Although I’m not particularly interested in it, I can’t seem to go two minutes without seeing a new headline about a “bombshell” revelation in Prince Harry’s new memoir, Spare. And I guess I am kind of interested because I keep clicking the clickbait. So far, the revelations seem relatively mundane or endlessly recycled. Yes, the royal family has issues just like every other family. Yes, there was family drama with in-laws. Yes, there is sibling rivalry between brothers. Of course this is all heightened by the status of the royal family and its relationship to the press, and I do feel badly for Harry & Meghan, but so far it’s felt pretty boring.
It does lead me to imagine, though: what would happen if we had a high-profile defector from the LDS Church? There have been a few–like Hans Mattsson–but as an area seventy in Europe I don’t know that he was privy to a whole lot other than the second anointing. Occasionally we get other glimpses into how the sausage is made–like when Cheiko Okazaki talked to Greg Prince about the Proclamation on the Family, or when the children or grandchildren of apostles speak about their experiences (a number have done interviews on Mormon Stories and they are generally pretty interesting listens). We also have historical records that show more about what things were like on the inside from previous generations (for example, see this, this, and this), but the Church keeps a pretty tight lid on that now (including reportedly prohibiting apostles from keeping journals). And I recently listened to an account of a conversation with Bednar that was remarkably candid (and in which Bednar showed a surprising lack of basic knowledge about scriptures and history).
For anything *really* interesting, I think we’d need to go with someone in the Q15. Other interesting views could be secretaries to the apostles or Church president, people really high up in CES, or Church employees who simply had access to a lot of information (these latter categories seem more likely, too–like the Ensign Peak Fund whistleblower, for example).
I doubt that we’d see anything super shocking if this ever happened: probably more just a confirmation that the Q15 are, in fact, pretty ordinary people, that they don’t talk to Jesus face-to-face or have a direct line into His Mind and Will, and that they themselves are divided on many issues. Still, I would most definitely be the first to click should any such story come to light.
What do you think?
- Do you think a member of the Q15 will ever defect / cut loose / spill secrets? Why or why not? Who do you think would be more likely?
- What about other leaders or Church employees? Who would you be most interested in hearing from? What would you ask if you had a willing and candid responder?
- What do you think a defector might have to say? How do you think the general population of the Church would respond?
- If a Church leader were discouraged to go rogue because of an NDA or retirement fund tied to their loyalty, would you donate to a GoFundMe to facilitate their defection? (To be clear I’m not actually starting one. This is just a fun hypothetical.)
- Are there any other “leaks” that you’ve seen or listened to that you thought were particularly interesting? I am sure there are more, many of which have been blogged about here, I just didn’t spend any time thinking about it. Too busy reading tabloids about the Royals.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m sure there are a lot of reasons Leaders high up in the church don’t go “rogue.” I’d say that Money has to be at the top of the list. If all your expenses are paid for and there’s a stipend as well and it’s above what the average higher middle class person makes, can be non-taxed because the church is a charity, and then all the perks of travel and adulation, someone that had doubts could just swallow them, play along, and keep going until their calling runs out (they die). Besides, all of that along with name recognition gives your kids a head start. The ones mentioned in the article didn’t have the full blown benefits of the Q15 so maybe they weren’t as tied to things like money or family ties/obligations/traditions/history. Everyone else that “leaks” can be easily written off and discredited because of the weight of the church organization.
If you defect from the royal family, there are consequences, but money does not appear to be one of them. From what I understand of Edward’s abdication, he was sometimes restricted in his attendance at functions but he still received the monthly stipend. So as Instereo notes above, I think money plays a role as I would imagine that defection from church leadership would lead to the stipend being cut off.
It’s also entirely possible that our leaders don’t know things that would lead to defection. They are busy, the penchant to learn new things may be past, they are surrounded by yes men, and their livelihood somewhat depends on not learning new things. I’m not sure if this is good or bad or simply neutral. Contrast that to royals who have time on their hands and you get a different answer.
I doubt we will see defection from church leaders. The personalities that rise through the ranks enjoy following the rules. This is in contrast to simply being born into royalty where one cannot help it when personality clashes with tradition. That being said, generations do change so I think defection may be a possibility for future generations to see, but probably not in my lifetime.
I know Tom Phillip’s defection from the church led to him openly discussing the second anointing. I would be interested in learning more about that.
I don’t think we’d see defections from any of the Q15 – they get so much adoration and respect that would all be gone. There’s a tremendous amount of prestige to lose. Many of them probably don’t need their church stipend though.
I felt sympathy for Tom Phillips who lost all his family. They had been pretty tight before his faith crisis. At least Hans Mattsson’s wife went out with him. Children too I think.
I’m not sure I think a high level defection is likely (to paraphrase “don’t crap where you eat”), but your post got me thinking about a conversation I had with a business colleague (a man) about the David O. McKay biography. My friend observed (in a minimizing way) “Yeah, but it was mostly based on a secretary’s notes,” to which I replied (with emphasis), “Don’t you find that the assistants have a pretty good idea of what’s going on around here, particularly interpersonal stuff?”
When Steve Benson (President Benson’s grandson) defected in the 80’s, he spilled a lot of beans about his grandfather- the Prophet’s hidden incapacitation, the way he was handled and decisions went out in his name when he was incoherent. Like Harry’s tell-all, Steve aired a lot of the family laundry and claimed LDS.Inc separated him and family members from his beloved grandfather, lied, sacrificed family over mission, etc. It was scandalous at the time, but has been the proverbial over-beaten dead horse.
George P. Lee was another name.
LDS.Inc is more strategic and effective than “the firm” at Buckingham Palace. GAs can be hand picked.
There’s no way one of the Q15 will ever defect for the following reasons:
1) they are insulated in a bubble. Like officers in the military, they don’t fraternize with enlisted ranks. They don’t mingle with anyone except fellow GAs, church handlers, and diplomatic connections. They speak at us, but not with us. They aren’t going to be poisoned by our ideas. They don’t read Sunstone or Dialogue, or jump on the bloggernacle, they stay strictly in their lane.
