Priestcrafty

"Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the Welfare of Zion…. But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish" (2 Ne. 26:29, 31).

If you labored in Zion -- if you taught humility, obedience, paying tithes and offerings, remaining pure from alcohol/sex and other fun outside of the happiness the church designs for you -- and you were paid well for preaching this, would you want the members to know about your financial compensation?

What if you also sought investment income far more often than the welfare of humans, but preached as if you cared more about people than profits?

Preaching is a skill.  A skill is also a craft.  Being crafty is being deceptively ingenious so that your skill nets you unobserved gain.

Are the LDS apostles engaged in priestcraft? Do crafty church leaders keep secret their gains for laboring in Zion?  

FAIR has a page dedicated to help the questioning member decide that NO, the church leadership is not a priestcraft.  

FAIR, does admit that the church uses non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), which is where the basis of financial opaqueness is founded. NDAs are to financial transparency what blackout curtains are to the sun. 

Keeping financial opaqueness, the LDS church refuses to disclose: 

1) complete or even basic tithing & offerings income, 

2) corporate income, 

3) church operating expenses, 

4) salaries of leaders and many church employees, 

5) the form and even existence of the non-disclosure agreements, 

6) source of investment monies (tithing?), 

7) investment gains/losses.  

There might be other factors I neglect here, but this suffices.  Remember, tithing comes entirely from the members but they have no accounting for it.  Also, NDAs in the LDS church might be a secret, but so many church employees have admitted to them at various levels, their existence is not really in question.

FAIR argues that NDAs are not a sign of deception or priestcraft: "One problem with an NDA is that in order to get relief the injured party must sue. And in suing, the contract itself would become part of the court case, and potentially available for public scrutiny."

They argue that NDAs don't solve the secrecy problem.  They do, however, create a great excuse for GAs at the top who don't want to be forced to disclose their compensations.  The NDA is a cover for the top, and a way to keep internal records sequestered so that all but a few mid-level staff don't see the compensation of the higher ups.

FAIR: "This would only be some sort of problem if the church was trying to hide something. And so if the church is trying to hide payments to general authorities, then the whole process of having a NDA creates far more problems than it would solve. "

Ok, then by FAIR's reasoning, there is no need for a non-profit, charity-church based corporation to have NDAs. If they would forego their self-mandated NDAs (they are The LDS Executives, after all) and just produce financial transparency, it would clear it up.  They have nothing to hide, right?

But they do.  The Mission President Handbook, which FAIR has not addressed, shows they absolutely have things to hide regarding tax liabilities if "stipends" or reimbursed packages were defined as income.

Removing the NDA would create more problems than it solves in the case where publishing the GA compensation packages would upset the proletariat members. And again, the MP Handbook tells the mission presidents not to disclose their compensation packages. Not even to family or other MPs.  Why?  Because the compensation includes Christmas gifts, gardeners, tuition, maids and more.  Items the average member would find on the edge of moral responsibility for their own church.

On GA compensation, FAIR quotes Hinckley, former prophet, as saying:

“... the living allowances given the General Authorities, which are very modest in comparison with executive compensation in industry and the professions, come from this business income and not from the tithing of the people.”

This tells us two things:  

1) GAs make “modest” executive compensation.  He didn’t say salary.  He said executive compensation.  

2) GA compensation is tied to LDS business income.

Compensation tied to business income can be very healthy, especially if your companies have billions to invest in a lot of real-estate and other ventures.  For the LDS church, everything they own, hold or build derived originally from tithing.  Even Hinckley says, "the combined income from all of these business interests is relatively small."  However he defines small, it's on the scale of having enough cash on hand to build billion-dollar malls, hundred million dollar condo high-rises, industrial parks and more, year after year.  If that is small, tithing income must be huge!

If your personal yearly compensation were dependent on how much money the corporation had for investments (likely from invested excess tithing) and how efficiently the monies are used, you would try to get all the free labor  you could.  You would ask members to pay for their own sales-position as missionaries.  You would ask them to clean the chapels.  You would ask them to work for free at storehouses, farms and temples.  You would ask them to do a lot of work to benefit the LDS corporate bottom line, like advertise and lobby for the LDS full-length motion movie advertisment to get put in theaters nation-wide.

Free sales force. Free janitors.  Free storehouse workers.  Free farm labor.  Free this and free that.  Bottom line savings from tithing goes to business investments and is tied to executive compensation.

