Former Oklahoma City Temple President Apostatized

[Guest]

I'd like to ask again - on the basis that the account given is true, why didn't any of the Brethren answer Chesney's plea for help with his doctrinal problems?

From what I have seen on this and other boards, there seems to be a policy of not giving members answers on doctrine from the top. Indeed am I not right in thinking that some time ago bishops were sent a letter instructing them that members were to be told not to write to the Brethren on such matters?

I have sat in a large church in a famous university in the English speaking world, and seen a venerable and theologically distinguished church leader (the top man in that particular church) engage head to head with one clever and skeptical student after another. No holds were barred, and arguments were followed right through. What mattered was the serious pursuit of truth, and it generated mutual respect.

I just don't get it. Fifteen of them, and nobody can spare the time to reply to a letter from a doubting temple president? What are they afraid might happen if they did reply?

[Edited for typo]

[_Chap]

No, I don't think I'm inconsistent. I don't consider walking away from something particularly praiseworthy. I consider it common sense. If I were to somehow find out tomorrow that the LDS faith was untrue (not sure how that's possible) I would walk away and I wouldn't consider it brave or courageous to do so.

So long as you are consistent, I don't have much to quarrel with you about.

But I do think you underestimate the courage required to look doubts in the face when you know that there are lots of tactics for just making them hide in a dark corner - some of them (such as "putting it on the shelf") repeatedly recommended by church leaders.

When the faith of years is under threat, the whole mind shouts "don't go there, this will hurt". You have to have the courage to care care about truth, and keep digging till you find out one way or another. Experience suggests that many people just avoid thoughts that might take them in "uncomfortable" directions. Whatever such people are, they are not courageous in the search for truth.

[_harmony]

Since I had so fully embraced the church, it filled me with agony and despair and forced the most sickening grief to separate myself from it.

I don't understand this. Wouldn't it feel more like... breathing free maybe? Sad and grieving, I can understand, but throwing off what one believes is a decades old lie would seem to have a positive aspect, not the agony and despair he describes.

I hasten to say that my belief in Christ and my commitment to Christ has not diminished in the least. My only problem is with the Mormon Church.

The Mormon Church = priesthood authority. How interesting that a man who rose so far in the ranks of that priesthood authority would take the time to uncover the lies and misrepresentations both historical and current. That is definitely unusual.

One doesn't wish or expect to find practices of hypocrisy and deceit so interwoven into a true Christian enterprise.

He doesn't know much about churches, does he?

.

Who is the "mine" in this? KA, is this your friend, or Swedeboy's friend?

Sunday, I spent seven hours with a man whose integrity required him to resign from the LDS church.

One man. We need to keep in mind that this is one man, and not extrapolate his characteristics across any group or individual.

Jerrell Chesney joined the church at the age of thirty-five in 1970.

So he was a member for 39 years.

Jerrell is a uniquely gifted administrator and became the Executive Director of the Board of Regents for Oklahoma State University. His administrative skills were also appreciated by the LDS church. Jerrell served in various leadership positions including bishop and stake president.

In other words, he wasn't the normal convert. He had skills that the church considers important.

When a temple was announced for Oklahoma City, Jerrell was given the assignment of Chairman of the Temple Open House Committee. Shortly before the dedication, Jerrell was called to be the president of the Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Temple and his wife as the matron.

When was this?

He and his wife completely devoted the next five years of their lives to the temple, consistent with their previous church service.

So he then retired from the Board of Regents? Or was he retired prior to the call?

However, Jerrell had had doctrinal questions that he had buried over the years which kept re-emerging as he studied the scriptures. In an effort to find answers to specific doctrinal questions, he wrote the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve for help.

My emphasis. "Over the years"? So he had these doubts while he was temple president? How far back do these doubts go? And if he had these doubts while serving as temple president, how does that square with "He and his wife completely devoted the next five years of their lives to the temple, consistent with their previous church service."? If he had doubts, how could he fully serve the patrons of the temple?

It was his hope that the fifteen men whom he believed were entitled to revelation and the only fifteen men upon the earth capable of direct heavenly inspiration for the world would help him rescue his testimony. These men never responded but gave the assignment to Charles Didier, who initially telephoned Jerrell regarding his concerns and followed with a letter.

So perhaps he wasn't quite as far up the food chain as he thought he was. He was, after all, just a convert, not Mormon Royalty.

In short, the message was for Jerrell to ignore his doubts and that he would have to ignore the words of Jesus Christ recorded two thousand years ago in favor of modern day prophets.

Again, my emphasis. Were I to get this answer, I would dust the church off my feet too. No one gets to contradict Christ's words, not in Christ's own church, the church Christ himself is supposed to lead. Perhaps Bro Didier got that bit wrong, but that just seems completely counter to virtually every other counsel I've ever seen from the Brethren.

Jerrell was also told that the words of Joseph Smith were to be ignored when contradictory to modern teachings, even when those teachings and doctrines were taught as unalterable.

Well, hell. I think ignoring Joseph's words is a pretty good idea, myself.