2) they are typically executives and introverts who have happily lived for over a half a century (on average) in lonely leadership.
3) they rose to power by conforming, by copying GA voice, mannerisms, by parroting and amplifying the narrative. They didn’t rise to power by being rogue.
4) they receive too much social capital for their *choice* of service. Their self-made legacy, last name, social standing, generations of financial stability, etc. are bolstered by their position. Falling would be from a high place.
5) the fact that most GAs are geriatric persons means that neurologically, they are more likely to be entrenched in thinking, clinging to tradition and patterns. A certain number of them experience dementia and age-related neurological/mental decline (reflective of the general population). They aren’t young or middle-aged people taking on the problems of the world or making their mark.
6) none have the proclivities of a whistleblower. Harry is a whistleblower, he’s been damaged, his protective nature was triggered, he perceived an ethical and /or personal incentive for bringing things to light. GAs are never damaged, they live comfortably and stably. Sure, they’ve faced executive challenges, but are masters at cover-ups, denial, liaises faire management, closed door mediations, etc. They don’t need to whistleblow, they have the skill and power to use these other strategies to get what they want. And unlike Harry, their wives and family live quiet, subordinate lives out of the public eye. Consequentially, they are rarely threatened. So, their husbands aren’t put in a position where they feel like trapped, impotent protectors. Seriously, spotting Sister Anderson is about as rare as spotting an endangered Bird of Paradise from Papua New Guinea. By contrast, Megan came from and stepped into the limelight, , challenged patriarchy, Royal traditions, and racism.
7) GAs are part of the upper class in Mormondom and the world. Why would they want that to change?
What would I like to hear from a willing and candid responder from the Q15? I would like a member of the Q15 to give an honest accounting of how the decisions/”revelations” have actually happened within the Q15 for the last 30-40 years. For starters, I’d like to hear the specifics around:
1. How the Family Proclamation came about: who wrote it, who championed it, who opposed it, how long the process took, etc.
2. Where each member of the Q15 stands on LGBTQ issues: who supports/opposes gay members being married and participating like straight members do and why, who supports/opposes the sealing of gay members and why, etc. Are we just waiting for Oaks and Nelson to die before change can occur or are there other staunch holdouts on this issue? I’d like to know where they stand on transgender members as well.
3. Do the Q15 really believe that their “calling and election has been made sure” because they have received the second anointing?
4. What discussion has occurred amongst the Q15 around the large sum of wealth the Church possesses? Are there plans to use it in any way? How?
5. Where does each member of the Q15 stand on women’s issues including making women’s position in the Church truly equal to men?
6. Is Oaks the only person preventing the Church from issuing apologies for mistakes it makes? Are there any Q15 members who yearn to issue apologies for big mistakes the Church has made (treatment of blacks, polygamy, LGBTQ policies, the POX, hiding accurate Church history, etc.)?
7. Do any of the Q15 support financial transparency for the Church? Is it just one or a few of them preventing this from happening?
8. What does each member of the Q15 feel about the temple building spree the Church is currently engaging in? Are some of them actually opposed to it?
9. Why isn’t the Q15 being more proactive to protect victims of sexual abuse by local Church leaders or even members? Why aren’t local leaders required to report sexual abuse?
10. Is there any support in the Q15 for some sort of emeritus status? How bad was Monson’s (and Benson’s) mental capabilities before he passed?
11. Why on earth can 18 year old males serve missions for 2 years, but females need to be 19 and only serve for 18 months?
12. What’s the real back story behind the POX?
13. Are there any members of the Q15 who support teaching deeper and more academically rigorous religion courses at BYU (and in SS), or are all 15 in support of hiring glorified high school seminary teachers to just promote the party line?
14. Is there any discussion amongst the Q15 about modifying the Word of Wisdom–to allow tea, for example?
15. Is there any discussion of disavowing polygamy amongst the Q15? Is there any support for removing section 132 from the D&C?
16. Why was Uchtdorf really removed from the FP?
17. What is it like to be subordinate to RMN as prophet (and really all of the recent prophets)? Is he (they) truly Christlike to work with on a day to day basis, or is it more just like working with your father?
18. What sorts of discussions have happened around allowing for room for people who doubt some of the more tenuous truth claims of the Church (the translation of the Book of Abraham, that Nephites are historical, etc.)?
I could go on and on. I think each member of the Q15 has a ton of inside knowledge about internal discussions/decisions/revelations that is never exposed. It would be so refreshing to hear the truth. At a minimum, the Q15 should be encouraged, not banned, from keeping journals. Those journals should be made public once everyone mentioned in the journals has passed away. Keeping journals should be part of Ballard’s “we’re as honest as we know how to be” claim.
I’d really like for the Q15 member to go into great detail about the “revelatory” process behind a number of important decisions. I’d like them to openly state that none of them has ever literally seen or heard Christ and that their revelations through that they experience through their feelings are just as reliable as the revelations that the general membership receives.
I don’t fully agree with the suggestion that upper-level GAs are some sort of royal class. President Eyring shops at a local Home Depot. The poor guy was frequently interrupted by admirers as he hunted for plumbing parts. Elder Uchtdorf bikes along a trail frequented by locals and shouts instructions in German to his grandson during the boy’s soccer matches. It is hilarious to watch! President Monson sat and chatted with my children several times at a local coffee shop. Also, Q15 leaders do see what is being said in social media and Utah newspapers. Some time ago I sought clarification regarding an apostle’s military record from the history dept. (The local seminary teachers were spreading some faith-promoting falsehoods.) The history folks forwarded my phone call and I ended up discussing the issue with that apostle. He laughed and shouted at me while his secretary held up the phone “Don’t believe everything you hear from CES.” It was a hilarious moment!
“Every nation has the government it deserves,” the French writer and diplomat Joseph de Maistre declared in 1811. This quote is directly applicable to this situation.
For the irrefutable fact is that the membership at large does not want a whistleblower. They do not want anyone to disturb the ease of their ignorant slumber.