I’ve blogged about apostles heading up positions on LDS corporations previously—such as Monson simultaneously holding positions as Chairman (CEO) of the Corporation of COJCOLDS, Chairman of LDS Business College, Director of BYU-I; as Holland being Director of Farmland Reserve, etc.  The LDS Corporations are valued conservatively by Business Week at $40 Billion, with a church-wide gross (and mostly tax-free) income between tithing and return on investments coming in about $6-8 billion annually.  It's estimated that about 20% of their income (or $2B) is their annual consolidated income, used as investment seed to build cash for building projects like malls and condo complexes.  This net income is the level of a mid-latitude Fortune 500 company, such as Target Corp, whose post-tax consolidated net income is $2-3B per year.  What does a CEO/Chairman or Director of a such a corporation make? 

While it is an apples/oranges comparison of sorts, in 2012, Target Corp Chairman, Gregg W Steinhafel’s compensation package was $20,647,464. (Target’s listed VPs earned $5-7M). The median CEO salary, according to an Associated Press/Equilar pay study, is around $10 million.  

So a "modest" compensation "living allowance" compared with the equivalent Target CEO, at 5% would be $1,032,373 for Monson.  However, Monson had three jobs, two of them as Chairman, and one as Director.  His modest tri-job package could be...well, we really don’t know.  We can’t.  There are NDAs to protect such things.

Hinckley also said, quoted by FAIR, that:

 “Merchandisinginterests are an outgrowth of the cooperative movement which existed among our people in pioneer times. The Church has maintained certain real estate holdings.”

It’s interesting that he used the word “merchandising” when one considers the merchandise of Porsche Design, Rolex and Tiffany’s at LDS owned City Creek Mall.  And interesting also because New Testament Peter said to his flock to beware of “false prophets” who “through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you.” (2 Peter 2:3)  That is, they will make money off of their flocks by flattering them.

The NDAs are crafty, for a bunch of high priests and apostles.

Uchtdorf's two, $700,000+ homes come decades after retiring. Because the GAs sign non-disclosure agreements, we can't know how, for example, Boyd Packer as a BYU Religion Teacher ends up with just under $2M in property in Utah alone. Or how Monson, retired from advertising at Deseret Book and Deseret News apparently at 36 years of age (two years from 31-33 as a Mission President), ends up with over $1M in property.  

If they would forego their self-mandated NDAs (they are the executives, after all) and just produce financial transparency, it would clear it up.  A lot of Fortune 500 CEOs, ExVPs publish their compensation packages.

A Challenge to Neil Andersen

What will you ask the man?

Neil L. Andersen, an LDS Apostle, said at the Oct 4, 2014 LDS General Conference: 

“How should we respond to a sincere inquirer who is concerned about negative comments he or her has heard or read about the prophet Joseph Smith? Of course we always welcome honest and genuine questions.”

Do you really welcome honest and genuine questions?  

I challenge Neil L. Andersen to put his money where his mouth is.  There are a lot of questions out there that LDS Apostles have not answered. They’ve been there for decades. 

So, Mr. Andersen, here’s the challenge—go pick up Fawn Brodie’s “No Man Knows My History” or even the pages on Joseph Smith at Mormonthink.com and show us the half-truths in these documents.  Otherwise, your words in the talk claiming to “offer kindness to those who criticize Joseph Smith” are in vain.

From the other side of his mouth, Mr. Andersen also said:

"We are especially saddened when someone who once revered Joseph retreats from his or her conviction and then maligns the prophet. “Studying the church through the eyes of its defectors,” Elder Neil A. Maxwell once said, “is like interviewing Judas to understand Jesus.  Defectors always tell us more about themselves than about that which they have departed.” "

In one mouth Andersen offers critics kindness. In the other mouth he is branding “defectors” as betrayers akin to “Judas”—who LDS members recognize as a son of perdition—residing with Satan.  This kind of labelling is not kindness, Elder Andersen.  This is tantamount to creating a barrier between “defectors” and their active-Mormon family. (We know the LDS church indirectly encourages shunning of apostates in its policies.  Andersen just repeats it from the global pulpit.)

Andersen also said: 

“We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation.”

Later:

“The negative commentary about the prophet Joseph Smith will increase as we move toward the second coming of the savior. The half-truths and subtle deceptions will not diminish. There will be family members and friends who need your help.”

On the one hand Andersen wants to excuse Joseph Smith by using the context of his day and situation, so that we don’t scrutinize him by our higher standards on a 37 year old Joseph Smith, the prophet, marrying a 14-15 year old teen girl. On the other hand Andersen, knowing the Internet is revealing the true character of Joseph Smith that they could formerly hide, calls on the idea that immorality increases and is more rampant in the latter days as we move toward the end-times.  

Andersen wants Joseph to eat his teen cake and have his slice of latter-day wickedness too.  