The response caused Jerrell and his wife to research and study more regarding the foundation of the LDS Church including the teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. The Chesneys concluded that neither Smith, Young or their successors could be sustained as modern prophets.

The mind just boggles.

Jerrell stated that had he had any belief whatsoever that the Church was what it claimed to be, the modern restoration of the same organization initiated by Christ, he would have remained a member of it.

Sounds like he lost faith in the Brethren, past and present.

Sadly, but resolutely he and his wife tendered their resignations this summer from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"this summer"? so 2008?

Jerrell harbors anger and resentment at the level of deceit practiced on him and the innocent others by those who head the Church.

Not enough to go public, though. Not enough to say what he knows. Not enough to put pressure on the Brethren to open up. So what good is this anger and resentment?

I have long respected Jerrell and his wife. They represent all that was good about the Church. Their dedication, loyalty and service will be missed by the institution which both would have gladly sacrificed the remainder of their lives had it been true. However, integrity and their love for Jesus Christ required Jerrell and his wife to leave the Church. I believe that their departure will come as a shock to most Latter-day Saints in the Oklahoma area and will give some needed courage to exam the Church.

This is just a testimony. And has all the worth of a testimony.

Like so many here, his shelf collapsed under the weight of contradictory LDS teachings. Once ignored issues demanded a thorough and impartial examination. And like so many here, that examination lead to them to the inescapable conclusion that the LDS Church was not what it claims to be the restoration of the Primitive Christian Church.

[/quote]

Where is "here"?

[_Inconceivable]

I am once again inspired by the fact that he is taking his dignity, integrity, honesty, morality, virtue and belief in Christ with him - principles the Silent Suits cannot regulate nor take away.

In your opinion, can some who study the came think the Chesney's studied conclude that staying members is the best thing and maintain integrity, honesty etc. Or are your the only the ones that leave deserving of these accolades?

Jason,

As has been noted in several posts, Chesney's were perhaps fortunate enough not to have 6 generations of legacy to contend with.

No whispering from the dust..

I know you're still a Mormon and you know much of what I am aware of.

That being said, I think you may be confusing family and community tranquility with integrity and honesty etc. As you know, many remain in the church because tranquility is the lesser of two evils - the other being seen as contention.

[_The Nehor]

I'd like to ask again - on the basis that the account given is true, why didn't any of the Brethren answer Chesney's plea for help with his doctrinal problems?

From what I have seen on this and other boards, there seems to be a policy of not giving members answers on doctrine from the top. Indeed am I not right in thinking that some time ago bishops were sent a letter instructing them that members were to be told not to write to the Brethren on such matters?

I have sat in a large church in a famous university in the English speaking world, and seen a venerable and theologically distinguished church leader (the top man in that particular church) engage head to head with one clever and skeptical student after another. No holds were barred, and arguments were followed right through. What mattered was the serious pursuit of truth, and it generated mutual respect.

I just don't get it. Fifteen of them, and nobody can spare the time to reply to a letter from a doubting temple president? What are they afraid might happen if they did reply?

[Edited for typo]

For this I'd need more details to give any answer at all. If they were to tell their story and exactly what they asked it would be a huge help.

[_krose]

Apostacy occured in the early church and it will occur now. Nothing new in that. It happens. What is amazing is that it doesn't happen very much among the leadership as it did in the early days. That says something about today's LDS church. The leadership seems to have iron testimonies.

And repeated...

During the early days important men left the church all the time. It is nothing unusual. However, these days most important men and women stay in the church. Why?

That's really easy to explain. It certainly is not "amazing" at all. I can think of several really good reasons:

1. All the early church members were short-term converts. Everyone was new. We all know that getting through the first several years is difficult for converts. (I'll bet that most missionaries who returned to their service areas after ten years would find few familiar faces.) Most people who quit a church do it in the first few years.

2. The early leaders were mostly young men, the opposite of today. Young people change their belief structure much more easily than their elders. Most of those who leave or join a movement do so in their 20s or (less so) 30s. Older folks tend to stick with what they have. There is a good reason for the phrases "set in one's ways" and "old dog new tricks."

3. Almost all of the church leaders in the current era were born in the church and grew up in the culture. It's all they know, and many have the weight of several generations of family tradition working to hold them in place. Those of us who have left (or joined) the church in opposition to long-time family tradition know how difficult and lonely that is.

There are more reasons, some having to do with the kinds of power struggles that are typical in a new organization, and others with how Smith governed. But I'll leave it there.

[_Chap]

For this I'd need more details to give any answer at all. If they were to tell their story and exactly what they asked it would be a huge help.

Far be it from me to expect you to comment on any matter involving the First Presidency and the Apostles without signed affidavits from every man jack of them.

But just in a conversational mode - is it your general impression that when members write to the First Presidency and the Apostles about doctrinal difficulties, they normally get substantive answers from the First Presidency and the Apostles?

Or do you just have no idea about that one way or another?

[_Seven]

"Chap"
I'd like to ask again - on the basis that the account given is true, why didn't any of the Brethren answer Chesney's plea for help with his doctrinal problems?

From what I have seen on this and other boards, there seems to be a policy of not giving members answers on doctrine from the top. Indeed am I not right in thinking that some time ago bishops were sent a letter instructing them that members were to be told not to write to the Brethren on such matters?