Joseph Smith taught that spirituality takes time, effort, and study. Essentially, it takes hard work. But the modern members do not want to put in any effort whatsoever. They want to spend their time watching hot dog eating clips on TikTok instead of pondering differing religious viewpoints.
And that is why the hordes really don’t want a whistleblower. It would require them to put in time and effort to decide for themselves who is right.
That is why there will be no whistleblower from the higher echelons—the hordes don’t want one. Thus, the vast hordes will get the church that their laziness deserves.
JCS coming in again with a shockingly insight and not even super offensive comment! Thank you.
@moutainclimber, that is a terrific list.
@old man, I don’t think anyone is comparing them to a royal class in the sense of living a super opulent lifestyle. More that they are treated with immense deference and reverence within the LDS community. Which I think is true.
Old Man: I LOVE your story about the apostle shouting “Don’t believe everything you hear from CES!” So true!!
Yes, I agree that they are living a pretty normal upper middle class life (not the eccentric opulence of the wealthy), but let’s also be clear that earning $100K+ / yr post-retirement (until you die) is nothing like the experience of most Americans today. We’ve all had to scrimp and save to be able to eventually retire, and hope that a combination of social security and our 401(k) will last until we die. We have no additional spending allowance for travel or cell phones–that just comes out of our savings. That’s why it’s terrifying to consider that only 40% of Americans feel like their retirement savings are “on track” to support them until they die.
I love Mortimer’s list of reasons especially.
I think this might be distinct from the reasons that have been mentioned. I suspect we won’t see a Q15 member defect and do a tell-all in book form (or any other) because they believe fully in what they’re doing. You see this question come up particular in ex-Mormon spaces every so often, of how the Q15 could possibly believe in the Church now that they’ve seen all the inner workings of the Church’s power and they see that Jesus isn’t showing up to their weekly meetings to tell them what to do. I think this type of doubt just totally misses people’s ability to self-justify, to figure that whatever they’ve already been doing must be right, particularly when they’ve been doing it consistently for decades. I’m sure in Q15 members’ view, whatever degree of good feelings they feel about courses of actions they consider are sufficient to justify that God’s very hand is guiding them.
I have no doubt that if a Q15 member for whatever reason got to the point of considering defecting, things like the money and the prestige on the line would probably stop them. My point, though, is that I suspect that the possibility isn’t even close to occurring to them in the first place. They’re sure they’re right and the Church is led by God, and they’re not going to do anything to harm that project.
Harry defected with the full knowledge that he could still make a pretty penny in his post-royal life. Any member of the Q15 who defected would have no such prospects.
“It’s difficult to get a many to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair
@jaredsbro, I’m pretty sure Harry got like $20M inheritance from Diana and yes, the book deals and Netflix and all the things actually set him up better than being “the spare.”
Still, that’s why I added my GoFundMe question – I’m sure there’d be a group who would be willing to financially take care of a defector if the defector were high enough.
@Ziff, I agree. I think that’s less true for Church employees etc who have to see how the sausage is made but have no power to influence it. So I could see more defections from there.
Maybe a Q15 wouldn’t defect because like many who grapple with the church and want to help change things, they are actually in a position to potentially do that (and maybe slowly are already).
That said, my first thought was Uchdorf only because he seems like the outlier of the bunch. (Full disclosure – after him I really know nothing about those that have come on since so they too could be outliers, I’m just unaware). But like the rest of you, I don’t really see it happening and I’d lay money they signed iron-clad NDAs. They could leave, but they’d tell us nothing.
I don’t buy the idea money is keeping anyone’s mouth shut at the Q15 level. The majority of them did just fine professionally, particularly now that apostles are generally called in their early 60s. (As apposed to a few generations ago when it was more common to call apostles in their 40s and 50s.) Most of them were on the verge of retirement anyway before taking a new job that has kept them comfortable for another few decades. Besides, if the did want to leave, there would absolutely be a $1M+ book deal waiting for them. (Michelle Obama got $65M, and I think a “Mormon Apostle Tell-All!” would be worth at least 2% of that.) Even GA70s are very often well off.
The bigger hold on any Q15 that wanted to defect would be leaving the spotlight, and the social cost for not only them but their entire family. Even if they wanted out, to do so Prince Harry style would be very painful for their potentially still TBM spouse, kids, etc. The most likely defector would be one who no longer has any active children or grandchildren.
In the end though, it will never happen. Men don’t suddenly become revolutionaries in their old age. Anyone prone to defection would have done it at the point of being a bishop or stake president.
@Elisa: Take care of the defector via GoFundMe to create a multi-million dollar account AND lucrative book deal of global interest? I don’t see it. Mormonism is often viewed globally as this weird little religion for white people ensconced in the Rocky Mountains. Not enough interested parties.
I think I was actually being too cynical and trying to be too cute in my previous comment. I think the church elevates to the Q15 leaders they have full confidence in, i.e., men with a long family history in the church, a demonstrated history of commitment and belief, and a personal philosophy that absolutely embraces rigid orthodoxy and rejects relativism and postmodern thought. I think by pursuing that approach, you end up with a stable of adherents who really do believe it. The selection process that weeds out problematic thinkers starts at lower levels and intensifies on the way up. They’ll never make the George P. Lee mistake again, and I don’t think they’d make the Uchtdorf selection again. Selecting African church members for the Q70 may make the church look less racist on occasion, but I don’t think they’d elevate anyone with a non-LDS pedigree to the Q15.
@jaredsbrother, I mean, people pay John Dehlin to interview low level Mormons so who knows 🙂
That’s an interesting point about international folks. The most well known defectors I know of are Hans Mattsson, Tom Phillips (not an area authority but a very well-respected British leader), and Enzio Busche (German, not a public defector but people say privately he was). George Lee is an interesting case – I guess I didn’t really view him as a defector so much as someone who got excommunicated – but I am not super familiar. And then of the Q15, obviously Uchtdorf seems the most independent spirited.