Sorry, Mr. Andersen, you can’t have it both ways. Either we excuse the unacceptable dalliances by our more modern strict views on pedophilia, or dismiss your view that modern culture is more sexually perverse than Smith was.  To cherry-pick your moral codes by era and give Joseph a pass while condemning those who view pedophilia as evil is just plain irrational and backwards.  Give credit to critics who decry pedophilia no matter where they see it--whether in Warren Jeffs or in Joseph Smith. Be honest and willing to admit your leader had some sick behaviors.

In that last statement, Andersen decried critics of Joseph Smith as perpetuating half-truths and subtle deceptions while never honestly and fully explaining exactly what he meant.   He can bad-mouth all he wants, but he needs to give the data and explain it or it looks completely ad-hominem.

The challenge remains, Mr. Andersen, please step up and answer the honest questions about Joseph Smith’s pedophilia.  Once you’ve done that, we have a long list of sincere questions about Smith’s involvement in many other questionable ventures, that seen even through the context lens of Smith's 19th century situation would be troubling.  After all, there was a lot of anger towards Joseph Smith by the non-Mormons of his day.  Oh, that’s right, you would like members to believe that anger stemmed from his testimony of the Book of Mormon, not his dalliances, his destruction of presses, of bank note fraud and more.

Will Mr. Andersen actually discuss in detail the honestly questionable aspects of Joseph Smith’s life?  If his conference talk is an indicator, probably not. One of the very few examples Andersen did relate about Joseph Smith wasn’t actually about Joseph Smith.  He related the story of the Salamander letter, which Kimball, Hinckley and other prophet-apostles bought from forger Mark Hofmann, and of which Dallin Oaks even defended as legitimate, until Hofmann later admitted to the forgery.  Andersen said that members whose faith failed because of the letter “left too early.”  

However, Andersen did not divulge that LDS Prophets were deceived by Hofmann as well, indicating their claims to prophetic vision were undermined severely by the episode.  Andersen would have you believe that leaving the church over documents showing Joseph Smith used a stone in a hat to produce the text of the Book of Mormon, or that Smith practiced polygamy with teenaged girls when in  his late 30s and early 40s is too premature.  However, the awareness of these—the stone and hat and polygamy—have been in books for over 50 years.  LDS church apostles have decried such information as anti-mormon until only this past year when they began acknowledging the same facts in their Topic Essays.  

When the Hofmann forgeries were eagerly purchased for $10s of thousands of dollars by Kimball and Hinckley, Mormon critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner actually issued caution that the documents LDS leaders were buying looked fake.  Critics were not touting the documents as evidence against Joseph Smith.  Hofmann, a lone forger and money-hungry “faithful” LDS member did that.  Andersen has fault in his implication that anti-mormon critics created this dilemma over which members left too early.  Had members listened to the critics, the Tanners, they would have suspected the documents. But LDS leadership failed their own members when they ignored the critics, to buy AND defend the forged Salamander Letter.

Mr. Andersen, come clean about your own words and tell the complete, honest, sincere answer to the humble questions many members do ask.  We challenge you.

I'll be listing some questions here, collected from honest, sincere inquirers.

Of course, we can expect that Neil Andersen will rather attack the questioner than to answer questions he doesn't like.  It's practically LDS policy to attack the questioner now.

Another meme from general conference:

More Connection Between FAIR and LDS Corporation

Almost a year ago, Sept 2013, I disclosed that the More Good Foundation received money directly from LDS owned organizations and apparently funneled money to the apologetic organization FAIR.  The charter at FAIR states that they are a separate, unaffiliated organization from the LDS church and corporations.

However, some new evidence comes to light showing links.  In an email sent by Steve Densley, VP at FAIR, in July to advertise their upcoming FAIRMormon conference (Held the first week in Aug), he explained:

"The Church will also be creating a webpage for seminary and institute teachers that includes a link to the FairMormon website. Furthermore, the Church has notified all seminary and institute teachers of the FairMormon conference, the Church is giving them a vacation day in order to attend and FairMormon is waiving the fee for seminary and institute teachers."

This appears a fairly substantial backing by the LDS church of the FAIR organization and their apologetic conference.  While they didn't directly fund FAIR, they support FAIR to waive conference fees for their employees.  And even more, the LDS Church is paying the educators on church salary for a day's time to attend.


To wit, here is the email FAIR sent out.