You are correct Chap. I was in attendance the day it was read in Sacrament meeting, and it's been a First Presidency news item more than once. From the church news archives:

Published: Saturday, Aug. 25, 1990
The First Presidency sent the following letter to General Authorities; regional representatives; stake, mission and district presidents; bishops and branch presidents, with instructions for it to be read in sacrament meetings and stake conferences:

"Members of the Church continue to place telephone calls and write letters to Church headquarters about doctrinal issues and personal matters. With the ever increasing membership, the ability to respond personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task."The Lord in His wisdom so organized His Church that there is accessible to every member - man, woman and child - a bishop or branch president and a stake or mission president who serve as spiritual advisers and as temporal counselors. By reason of their ordination, these priesthood leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction. Such leaders who have need for further clarification about doctrinal issues may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.

"In expressing our love and appreciation for the faith and devotion of members of this Church everywhere, we are confident that both members and local leaders will be blessed as they pray and counsel together to resolve issues of concern to them."

The letter, dated July 6, was signed by President Ezra Taft Benson and his counselors, President Gordon B. Hinckley and President Thomas S. Monson.

from a "Justin" on Zelophehad’s Daughters who found these additional statements in the church news archives:

2008:
“Members of the Church continue to place telephone calls and write letters to Church headquarters about doctrinal issues and personal matters. The ability of General Authorities to respond personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and makes it difficult for the Brethren to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible.
The Lord, in His wisdom, has organized His Church so that every member has a bishop, or branch president and a stake, district or mission president, who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors.
We have the utmost confidence in the wisdom and judgment of these priesthood leaders. By reason of their callings, local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction.
Accordingly, in most cases, correspondence from members will be referred back to their local leaders for handling. Stake presidents who have need for further clarification about doctrinal or procedural issues may write to the First Presidency in behalf of their members.
It is our desire that all members will feel they have the support and guidance they need; however, all things should be done in wisdom and order. We believe that both members and local leaders will be blessed as they pray and counsel together in an effort to resolve matters of concern to them.”

2004:
“Members of the Church continue to place telephone calls and write letters to Church headquarters about doctrinal issues and personal matters. With an ever-increasing membership, the ability of General Authorities to respond personally to these inquiries presents an almost insurmountable task and makes it difficult for the Brethren to fulfill the duties for which they alone are responsible.
The Lord, in His wisdom, has so organized His Church that there is accessible to every member a bishop or branch president and a stake, district, or mission president, who serve as spiritual advisers and temporal counselors. We have the utmost confidence in the wisdom and judgment of these priesthood leaders. By reason of their callings, local leaders are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration to enable them to counsel members within their jurisdiction.
Accordingly, in most cases, correspondence from members will be referred back to their local leaders for handling. Priesthood leaders who have need for further clarification about doctrinal issues may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency.
It is our desire that all members feel they have the support and guidance they need; however, all things should be done in wisdom and order. We believe that both members and local leaders will be blessed as they pray and counsel together in an effort to resolve matters of concern to them.”

1992:
“The General Authorities of the Church have a special commission to serve as witnesses of Jesus Christ and to watch over the Church. In their service at Church headquarters or in Area Presidencies throughout the world, requests for personal counseling, administrations to the sick, special priesthood blessings, answers to doctrinal questions, and requests to officiate in temple sealings create an almost insurmountable task.
The Lord has provided bishoprics, branch presidencies and stake, mission or district presidencies to share the task of ministering to the members. They hold the Melchizedek Priesthood as do the General Authorities. They have love and concern for those they are called to serve and are entitled to the spirit of discernment and inspiration in ministering to them. They are best acquainted with the members and with their needs and concerns.
Members should seek the counsel and assistance of their local authorities. If local leaders are unable to resolve a matter, they will seek the assistance of the General Authorities as the Lord has provided and directed through established channels.”

[Guest]

If sin did not drive them out then it was a sin to leave.

This pretty much sums up Mormonism. Rejecting the teachings of the Mormon church is a sin all by itself. There are three types of people in this world. Faithful Mormons, potential converts, and sinners.

[_The Nehor]

For this I'd need more details to give any answer at all. If they were to tell their story and exactly what they asked it would be a huge help.

Far be it from me to expect you to comment on any matter involving the First Presidency and the Apostles without signed affidavits from every man jack of them.

But just in a conversational mode - is it your general impression that when members write to the First Presidency and the Apostles about doctrinal difficulties, they normally get substantive answers from the First Presidency and the Apostles?

Or do you just have no idea about that one way or another?

Uh no, you misunderstood. I need information about why they left, not what the Brethren thought. For all I know, they may not have left. Consider the sourrce. I have no idea what their concerns are so I can't speculate as to why the Brethren would choose not to answer. I have no idea if they were adversarial or sincerely seeking an answer. No one here does.

I only know of two attempts to communicate with the Brethren regarding doctrinal concerns. In the first the person was told the doctrine revealed to him was correct but not to be shared. In the other, the statement was that they had no declared position on that doctrine.