I agree with those who have said they don’t think there’s anyone at that level who doesn’t believe, or at least doesn’t believe most of it or that it’s more good than not. But I do think it’s fair to wonder about the kinds of questions that MountainClimber asked and what kind of dissension there is on specific issues.
I think we underestimate the sunk costs of being an apostle. Specifically, the Second Anointing comes with a major caveat – sure, it guarantees your exaltation, but if you deliberately turn your back on the Church after receiving it, you’re denying the Holy Ghost and becoming a Son of Perdition. Even if you’re riddled with doubt, that’s a pretty steep precipice to jump from.
@Mike Spendlove, I totally agree that would be a steep precipice to jump from *if* you really believe that you have guaranteed exaltation unless you turn your back on the Church. I just wonder(I mean I’d be really curious to see statistics on this) how many people who have received the second anointing, including the Q15, actually believe that they have guaranteed exaltation. The whole idea of the second anointing really seems to contradict the idea described in many places in the scriptures that God is the only one that can truly judge us after we die. I know that the Church believes that priesthood leaders have the ability to act on behalf of God, but a man yielding God’s power of granting exaltation just seems so over the top crazy to me. Do the Q15 really believe they have such a guarantee from God Himself? It seems to me like it would be easier for God to allow priesthood leaders to wield His power to regenerate amputated limbs or raise people from the dead or even turn the tide of a global pandemic through a global fast–things He clearly isn’t doing right now–before He allowed them to grant eternal exaltation to another human being.
I believe the scriptures state that the sin of denying the Holy Ghost applies to everyone regardless of whether they’ve received the second anointing or not. In other words, a Q15 member might not really believe in guaranteed exaltation through their second anointing, yet they still might legitimately fear that turning their back on the Church is equivalent to denying the Holy Ghost and therefore would be fearful to speak candidly to the public about the Church. (As a side note, I’m not convinced that turning your back on the Church in certain matters is equivalent to denying the Holy Ghost–in my opinion, sometimes the Church does the wrong thing and should be opposed.)
One possibility that occurred to me is that a Q15 member doesn’t necessarily have to apostatize in order to go public with the internal workings of the Q15. It is conceivable that a Q15 member’s health might be failing him, and he decides he wants to abdicate from the Q15 (like Pope Benedict–I would so, so much like to see a member of the Q15 set this precedent and for other Q15 members to follow!). He could conceivably decide to do a candid interview or write a book addressing questions like the ones I listed in my earlier comment and still claim to be a faithful member of the Church. Sure, many of the remaining Q15 members would hate to see this happen, but a departing Q15 member deciding to be open and candid about the inner workings of the Church doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve apostatized. In fact, they could conceivably do it because they love the Church, and they believe the secrecy of the Q15 is hurting the Church. They might even possibly even feel called by God to let the skeletons out of the closet while still fully believing in the core beliefs of the Church. Indeed, this may be one reason why there is no emeritus status for the Q15. As long as someone is in the Q15, it seems like they would feel a whole lot more pressure to not leak information (they still have to work daily with the Q15, after all) compared to the pressure they’d feel with emeritus status.
Does JCS’s new infatuation with the phrase “irrefutable fact” amuse anyone else?
I agree with the general sentiments expressed above–a high-level (i.e. Q15) defection is highly unlikely. What I could see happening, however, is a leak on a contentious issue comparable to what we saw with the leaked Dobbs decision last summer. It is not out of the realm of possibility that a high-ranking Church official would find a way to publicize something that he considered to be an egregious error. Of course, I would not bet my house on that ever happening (there have been many opportunities for that to happen in recent years that have never materialized)…but everyone has their own breaking point (or price). To me, that would be almost more fascinating to watch unfold than a defector who could be (and likely would be) written off as an apostate.
No one has mentioned the idea that maybe the church asks people to sign a non-disclosure agreement along with accepting a high calling. That would go along with the church forbidding them from keeping journals. If I was the church, I most certainly would have such an agreement. I have no information that they do, it is just a thought.
I think B H Roberts is the closest the church has ever come to a high level defection. Others have been excommunicated, such as Lee, and another who committed adultery, but there was good evidence for the adulterer, and Lee has been accused of child sexual abuse, so neither would be the kind of defection that would do damage to the church.
But for those who are ancient enough to remember Lee, he claimed his excommunication was because he had a major falling out over the “Indian placement program” with him claiming there was abuse of the children, that it was mostly aimed at destroying the native culture, and that it was harmful to children to be taken from their parents. Those were all things that ended up being true, so there may be some truth to Lee’s claims and his excommunication was really over his defection.
But nobody took him seriously, which is exactly what I would expect to happen if anybody else defected. The talk at the time was that he had obviously committed adultery or embezzled church funds. He was guilty of some terrible sin in the eyes of the members, which I think would be the nay outcome of a defection. All of us who have left the church know that the active members are just positive that we left to sin. That is the default assumption for defection. It cannot be a problem with the church, but has to be our sin.
I agree with Mortimer’s list of why no one in the Q15 will defect, and I think Anna raised an important point for the first time. If anyone did defect, it would have to be their fault for committing a terrible sin. After all, the reason anyone leaves the Church is because we want to sin, right? The other leaders wouldn’t even need to start a smear campaign. The faithful members would do it themselves.
Another reason no one in the Q15 will leave is out of concern for the flock and fear of hurting other peoples’ testimonies. I know that was a big concern for me. I was done with Church, but I had been an influential teacher in my ward and so many people had told me, over the years, how much my lessons had helped them. I really worried that if I quit Church, it would affect all of those people who looked up to me. I hung in there, and didn’t quit until I’d moved wards. Losing my testimony was so painful and traumatic that I didn’t want to contribute to anyone else’s painful journey. Now that I’m past the hard parts, I have a different perspective, but while I was still attending and struggling, I didn’t want to inflict my doubts on anyone else. If you’re up on a pedestal and setting an example, you feel an obligation to the people who look up to you. Or at least I did.