---

From:  Steve Densley <sdensley@g***.com>

Sent: Sunday,  Jul 6, 2014, at 9:02 AM

Subject:  FairMormon Conference

As most of you all know, I am the vice president of FairMormon, a group that exists in order to respond to criticisms of the Church and to help people to resolve their doubts. As I have been involved in FairMormon, one of the most frustrating things is to find people who have left the Church due to questions or concerns they had about Church history or doctrine, when there are good answers to those questions. However, once they have committed themselves to leaving, they are not as open to considering the answer we offer. It seems that we would be much more effective if people were aware of us earlier.

The Church has started to address some of the big issues that cause concern for many people by posting articles on LDS.orgin the Gospel Topics section. The Church will also be creating a webpage for seminary and institute teachers that includes a link to the FairMormon website. Furthermore, the Church has notified all seminary and institute teachers of the FairMormon conference, the Church is giving them a vacation day in order to attend and FairMormon is waiving the fee for seminary and institute teachers.

Bishops, stake presidents and relief society presidents also sometimes find themselves in circumstances where they are counseling with members who have questions, concerns and doubts. Therefore, we at FairMormon also want to extend an invitation to stake presidents, bishops and relief society presidents to attend the FairMormon Conference for free.

The conference is on August 7 & 8 at the Utah Valley Convention Center in Provo. If you are unable to attend in person, you can also listen to a live steam of the conference over the internet, and the stream will be available for a few weeks afterward, so you can still listen even if you were not able to on August 7 & 8.

We have a special link for Church leaders to use to sign up: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/12HsX8kZfDuW1dF1bSvjKfDQYHocw32f_QeSvnE9QoaQ/viewform

For more information about the conference, you can contact me, or visit this page: http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference

For more information about FairMormon in general, you can review the following article in the Church News and the subsequent links to the FairMormon website:

https://www.lds.org/church/news/2013-fair-conference-defending-the-faith

http://www.fairmormon.org/

http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon

http://www.fairmormon.org/about-fairmormon/testimonials

I hope you can join us in Provo on August 7 & 8, and if not, I hope you will find time to listen to the conference on line and explore the resources FairMormon has to offer.

Steve Densley

Vice President

FairMormon

---

Unfortunately, I received this email after the conference and was unable to directly access the google doc to acquire the form the LDS church leaders used to pay for their attendance fees at FAIR.  I would ask Steve Densley to confirm or deny this is accurate.

What does this mean?  FAIR seems to get more direct support from the LDS Church than either the church or the apologists would like to admit.

The connection may not be black and white, but it's still quite clear.

Articles of Incorporation Archive

I have obtained scans of the LDS Articles of Incorporation. For more information about these, see this blog post and this blog post.

Interestingly, there are several new amendments made by Monson, about ten in all from 2009 - 2014.   These amendments are the first ones since the 1973 amendment made by Harold Lee.  The 2014 amendment, given below, is essentially the same as most of them, with the exception of the June 2013 amendment (shown also below).


To wit, here are the scans for posterity. Click on any image to get the large view.

November 1923 original articles of incorporation:

1923, p1

1923, p2

The second article is most interesting.  It allows LDS inc to give property to any member they wish.

"The object of this corporation shall be to acquire, hold and dispose of such real and personal property as may be conveyed to or acquired by said corporation for the benefit of the members ...this corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property."

Did you catch that?  The sole owner can convey in any manner they want any of the property or wealth held by the LDS corporation sole.  

June 1940, fourth article:

1940

This article mostly ensures the continuance of the ownership at the death of the current president.

November 1973, fifth article (on the dissolution of the LDS corporation):

1973, p1

1973, p2

Here's the pertinent quote:

"Upon the winding up and dissolution of this corporation, after paying or adequately providing for the debts and obligations of the corporation, the remaining assets shall be distributed to a nonprofit fund, foundation or corporation, which is organized and operated exclusively for charitable, educational, or religious and/or scientific purposes and which has established its tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code."

The LDS Corporate Sole considerable wealth, property and ownership of businesses could be disposed of to any  non-profit "fund" in the form of a "corporation" organized for "charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes". That covers a lot of possibilities.

EDIT: A corporate lawyer (friend), informs me that this fifth article is a standard provision required by IRS Publication 557 to appear in any 501(c)(3) non-profit to maintain its charter, to ensure that the organization assets are "permanently dedicated to an exempt purpose" in case of dissolution.  

Perhaps not nefarious, but it sure is to the advantage of LDS Inc. either way.  The "charitable, educational, religious or scientific purposes" seems to have widen the door the IRS opened for them.

