed?

What I have uncovered about him may cause more concern.  Not only about the junior Apostle, but about some of what the LDS church is doing related to him in real estate dealings.  This is preliminary, but so far, what I’ve found is alarming.

Apparently, the LDS church is buying lots of land in Utah resort and vacation towns.  Some of these are in highly prestigious gated residential communities.  One is the Red Ledges development.  Homes (estates & mansions) here start at half-million and move up quickly into the several million.  LDS inc seemingly owns a large (undeveloped) plot (lot 184).¹ 

The LDS owned  lot is small enough not to serve for a chapel/church lot, but large enough to place a nice sized estate upon.  Why does LDS inc purchase residential lots in a gated elite community? 

(click on image to expand)

The reason they purchase home lots could be, perhaps, tied to Dieter F Uchtdorf.  He received the very first (Lot 1) finished town home late last summer.

 

Dieter's Summer estate in Red Ledges.

He bought it for $782,000, and it is a tenth the size (at 0.063 acres) of the lot owned by LDS inc in the same development. 

(click on image to expand)

MLS report on Dieter's Red Ledges sale

(click on image to expand)

Wasatch County Tax Report on said property

Uchtdorf’s home is not his principal residence. That’s in the upper-crust North Salt Lake area at 399 Aerie Circle.  This primary residence is worth $778,000, and the taxes for it are mailed to the Church’s offices at 47 East South Temple St in SLC.

(click on image to expand)

Davis County Tax Report on Dieter's primary residence

What we see is, Hero Dieter owns two homes worth three-quarters of a million each.  Hero Dieter, who quit his aviator position at Lufthansa in 1996 hasn’t worked a job in 16 years, but bought two homes with combine worth today of $1.5M.  The latest, last year, in the development where the LDS church already bought homestead plots bigger than Dieters.

This is just preliminary, and already I have found other interesting bits which I will address in future blogs.  But I’d like to point out that for supposedly a modest stipend, the junior apostle is doing very well.  When Uchtdorf  tells his religious student audience to beware of critics who are just like flat-earthers and alien watchers (because the internet isn’t very true), he’s like Alma telling Korihor that his denial of Christ is crazy talk.  Alma, we’re told, worked for his living without even a modest stipend to obtain fancy estates in high-society resort developments.  Readers contrasting Alma the honest with Korihor the agitator feel they can trust Alma. 

Dieter asks in the same 13 Jan CES talk:

"How can we know that this truth is different from any other? How can we trust this truth? The invitation to trust the lord does not relieve us from responsibility to know for ourselves."

 He assures his listeners that truth is found in the whispering of the spirit which only comes from living the gospel.   He encourages them to accept an assumption about how we source truth (through feelings). And goes on to end with this:

"I add my witness as an apostle of the Lord that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. I know this with all my heart and mind. I know this by the witness and power of the Holy Ghost."

Can he provide any more evidence of these claims than flat-earthers or moon-hologramers do of theirs?  Can we trust the hero, mansions-owning pilot?  He’s no humble-living Alma. He’s Dunn.




1 - Previously I had shown/listed two additional lots(lot 77, lot 99) under Church Properties LLC, but it has been commented elsewhere that the two properties listed may not be owned by the LDS church, instead they may be a private company held by an individual with the last name Church.  If so, my confusion is noted here as an innocent and perhaps sloppy mistake.  I'm checking this out.  In the mean time, note that a search on Wasatch County Appraiser's site for owner "LDS:" or "Bishop" or "Property Reserve" (all associated with the LDS corporations) yields a combine more than 100+ properties in that county alone. Many of these are in private residential areas (some are church buildings) and in wilderness/recreational areas.  The Church's holdings are significant, and I did assume the LLC was somehow associated with the Mormons. Red Ledges  Lot 184 is held by the church, and may have been acquired by them from a member donation--another piece I am still tracking down.