I think the most likely reason of all as to why the apostles won’t defect is found in Jacob chapter 7–wherein Sherem hopes to turn Jacob from the faith:
5 And he had hope to shake me from the faith, notwithstanding the many revelations and the many things which I had seen concerning these things; for I truly had seen angels, and they had ministered unto me. And also, I had heard the voice of the Lord speaking unto me in very word, from time to time; wherefore, I could not be shaken.
So in Joseph Smith’s time, when there was a new and startling revelation a couple a times a year or more, and defections by Q15 members occurred about as frequently.
Over the years, the revelations have become incredibly rare (1978 probably being the past major one), and defections have also been incredibly rare.
I suspect they go hand in hand. Mormonism is now this static institution and there are no surprises for those at the top, so not much reason to question your commitment to the institution.
I doubt money has anything to do with lack of defections. Loss of prestige, yes. Loss of your sense of being a very special person, yes. But I don’t see any real exposure to things that would normally force introspection nowadays, so I would be very surprised to hear of a Q15 defection.
But among those that staff the Q15, there definitely seem to be those willing to spill the beans. How else did we know about TSM being senile for so long before it became patently obvious? Or about BKP trying to find out about the Ensign Peak funds? Or the hundreds of other little things.
@Jack, are you implying that the current apostles have both seen angels and literally heard the voice of Christ as my reading of the verse from Jacob you quote seems to imply? We have some fairly recent quotes from apostles (Oaks is one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrMJ2YZD62M) stating quite plainly that none of the current apostles have had any such heavenly visitations and that they receive inspiration in the same way as run-of-the-mill church members generally do: “still small voice”, “impressions”, “feelings”, etc. I recall that Oaks stated that his testimony formed like “dust on a windowsill” (or something very close to that), and that is all that he has received from the heavens in his entire life–no visits from Christ or angels and no heavenly voices at all.
I admit that I am sometimes critical of the apostles and that I sometimes use W&T as a forum for expressing my frustrations since it’s impossible to do in my local ward. That said, this is a case where I have no hesitations about expressing my admiration for Oaks’ (and I think there’s at least one other apostle who has made similar recent remarks) honesty in openly stating that he has not received (and he doesn’t think any other apostle has either) any heavenly visitations or voices *EVER* in his entire 90+ year lifetime. If I could ask for anything else from Oaks on this, it would be for him (and a few other apostles) to make a similar statement at the pulpit in General Conference. The Church has a big problem with leader worship, and statements like this in GC could help with that.
mountainclimber479,
When the apostles speak on the subject of receiving their testimonies their descriptions of the process seem to be much like that of the average Joe and Jane Latter-day Saint; no grand visions or visitations; but rather a quiet incremental process that settles on the soul over time. That’s been my experience too. I think that approach is kind of a standard procedure with regard to growing in the knowledge of God–it comes a little at a time. Even so, that’s not to say that they haven’t seen or experienced miracles. They have–but they don’t talk about them openly. Sometimes they’ll hint at the fact that miracles happen today just like they did in days of old–but they’ll be careful to convey that idea only in the most general terms. It’s kinda like Moses leading the children of Israel through the Red Sea by the spirit of revelation (as per the D&C). My guess is that he grew in the principle of revelation mostly through a quiet incremental process. And when the moment of crisis came there on shore–he knew (by the spirit of revelation) what need to be done. That knowledge was quiet and personal–but, oh, how grand the miracles were that would follow.
10ac,
IMO, today’s leaders are much more mature in the faith than the saints in Joseph Smith’s time. Not to judge the early saints–their faith and efforts were heroic. But they were babes in the gospel comparatively speaking. The church has had to mature generally in order to be prepared to take the gospel to the world. And that’s a process that can take generations–as poor Israel learned (the hard way) in the wilderness.
Ditto what Ziff said. We often grossly underestimate the human capacity for cognitive dissonance. Most of the church leaders, especially at the top, really believe in what they are doing.
Judas walked with Jesus for several years, and he defected. According to our theology, Satan would have walked with God and Jesus in heaven during his formative spiritual years, and he defected. So I’m not sure Jacob 5:7 can be relied on.
@Jack, Thanks for acknowledging that our current prophets and apostles haven’t had any grand visions or visitations which appeared to me to be what you were claiming by quoting that verse from Jacob. However, you then chose to move on to claim that today’s apostles are frequently witnesses–or even the facilitators like Moses–of miracles so grand or sacred that they can’t be spoken of openly. Why, pray tell, is it OK for us–and the people in ancient times and Joseph Smith’s times–to speak openly of the grand miracles in those respective time periods, but it’s not OK for us to speak of the supposed grand miracles happening today? You said, “That’s not to say that [today’s apostles] haven’t seen or experienced miracles. They have–but they don’t talk about them openly.” How do you know this? Is it just the hinting that they sometimes do to miracles that they can’t speak about for whatever mysterious reason? To some people, apostles hinting at miracles that they can’t talk about because they are too sacred is proof at how special apostles are and how lucky the Church is to be led by them. Perhaps you fit into this category. To other people, like myself, apostles hinting at miracles they can’t talk about often feels like a deceptive way to manipulate members into feeling that apostles are so very special that members really ought to accept everything they say without question. If they really are experiencing miracles that they can’t share, I feel it would be better if they just kept them entirely to themselves–please, no more dropping hints!
Some people, like myself, really suspect that these grand miracles that you claim are happening on a regular basis, but that for some reason can never be spoken about openly, aren’t actually happening. Instead, I believe that Church leaders are doing their very best to lead the Church forward with all the best intentions–but the process is rather mundane and without the frequent miraculous events that you claim. God may even have a hand in guiding them although based on what I see happening, I think that if God is involved, He often has to do His work in spite of the apostles’ actions rather than directly through them much of the time–they are imperfect and fallible men, after all. Tying this back to the OP, it would be so very interesting to hear an apostle or two candidly and honestly speak about what really happens behind the scenes, including descriptions of any and all behind the curtains miracles that might be happening. Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a feeling that many Church members might be disappointed to hear that these miracles aren’t as miraculous as they were led to believe. Greg Prince’s McKay biography has already been mentioned in the comments (https://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Rise-Modern-Mormonism/dp/0874808227). There’s a lot of insider information in that book, but, I’m afraid, not many impressive miracles.