Amendment in June 2013, giving designee Robert W. Cantwell a lot of powers to administer to the LDS Corporate Sole:

2013

July 2014, amendment giving deisgnees Robert Cantwell, Douglas Martin and Steven Penrose powers to execute stock and establish trading accounts:

2014

There's a possible big red flag here.  Robert Cantwell, now CFO for the LDS Church, has been the church auditor for years.  I'm investigating it.  Although, according to Cantwell's linked in bio, he stopped acting as the managing director of auditing in June 2013.  Then again, the IRS might find it interesting too that a former auditor goes to managing the funds he formerly audited. (IRS Whistleblower page)

For more info on the other two, see Doug Martin the treasurer at LDS Church and Steve Penrose, the Global Financial Reporting Manager at LDS Church. (Kevin Jergensen is the new managing auditor.)

See these images:

What is interesting here is how many (10) amendments have been made recently.  It could reflect a change in Utah law, requiring designees assigned each year and a change in the presidency (Hinckley to Monson in 2009).  However, I wonder if there isn't something strange afoot with regard to the significant change in designees in 2014.  

Could it be Monson's health is failing?  Could it be the LDS corporations are about to exercise the fifth article of the dissolution and are preparing all necessary powers and accounts?  Or it just could be standard operating principles.  However, there hasn't been an amendment filed like these for previous administrations.  Before Monson, there hasn't been an amendment filed since 1973, that I can find.  I can't understand why, if it is just standard operation to name your designees and officers. 



Now all that said, a little tongue-n-cheek bit:  The IRS Warned us about "Corporate Soles" being a tax evasion shelter.
These corporate vehicles are used by individuals to get exemption from federal income taxes as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3).  

"This scheme shamelessly tries to take advantage of special tax benefits available to legitimate religious groups and church leaders," said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson.  The IRS also warned that "the scam could be starting to spread with multiple cases seen recently in states such as Utah and Washington."

UTAH!!!

Of course, the LDS Church was there first.  The LDS Church holds 501(c)(3) status AND owns a big chunk of the fashionable City Creek Center (even if it is paying taxes on its profits) I think its legitimacy as a church and "charity" are questionable.  But again, it was there first! UTAH!!!  This is the most prophetic thing to come out of Mormonism ever.

The Untold Plates

It’s been almost 9 months since the LDS History Dept released the topic essay on the Book of Mormon Translation, in which they admit that "Joseph placed the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."   I joked at the time that God made “Reformed English” appear from the “Reformed Egytpian” written on the plates because the original manuscript was so chock-a-block with mistakes (4000+) that God needs remedial lessons in the English language.  

Little did I know that Daniel C Peterson would take that “Reformed English” idea so serious.  Peterson  claimed and quoted others that the Book of Mormon doesn’t use “the Modern English that we typically use today… It clearly draws on a wide array of … language forms and syntax from the Early Modern English period, some of them obscure and inaccessible to virtually everyone 200 years ago.” And, "The original English Book of Mormon is... “in large part” an Early Modern English text, “even reaching back in time to the transition period” from late Middle English into Early Modern English."

Apparently there is growing consensus in what critics have been claiming for decades:  The gold plates were not needed at all to produce the Early Modern (or late Middle) English text of the Book of Mormon.  It all appeared in a vision (or the mind) of Joseph Smith when he stared into darkness. Amazing? Probably not as much as Peterson would like.

Still Will Hamblin, another regarded LDS Apologist, released photos on his blog recently showing gold plates that existed in ancient Italy (ca. 2500 years ago) that resemble the descriptions Joseph Smith gave. 

Witnesses, Smith’s wife and a few others still contended that there were actual plates, even if Smith did not need them proximate to envision the Book of Mormon words floating inside a hat.  

So, were there plates or not? 

Some thoughtful analysis says no way, because gold plates of the size he claimed would have weighed perhaps over 100 lbs--enough that his story of running with them under arm, fending off would be thieves, could not have happen. 

Apologists have re-countered saying that the plates were not pure gold, just golden in appearance.  They find in South America evidence that Amerindians worked in a gold alloy called Tumbaga, which is primarily copper with some gold mixed in.  

Other critics believe Joseph Smith made mock plates, perhaps of tin, because he wasn't rich enough to own any gold.  Let’s assess the data…

  

If the plates actually existed, then they weighed around 50-60lbs according to those that hefted them (in the box or under cloth). The dimensions that "witnesses" offer of the box or the plates under the cloth, of 6x8x6 inches (or just under 300 cubic inches in volume).  The plates were about as thin as "common tin" or ~0.5-1mm thick. See this wiki entry.  Apologists agree with these values.  (See https://www.lds.org/ensign/1986/12/i-have-a-question  for example.)

If these are accepted, then pure gold plates would have a weight of between 100-210lbs (the upper weight if the volume were pure gold without spaces), more than double what witnesses claim.  (The calculation is based on gold's density of 0.7 lbs/cubed-inch X 300 cubed-inches ~= 210lbs solid mass, and 100 lbs for 50% empty space.)

