There are easier way to make more money than spending the ludicrous amounts of time the GA's spend working for the church.
So, either they truly believe, or they love the mini-celebrity lifestyle. And, I don't see these guys as attention seekers. But I could be wrong.
Completely agree. You'd either have to be mad with power or really believe it to put that kind of time and effort into their religion. I'm betting on the latter.
Still doesn't make the church true, though. I'm with Don in that I would have been thrilled if the church had been real, but it isn't, and admitting that is part of growing up.
There are easier way to make more money than spending the ludicrous amounts of time the GA's spend working for the church.
So, either they truly believe, or they love the mini-celebrity lifestyle. And, I don't see these guys as attention seekers. But I could be wrong.
Completely agree. You'd either have to be mad with power or really believe it to put that kind of time and effort into their religion. I'm betting on the latter.
Still doesn't make the church true, though. I'm with Don in that I would have been thrilled if the church had been real, but it isn't, and admitting that is part of growing up.
Exactly! Of course each GA is different, and I do know of one Emeritus that has transitioned to a different belief, but I think another factor is the second anointing I'm sure they've all had.
Think about it -- having the blessing that assures you the best place in heaven...what a great emotional high that must be. I'm sure very few at that point would allow a degree of doubt to enter in. Denial is a powerful ego protector, and most these guys have very big egos that would not allow them to be wrong very often. That trait is part of what got them to where they are today. I call it a "tearful narcissism" that is classic of Mormons. Members are taught to adore people that tearfully announce their gratitude for being and having the best, and the one truth on earth. That paradigm appears quite unique in the religious world, but it instills an attitude of arrogance, defensiveness, and condescension to others when backed into a corner.
charity wrote:You don't hear it with a prophet's conviction. It would convince you if you not only listened, but heard.
Why should a prophet's testimony be borne with any more conviction than any other member's testimony, including little children's?
What you're doing is just repeating the mantra that only those with spiritual discernment can know anything about the truth of the church. I'm not sure if I need to point out how circular that argument is.
BishopRic wrote:Exactly! Of course each GA is different, and I do know of one Emeritus that has transitioned to a different belief, but I think another factor is the second anointing I'm sure they've all had.
Interesting. What exactly are you talking about? What "different belief"?
I believe the GAs believe that it's true. I believe that GBH believed it was true. It's the same as Charity believing it's true. Charity knows that Joseph Smith committed many acts that would make most people look like scumbags, yet she views it all within a worldview where the Truth of the church is axiomatic and not subject to serious review or consideration. Hence, it's taken for granted that Joseph Smith's acts were somehow, someway, in accordance with God's Will, and therefore A-OK. Nobody here can doubt that Charity sees things this way, with her faith goggles firmly welded to her face.
Why should Hinckley or any of the others not have been the same way? Sure, I believe Hickley probably knew, or should have known, a lot of "secret" (ie: not generally taught by the church) negative things about Joseph Smith. But like Charity he viewed it all through an LDS truth prism where the truth of the church was never in doubt, not up for debate or review, and assumed to be as true as any fundemental law of the Universe. To Hinckley Joseph Smith was still a true prophet, and whatever he did, he must have had good reason to do, and God was manifestly pleased with him, therefor it's not up to us to judge him for the things he did.
Hinckley bought into the hagiographical depictions of Joseph Smith. He bought into the hero worship. I find it oddly sad that LDS today fawn all over their Prophet, and yet this Prophet seems to have fawned all over Joseph Smith. Hinckley never saw God. He never saw Jesus. But Joseph Smith sure did. To Hinckley's point of view, I think, Joseph Smith was the "real" Prophet of this dispensation. He was the one who got all the visions, made all the revelations, and spoke face to face with the Almighty, Jesus, and all those other resurrected beings. That was Joseph's job, and Gordon's job was just to keep the great ship of the church moving forward.
I'm convinced Gordon Hinckley was humbled by the manifest differences between his tenure as Prophet and that of Joseph Smith. I'm convinced Hinckley was humbled, and perhaps confused, and perhaps a little disappointed and wistful at never actually getting to see God, or Jesus, or any other resurrected being. He never got more than the "still, small voice", the inspiration, the mental impression, to help him in guiding God's church. He had to find a way to view these mental impressions as God Almighty directing his church through him. That probably took him some getting used to.