Sherrie Dew, who often works behind the scenes with the apostles, gave a recent talk about how prophets can see around corners (https://speeches.byuh.edu/prophets-can-see-around-corners). A few examples of the “miracles” she mentioned in her talk were how Pres. Hinckley’s advice for the membership to get out of debt 10 years ahead of an economic downturn and how Pres. Nelson’s video message on gratitude during the Covid pandemic, specifically the length of the video and when it was published online, were both miraculous. If these are the types of miracles we’re talking about, then I have to say I’m not very impressed. Furthermore, I assume that these grand miracles that must remain secret that are happening all the time sometimes involve other people, even regular members. Even if the apostles are able to keep these miracles to themselves, do you really think that all of the other people who experienced them can as well–even if specifically directed to do so by the apostles? People love to talk about extraordinary things that happen to them, even if they are supposed to remain secret. I am not aware of people sharing their accounts of these amazing miracles performed by today’s apostles.
I repeat my concern that the Church has a very real problem with leadership worship. Promulgating the (what I suspect is probably false) idea that the apostles frequently see or hear Christ and/or frequently experience amazing miracles that most members never experience makes the leadership worship problem even worse.
To mountain climber’s point, it makes absolutely zero sense that apostles would talk about “miracles” like people answering the phone (thanks Bednar) or the minutia Sherry Dew mentioned or various stories from Nelson that have turned out to be wildly exaggerated but that they won’t talk about bigger ones.
A witness’s job is to tell others what they have seen so that others who have not had the same experiences or weren’t there can also know what happened.
A witness who keeps everything to themselves is not actually a witness.
And early church leaders had no issues talking about miracles. Missionaries tell people about extraordinary things that supposedly took place in the 1800’s as part of their efforts to convert people. A change in practice makes zero sense.
I don’t actually think most members think secret healings and visitations and moving of mountains are happening. If they do, well, pls refer back to the post from earlier this week about mass delusions.
Old Man,
I’d be interested to know when you had that phone call with a GA, when your children saw Elder or President Monson in a coffee shop, etc., because such exchanges have become increasingly more rare over the past few decades. I’d also be interested to know what your connections were, whether you are CES or BYU, a reporter, a white male SP or higher, have church last name, live in the SLC, etc.
President Monson had to stop visiting a shoe-shinner he had befriended and used for many years when he became president, because that normal thing became an attraction and started drawing interrupting crowds. In the world of crowd-sourcing, GAs (like royalty) have no privacy and are easily swarmed.
I’m so tired of the story of President Kimball helping a mother and toddler in an airport ticket line. That happened in the 70’s. GAs have flown on private jets for decades. And, that story of a GA sitting next to a rockstar in first class who admitted evil doings is 100% fabricated. They don’t mingle with the people. Like royals, you’ll have sightings at games, on the slopes, at the right schools, if you happen to be a neighbor or relative, have a unique interaction, go to the right exclusive events, or hear stories from their chauffeur or maid or secretary. But, no, we (99.999% of us) don’t fraternize with the GAs.
I’m surprised to hear about President Eyring shopping for plumbing supplies. Remember President Hinckley missing shopping at lumber/home stores, longing for the smell of wood and missing tool shopping and dreaming of fix-it projects? He caused too much of a scene when he shopped, and had to stop. It made him quite sad. Most of the GAs have people who shop for them. Heck, the local college football coach in my small hometown has aides run his errands and shop for him because he’s such a celebrity- he is gawked, stopped, crowded, photographed, selfied, asked for autographs, etc. The same thing happens to GAs and has for years. Church security and staff intervene for GAs. There’s an entire PR dept for relaying info, your exchange is extremely rare.
As a matter of fact, I once calculated that if all of the Q15 quit doing everything and focused on shaking every member’s hand for exactly one minute (having a short exchange), it would take them over 8 years to get through 16 million members. Since some of the Q15 are too old and frail to work full time, the physically able might get close to finishing the task after about 15 years. And that’s assuming they do zero admin work, abandon conference, etc. Such a feat would be logistically impossible, (it’s just a hypothetical) but if we allowed them things like bathroom breaks, lunches, minimal admin work, and short vacations, we’d be looking at more than 30 years. The GAs don’t have time to spend with the rank and file and they know it.
In the past, everyone knew “Brother Joseph” and the apostles. During the mid-20th c, most inter-mountain saints had exchanges with the Q15 to some degree or another and certainly knew the 70, church employees, the choir, etc. Today, there are *some* people in the right wards, families, and professions, who have connections to GAs. But comparatively, the vast majority of saints never personally interact with a GA. (Sure, we might see them speak to a regional conference, once at the MTC, or the talented 10th see them at a BYU graduation or Tuesday meeting, but one-on-one time? Nope. Although people do things like move into their wards, network, become famous, or follow the gossip lines to put themselves in the right places for brief sightings or engagements.)
Let’s just count how many groups, how many individuals (like Kate Kelly, Sam Young, Natasha H., etc.), how many journalists, sincere saints (seeking blessings, guidance, help solving local problems) have been denied an audience? At best, your letters get sent to your SP, at worst, filed in the round file. Church growth and size is a massive pain point.
Are GAs royalty? One could argue there is a distinct circle of nepotism similar to the aristocracy. And, in a scaled way, GAs suffer from their fame and celebrity.
@mortimer, you may be interested to listen to the Mormonism Live interview I linked in the post. Recently a member spent about 40 minutes talking to Bednar in an airport lounge and Bednar was surprisingly open to talking. (He was also either shockingly ignorant Church history and scriptural interpretation, or was fudging.). I agree that most mortals don’t interact much with leadership but it does happen.