Critics have contended that if he had actual plates (a big question) they were likely tin, because that would be financially accessible and workable by frontier folk like Smith.  http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no105.htm

I doubt either gold or tin.  Tin is not the right color. Though, it has a density of 0.26 lbs/cubed-inch and as such would have a volume weight for the plates around 40-80lbs.  Tumbaga, as apologists claim, of mostly copper would fit the story if the plates had been from ancient American sources.  Still, copper is about the right weight, with a density of 0.32 lbs/cubed-inch giving it a volume weight of around 50-90lbs.

My proposal is that IF the plates ever existed, we can assume that Smith simply thought of a book, but knowing paper couldn't endure thousands of years, proposed the ear-catching golden plates.  And he could have easily made a forgery set of plates from brass-plated copper.  It would be cheap, engravable, the correct weight and gold in color.  Copper plates were used regularly (and for hundreds of years before Smith) by printshops. Most cheap copper plates were right around 1mm thick, though some expensive ones are thicker. Copper printing plateswere tossed away or re-used.  Plates the size of a book page (6x8 inches) would be quite accessible in the bins outside a printshop.   

Historical copper plate

The only problem is, copper is not gold in color.  That is easily remedied by brass-plating them, which even a novice apprentice-blacksmith could do simply using zinc powder and lye (sodium hydroxide).  This trick is done in elementary school science classes, using pennies.  

  

Interestingly, Oliver Cowdery had apprenticed as a blacksmith and was adequately good at it before turning to teaching.  See the 1890 (google scanned) book History of Utah: 1540-1886 By Hubert Howe Bancroft, Alfred Bates. 

See this LDS CES manual reference to Oliver Cowdery as blacksmith.  

Also this 1884 book.  

And this 1913 book.

Once you have gold-colored plates, all that was needed was to scratch some "caractors" (characters that may have come from the Detroit manuscript with latin short-hand script) into the surface of the plates (engraving copper plates are made just for that purpose).

 

One can also imagine that it's far too much work to scratch a whole novel of made-up "caractors" into dozens of plates.  Used printer plates would have engravings on at least one side and it would be apparent what they were on very close inspection.  Cursory glances of a few unused blank plates ontop and used plates under them would suffice to "prove" the claims Smith made.  The rest of the throw-away printer-engraven plates could be fastened together in a sealed portion, to make it look much more involved and real, without the risk of exposing the trick.  Hence the sealed portion. And the reason the plates were not needed for translation, nor allowed to be seen except by a few witnesses who were family and already believers. 

Of course, even at 50-60lbs, running with these fabricated plates would still prove very challenging, as exhibited by this fun test.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08wRRff8x0k

The LDS History dept and apologists are the ones who are running with a heavy burden.  They are burdened with an antiquated story full of holes about the founding of their religious organization.  The Apostles are out of breath, Running with the Olden Plates. 

Interestingly, Joseph Smith may have conned others with forged plates, but he himself was conned with other forged plates.  These are the famed Kinderhook plates, which scientist analyzed and found to be 19th century forgeries.  Plate forgery in the mid 19th century was easy enough and fooled many, at least good enough to trick the LDS church into the 20th century (~1980).  Faithful frontier witnesses of plates surely were as gullible.

Solely a Psychopathic Corporation

In the late 19th century the US supreme court was asked to apply the 14th Amendment to corporations and define them as individuals with all the same rights individual persons have. The court agreed. It was but a few decades later that the LDS church transitioned from a nominal corporation to a Corporation Sole. (See this for the official registry.  )

I detailed the LDS corporation sole in a very early blog including how it might end up dissolving. (See this blog.)

Under a common definition, a corporation sole consists of one person only, and the successors of that person in some particular station or office. (See this definition.)

The LDS corporation is treated not only like an individual under US law, but is actually literally an individual (as held by its office of President).

So, if the LDS corporation sole is legally and to some degree literally an individual with all the rights, issues and factors of other individuals, I wondered...
... Shouldn't the "individual" be tested for mental disorders, such as psychopathy?

I want to make it very clear-- First, I am not evaluating whether members of the church are psychopaths. Not at all.  The members are generally good-hearted, hard-working, loving people caught in a corporate sole that is, I opine, the opposite. Second, I realize psychologists would not like this, but I find it educational to consider something outside the box. While the LDS Corporation may not be a single mind (despite being a sole-owned corporation of the prophet), if legally it can be considered equivalent to an individual then it could be assessed as such for interest. I admit I am an amateur here, just stretching the analysis.