How many 2nd Annointings did Hinckley participate in? His own, surely, but how many did he officiate at? How many people did he bless to have the power of Godhood when they died, and to have the power to receive personal visitation from Jesus Christ. And yet he never himself received such visitation. And nobody that he blessed with that power ever did either. That must have surely weighed on him. Not enough to overcome the accepted and assumed Truth value of the church in his faithful worldview, but I'm sure it humbled him. He was Prophet, fawned over and revered by his flock on Earth. Everyone stood when he entered a room. Everyone sang "We Thank Thee Oh God For A Prophet" everywhere he went. And yet in his heart of hearts he knew that he received no more Divine guidance than any other member, ie: mental impressions, thoughts, feelings, etc.
He believed it alright. But he also dealt with the reality of Prophethood in the LDS church. It's not all it's cracked up to be, but he had to keep on keeping on and not show any of that humble reality to the faithful.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
charity wrote:You don't hear it with a prophet's conviction. It would convince you if you not only listened, but heard.
Why should a prophet's testimony be borne with any more conviction than any other member's testimony, including little children's?
What you're doing is just repeating the mantra that only those with spiritual discernment can know anything about the truth of the church. I'm not sure if I need to point out how circular that argument is.
Unless ye become as little children... etc. I suspect charity has forgotten that.
If only those with special discernment can know anything about truth, that could explain several things... like the dismal baptismal rate for those not BIC (they just weren't discerning enough), the equally dismal rate of converts that immediately fall away (not discerning enough), the less than 100% of tithepaying members (not discerning enough), the resistence to the law of consecration (really not discerning enough), etc.
Yup, not discerning enough covers a lot of ground.
President Hinckley repeatedly stressed the importance of the First Vision. He said (in part, paraphrasing), "If Joseph really didn't see God and Jesus in the grove, then this whole work is a fraud."
He also said, "This work is either true or it is false. There is no middle ground."
Could that have been his subtle way of dropping hints? Was that his way of pleading with the membership to really, really study the circumstances behind the so-called "First Vision" and learn the real truth behind the church?
In short, was that his way of telling everyone that the church isn't true?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Sethbag wrote:He believed it alright. But he also dealt with the reality of Prophethood in the LDS church. It's not all it's cracked up to be, but he had to keep on keeping on and not show any of that humble reality to the faithful.
I largely agree, Seth. The General Authorities plainly know the lay members greatly exaggerate the revelatory experiences by which the authorities are guided; but, overwhelmingly, they make no attempt to disabuse the members of these misconceptions.
An interesting near-exception to this is, that President Hinckley once told reporters "Revelation no longer comes by vision, but by the still small voice." Under the right circumstances, he was willing to acknowledge the dearth of visionary experiences today; but would hardly have volunteered such an admission in, say, General Conference.
The church authorities want the members to feel safe in the guidance the church is receiving, so they largely sidestep the details of how such guidance is--and isn't--experienced today.
Dr. Shades wrote:How 'bout a little food for thought:
President Hinckley repeatedly stressed the importance of the First Vision. He said (in part, paraphrasing), "If Joseph really didn't see God and Jesus in the grove, then this whole work is a fraud."
He also said, "This work is either true or it is false. There is no middle ground."
Could that have been his subtle way of dropping hints? Was that his way of pleading with the membership to really, really study the circumstances behind the so-called "First Vision" and learn the real truth behind the church?
In short, was that his way of telling everyone that the church isn't true?
If so, it was an extremely poor way of doing it. The intended 'hint' would have been too ambiguous to effectively function as a hint. Why hint in such bland ways at all? Gordon B. Hinckley spent much of his life working on church communications. He knew how to communicate far more clearly than this.
Also, this hypothesis assumes 1) that Gordon B. Hinckley was well aware of the difficulties surrounding the First Vision--a fact not in evidence, and 2) that he challenged members to intellectually study the First Vision to confirm or disconfirm its truth. I think an examination of his statements will show that, rather than this, he encouraged members to pray about the First Vision--a process not known to uncover the discrepancies between the vision's accounts.
So, what we have in the hypothesis above amounts to bare possibility, without any significant probability of its being correct.