My claim to fame is that Bonnie Cordon was on my flight to Paris a few weeks ago, but she was flying first class so we didn’t mingle. I have no idea if that was personal or Church travel (it appeared to be just her and her husband). I imagine she travels a lot for Church so probably has platinum medallion or whatever it’s called status, so I didn’t think the first class thing was all that noteworthy.
A few years ago, my bishop’s wife bore her testimony of her miraculous encounter with a general authority. The family was preparing to board a plane during stormy weather, and she was very nervous that the plane would crash. Then she realized that a GA was boarding that same plane. She was immediately able to relax, secure in the knowledge that God would ensure that the plane would arrive safely in Salt Lake City. Which it did.
I assure you she really did tell the story in her testimony.
I respect and sustain our general authorities. Unfortunately, I think our attitude toward our leaders too often verges on idolatry.
mountainclimber479:
“Tying this back to the OP, it would be so very interesting to hear an apostle or two candidly and honestly speak about what really happens behind the scenes, including descriptions of any and all behind the curtains miracles that might be happening.”
I think we’d get a report that sounds rather mundane though punctuated here and there with some interesting happenings–and some few of those would be quite miraculous. Most of what the apostles do is work–IMO–though much of that work keeps their minds focused heavenward.
As to the question of why the apostles don’t talk more about those sacred experiences in their lives: we have to think about the Law of Negative Returns. It’s true that we can feel frustrated at times when we don’t get a more detailed report about certain happenings. But we have to consider what the effect would be on the saints — and on the world at large — if they shared those private experiences openly. In my opinion, it would be an unmitigated disaster–and of course, I can only speak of this scenario in a theoretical sense because what would happen in reality is that the heavens would withdraw. Even so, what we would have (theoretically) is a large group of people pressing upon the church after having been titillated by miracles–much like the Savior was after he fed thousands of people with the loaves and fishes. And what was the net effect of that approach? They left him when he preached the hard doctrines of the Kingdom to them.
And so, I guess the long and short of it is–in order to mature in a way that we acquire some spiritual sticking power we (and I mean we moderns) are typically prepared through a quiet incremental process. Even so, we need to remember that that process doesn’t preclude experiencing the miraculous. Joseph F. Smith — when he was younger — hoped that the Lord would show him some great thing, believing that some such miracle would solidify his testimony. But, instead, the Lord withheld the miraculous and caused him to learn the truth line upon line until he knew it from the soles of his feet to the crown of his head–as he says in so many words. But here’s the interesting thing: it is this same Joseph F Smith who would latter have the miraculous vision of the dead which has since become canonized in the Doctrine and Covenants.
Finally, let me just add–miracles are not reserved for the apostles only. They are experienced by members (and non members!) at ever station in the church. But most members keep those experiences to themselves only sharing them when constrained by the Holy Ghost to do so. They are typically given for the edification of the individual and are therefore private. I end with his quote from Boyd K. Packer: “Revelation continues with us today. The promptings of the Spirit, the dreams, and the visions and the visitations, and the ministering of angels all are with us now. And the still, small voice of the Holy Ghost ‘is a lamp unto [our] feet, and a light unto [our] path.’ (Ps. 119:105.)”
Elisa,
Thanks for the link! I have listened to the Bednar interview. The lawyer who caught him was persuasive, and Bednar opened up about the problems answering member’s doctrinal q’s when cornered in public. Yeah- the interviewer did a really good job (considering the situation) of capturing that moment for the rest of us, even if done sneakily.
Three generations of our family has lived in a fly-over state. I’m aware of four instances of Q12 visits in all that time (one was accidental- scheduled while he was a 70). I’m not aware of a Prophet physically visiting our state – ever. No one I know has a memory of a President’s visit. I joke that it’s because we don’t greet our GAs with coconut bras, pineapple drinks with umbrellas and flower leis like our Hawaiian sisters do. I blame us.
My acquaintances who live in “the avenues” of SLC or other “in” places in UT cherish their unique and superficial GA sightings. I am more likely to spot the potentially endangered ivory-billed woodpecker than a GA in my lifetime. I’m glad that the GAs travel extensively internationally- to saints who are in more need of church support, who have less than we do in this established (if not ignored) little part of the garden.
@Jack, I think we’re getting closer, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree.
You give an explanation for why miracles can’t be made publicly known today, but you never say why it was OK in the early days of the Church or in ancient times. I’m pretty sure you’d reply modern times are different, technology, internet, or something else, but I’ll say upfront that I don’t buy it. The same kinds of issues with public miracles would arise in other times as would happen today.
I’m still not convinced that the apostles are experiencing any special miracles. They frequently will tell stories that they call miracles, but really aren’t very miraculous, at least in the biblical sense. Here’s an example of a miracle described by Elder Bednar: https://www.thechurchnews.com/2021/1/19/23218025/bednar-byu-devotional-covenants-temples. Sorry, but packing a bunch of people into the temple 24/7 over the course of 3 days does not really qualify as a miracle to me, at least in the biblical sense of the word. I think the apostles are labeling these types of events as miracles because they probably get asked so many times why there are no miracles today like we read about in the scriptures or the early days of the Church, so they feel pressure to come up with something. If it’s God’s Church, it better have miracles, right? Some members probably buy in to the idea that these are real modern day miracles, but there’s nothing supernatural about them at all. These are not even close to the miracles from the scriptures or the early days of the Church.
I’m also not convinced that the general membership are experiencing the miracles you say they are because they are for private edification. Members in my ward have no problem hopping up to the pulpit at F&T meeting to share their finding the lost car keys miracle, or their getting a raise at work because they paid their tithing miracle, etc. You better believe that if a real miracle actually occurred in their life, they’d be first in line to share it at F&T meeting–but they aren’t.
I’m not opposed to believing that miracles (real miracles, actual supernatural events like we read about in the scriptures) can occur. I just see no evidence at all that they are happening these days. I suppose there could be all of these private miracles happening that no one ever talks about, but I very seriously doubt that.
mountainclimber479,
Yeah–I guess it’s just one of those things. I’ve had my own experiences; I’ve had others share some of their experiences with me. I know some folks who’ve had experiences that they feel are too sacred to share. And of course there are a lot of things I’ve heard about second-hand–and we have to be careful with those stories the come to us from way down the pike. A lot of those turn out to be urban legends.