So how does the LDS Corporation Sole stack up?

One of the most accepted psychopathy checklists is the Hare list.(see the Hare list here. )

The primary list of Factor 1 on Hare's criteria is summarized as "Aggressive narcissism" and includes:

1- Glibness/superficial charm
2- Grandiose sense of self-worth
3- Pathological lying
4- Cunning/manipulative
5- Lack of remorse or guilt
6- Shallow affect (genuine emotion is short-lived and egocentric)
7- Callousness; lack of empathy
8- Failure to accept responsibility for own actions



In my estimation, the LDS corporation rarely if ever issues an "apology" or admission of error, even lying/covering up to hide their issues (Hare factors 3,5 & 8).  Even when issuing an essay about how the LDS church practiced racism for over 130 years, well past the US civil rights acts, they couldn't take full responsibility.  Not once has the LDS Church issued a single apology to those they banned from their priesthood, saying instead that they don't precisely know why, how, or when this racism  began but they are glad it ended decades ago. 

When members approach LDS scholars with  their doubts, they are often chided for not having learned beyond the correlated lessons of structured church organizations.  They are told that had they done their homework, they would have known the answers to their doubts.  This blaming the doubter is turning into attacking the questioner, and is classic fulfillment of Hare factors 3 & 8.

If that arrogance isn't enough, they believe they are the one and only true organization from the supreme intelligence (Hare factors 1 & 2). Monson, their current sole-owner prophet, feels so elite that he decried "so-called science" to belittle evolution and cosmology which counters his "truth" of a literal creation. Russel M Nelson, heart surgeon and apostle, glibly said of the human body, 'some people erroneously think that these marvelous physical attributes happened by chance or resulted from a big bang somewhere. Ask yourself, “Could an explosion in a printing shop produce a dictionary?” ' This is a strawman argument said from extreme pride to counter science.

They use tactics which are prototypical manipulations of individuals and of the public (one face for the media, another for members) (Hare factors 4 & 6).  Apostle Dallin Oaks, a former judge who understands the ethics of tampering with witnesses through manipulation, applies these very abusive practices in his general conference talks. (see * below for examples).  

The LDS Church hits the mark on Hare factors 6 & 7.  While they speak of empathy and charity, they give far less than even for-profit Target corporation to humanitarian aid.  Their words call for love, but their policies show no empathy.  They divide families against each other, and ensure through their temple requirements that worthy members denounce and do not associate with family who have doubts or have left the church.  They have used electroshock aversion therapies at BYU with gays.  In fact they brag that they expect, in the words of Joseph Smith, that as the one-and-only true church with the power to save others, the organization must "require the sacrifice of all things" from its members.  They will require tithing from impoverished members who can't afford to pay rent.  All while the corporation sole won't sacrifice profits behind billion-dollar malls, their Polynesian theme parks and the up-coming Philly 32-story condo highrise.

There is little to no correcting mechanism at LDS Inc that isn't completely outside the member's purvey. You can't vote, you can't have a union, you can't disagree. The leaders with that much power, love having that much power. It's all about power and control of people and money.

Factor 2 of Hare's criteria, includes:

• Parasitic lifestyle (LDS church living off the member's donations and service)
• Irresponsibility (not owning up to its behavior that ruins the lives of others)
• Criminal versatility (well...perhaps one day we will have the evidence)

Summing up, LDS inc as a corporation individual would indeed classify positive under at least Factor 1 of the Hare list for psychopathy.

The LDS church skulking in 

the shadows of psychological abuse

* Dallin Oaks quotes showing psychological manipulation and abuse, include as some examples in one talk alone:

• Insufficient Justification effect (psychological brainwashing) -- "We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them."

• Stereotyping and judgementalism (i.e., atheist are insincere, unlike believers)  -- "Though some profess atheism, there are many who are open to additional truths about God. To these sincere seekers, we need to affirm the existence of God."

• Ego identity bias and brainwashing -- "We should also strengthen our children by encouraging them to define themselves by their growing testimonies."

• Encouraging victimhood over mere disagreement -- "When he was persecuted for telling people about his vision, he likened his circumstance to the Apostle Paul, who was ridiculed and reviled ... We live in a time when some misrepresent the beliefs of those they call Mormons and even revile us because of them."

Ignorance Catastrophe

Rise of the internet has led to a number of books, speeches and proclamations that there is an End of Faith, Modern Apostasy, Crucible of Doubt, and many versions of “faith crisis” all around.  The phrase faith crisis is probably the most commonly used to express a concern that a lot of people currently face doubts about their faith (or their family religion) after viewing contrary information online.  Almost all world religions face this so-called crisis lately, mostly because the internet has made available vast libraries, history and discussions amongst doubters to members of almost all modern religions (those which have not been successful in shutting out the internet from their patrons).

But what, really, is a faith crisis? 

Let’s take the definitions.  Faith, in the religious context, is strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on inward (spiritual) apprehension rather than external evidence.  In fact, most Christians and Mormons define it as “hope for things which are not seen, which are true.” And how do they know it is not true if it is not seen or measured in some valid manner?  They rely on inward belief of what they feel inside is true.  They cannot have evidence and call it faith, “for if a man knoweth a thing he hath no cause to believe, for he knoweth it.” (Alma 32:18)  

In fact, LDS prophets speak frequently about keeping the faith and enduring to the end.  As one BYU professor explained it: 

“I strongly suspect that this is exactly where the evidentiary situation is divinely intended to remain, pending Judgment Day. If the evidence for those claims were as conclusive as a proof in geometry, no meaningful intellectual freedom would remain to us.”

Never mind how ridiculous are his thoughts on "intellectual freedom", clergy say that without faith there would be no test, and the plan of God would be frustrated.  Because faith is the first principle of most churches, then lacking evidence is necessary to God’s plan.  

I want to explain that in another way so it’s clear what we’re reading. Let me use arithmetic:   

Faith = no evidence + belief

AND,  No evidence = no facts  

ALSO,  No facts = ignorance  

THUS, by the associative law our final answer is:  

Faith = ignorance + belief.

Now onto the second word of the phrase: Crisis.  By definition, a crisis is a time of intense difficulty.  A synonym is Catastrophe, such that:

 Faith Crisis = Ignorance Catastrophe.

I understand that the people raising the alarm of a faith crisis will not like my equating it to an Ignorance Catastrophe.  Is it a catastrophe?  Yes, for those in the faith business, it really is. Their bread and butter of tithing, devotion, voluntary hours, praise, adoration, book sells and more are threatened by diminishing ignorance as the internet floods their members with actual facts and rational thinking.  The ignorance smashing has reached such a level it is looking to them like a crisis or a catastrophe.

How dare others remove the ignorance of their members and cause these difficulties in their power position within the religions?

On the other hand, expats of the faith industry are enjoy the opposite of a catastrophe, once they work through their own religious self-identity crisis[1].   Former members of most religions enjoy extra time, extra money, more freedom of choice, and less guilt about not believing or following rituals on ignorance.  They’re not having a faith crisis anymore.  Quite the opposite, they are often having a fact advantage or even a knowledge breakthrough.

Sure some people live in such conditions of poverty or depression that they need to feel a higher power has a plan for them.  Yes, we all enjoy a social network and community like those found within religions. But why must the impoverished and depressed be subjected to so much guilt, tithing and hours of praising leaders and God in order to get a lift out of that depression or have a social community?  Is ignorance+belief really the most effective “crutch” we can come up with?  The LDS corporation has probably over $60 Billion in assets and liquid cash on hand.  How are they really helping the impoverished and depressed in ways found in a true charity devoted to helping the despairing among us?

If religions were to actually sit down with the ex-members who’ve left, would they find most of them with their lives in crisis?  Well, they might if they’re a cult and they caused the crisis by pitting other members and even the family of that “faithless” ex-member against them.  How can I be sure?  I can’t be absolutely sure in every case but if you look at examples of people the world over without faith, religion or mystical belief and compare them to those with high degree of faith and belief, you won’t find the non-believers in any bigger crisis or life problems. Except, perhaps, for the prejudice against atheist that believers have.

The faith crisis is not a crisis that most ex-members believe in.  They have personal evidence against this so-called crisis; evidence they can count directly in their increased bank account, their higher number of free hours, their lower need for anti-depression meds and more.

The evidence tells us that the Ignorance Catastrophe only truly affects those who believe in it.

In the middle of the night, I go walking in my sleep, through the desert of truth.

[1] Religious Self Identity Crisis is a phrase I use to describe the effects of removing yourself from your religion when its leaders have encouraged you to define yourself by the beliefs they teach you.  It is an insidious practice.  Dallin Oaks, apostle, lawyer and former judge who should know from all those years in law school and sitting on the bench that manipulation is psychologically damaging, practices a form of psychological abuse in speeches, such as this one at general conference, in which he says:

"We should also strengthen our children by encouraging them to define themselves by their growing testimonies."

Once that child finds out they can no longer remain in the LDS church and have integrity of truth, what happens to their cult-induced religious self-identity?  It is in crisis.  Leaving the church is the psychological equivalent of cutting off an arm.