Even so, my sense is–if we were to somehow find a way to record all of the miracles that have occurred among the saints over the last year the list would fill a volume the size of a telephone book. Most of the miracles would be of the “small” variety–the kinds of experiences that we might share in a talk or when bearing our testimony. Then there would be a smaller category of “moderate” miracles–the kinds of experiences that we might share on rare occasions when the circumstances feel appropriate. And the smallest section would be that of “great” miracles–and those are the kinds of experiences that most people never speak of. But if they do, it will only be by constraint of the spirit.
The best evidence for some people is no evidence. Strange but true. The bigger the holes, the bigger the need for faith, etc. Except that such a notion makes no doctrinal sense: pre-mortal life, etc.
People live in their own worlds and (at least in the US) don’t like to change clothes in public; the same is true for people changing their minds in the comment section of a blog. Very rare. More rare if said person comes with the conclusion already in mind.
Pretenders of thoughtful discussion do not make thoughtful discussion.
Some people are so afraid of change, of feeling vulnerable, that change is very difficult for them. Some people base their politics and their religion on the notion that things should stay the same and should not change or evolve. These people live with a privileged, naive, anti-progress (except, of course, if we’re taking about making more money!), anti-fact worldview. They believe they have all the answers. And such a worldview makes them feel comfortable (even if their worldview is demonstrably damaging to both themselves and others, is incomplete, etc.)
Such people, like royalty, are most likely to leave their believed comfortable places (even when those places are not what they appear to be) when something (like bias against them or someone they love) causes their world view to change.
The royalty in the church live in a bubble of yes men (and hardly any women). They have little reason to have their world view change. External pressure, of course, can cause resentful institutional changes. But it rarely changes the hearts of men (especially the older they get; this is scientifically verifiable). Something personal, some catalyst within their personal world, along with some humility and vulnerability, is required.
Pretenders of change, however, do not make change.
These are some reasons, I believe, why Utchdorf was sidelined. And why there are so few defectors.
Not to derail, but there’s an interesting side question. What are the chances that any of the top leaders’ wives would either divorce and/or defect. Still seems that the likelihood of this would be so close to zero that it would essentially be zero. I wonder what plays into that.
Mortimer,
Sorry I missed your comment. But here are the answers to your questions.
I live on the Wasatch Front. President Monson was Church President when we had frequent interactions with him. The location was the Little America Coffee Shop. We also shared the same barber with him until the last few years of his life. Uchtdorf’s grandson attended the same high school as my youngest children. I won’t say which, the family needs some privacy. The oldest incident, the Eyring episode in Home Depot, was about 15 years ago. I heard through the grapevine he stopped going there after his wife’s health worsened. I work in public education and have never held a calling in the Stake Presidency (Thank heavens, I couldn’t excommunicate anyone). I claim no insider connections.
To help prove your point, sadly President Monson had to stop using the barbershop. Too many crazies started to show up asking for autographs.
A plea to everyone: If you see a GA out in public, leave them alone. Monson always approached us and initiated conversations. It was always with the kids. We need casual, real connections on a person to person level. It is good for the GAs and good for the Church. The Church should be more egalitarian than hierarchal.
While the dysfunctional family element of the Harry and Meghan saga is salacious and popcorn worthy, the real meat of the story is the role the tabloid media play in speaking for and through royal family’s members.
Harry always had one foot out of the door, wanting to be anywhere but England, and then had his eyes opened to systemic racism when he married his wife. He’s done years of therapy and deconstruction. That’s not something I think will ever be replicated by a Q15. They don’t step out of their bubbles.
But even more interesting and layered into the Harry and Megan phenomenon is the media coverage and leaks. Royal family members use the tabloid media to leak information about each other and to speak for them. The devil’s agreement for a royal is the media owns them and can stalk them relentlessly, but will work for them as well. Megan was offered up on the sacrificial platter of the media and royal family members were sustaining and supporting it.
In an LDS context, our leaders don’t have that kind of outlet. Conference talk dueling happens (the famous case of Hinckley’s use of Mormon v Nelson’s disdain for the term come to mind), but there isn’t nearly as strong of a media element here. They keep all their infighting firmly on the inside.
I suppose my addition to this fascinating conversation is to ask in what medium Q15 leaders wield their individual voices, if at all, and how/if media outlets play a role in that. That’s perhaps our best opportunity for leaks and defections.
Who wants to summarize the Bednar interview for me? I can’t handle multihour podcasts for this kind of stuff.
David: Hey, I feel ya, bud, but having listened to the podcast, (which is a two-parter, BTW, so even worse), I really think you should listen to it. Double speed, obviously, but there’s a lot there. The guy who captured it did not record it, so he explains how he captured it. He’s a lawyer. He did a pretty good job, particularly because he maintained the deferential attitude required and avoided anything directly challenging. Instead he approached the questions from an apologetic / confederate approach. As I recall, he covers a bunch of things: history, polygamy, JS marrying very very very very very young girls, the second anointing, leader infallibility (that the handbook of instruction is now considered binding revelation), and more. He did not really cover: sexism, racism, homo and transphobia. He had to pull back from areas when he perceived Bednar did not want to go there. He also says he felt the spirit while talking to him, and that he believed Bednar to be completely sincere, although I suspect many will agree that the answers were lacking.
Old man,
Thanks for the info! Your interactions with GAs are truly interesting and unique. I am corrected and enlightened. And, thanks for letting me know that members can still rub shoulders with the GAs. I thought they had reclused more. But, I agree with you in wishing for a more egalitarian (less hierarchical) church.
@David, have to agree with Angela. The conversation with Bednar was so wide-ranging that there isn’t one particular thing to call out or summarize. It was more striking for the variety of things this guy managed to ask about, with very few surprises in Bednar’s responses but still an interesting listen.