Holland counsels the youth to disown their fathers...

[_honorentheos]

Personally, I don't believe they are "faking it." But I do believe you are making a fundamental error by ascribing any weight, at all to their "firm/powerful testimonies" and to thinking that this evidence for the church and is something that needs to be explained. Over the last couple of decades, a ton of research has been done on how well humans think and in what ways they fail to think in a logical, sound manner. An entire library of specific cognitive biases that predictably cause people to believe and act irrationally has been well-described and proven to exist. It turns out that human beings are very susceptible to believing all sorts of things that are false, and that they are prone to believe such things strongly. Even smart people. In fact, it turns out that people with A-type personalities who are natural leaders are especially susceptible to cognitive bias and having too much confidence in their wrong answers.

When you examine the Mormon religion from the perspective of sociology, it's as if the rituals Mormons go through were deliberately designed in order to exploit known cognitive biases for the benefit of the Church itself.

General authorities are great men who are absolutely certain the Church is true. Donald Trump is a great man who is absolutely certain that Obama was born in Kenya. The confidence they have in their respective beliefs is commensurate, as is how much weight we should give it.

There are a few examples in Mormon history where we may gain some insight into how the brethren deal with information that conflicts with their views. One that comes immediately to mind is the debate around evolution when two clear camps developed over the issue.

If we look at the debate over evolution between Joseph Fielding Smith (siding against evolution) and B.H. Roberts along with James E. Talmage who favored the evidence for evolution, we basically see the leadership deciding to bury their heads into the sand and not take a position. Not because the evidence is ambiguous, but because the evidence in favor was strong but the implications for Mormonism were bad.

I think that's rather representative when we wonder just how informed or rational the support for the church is among the GA's. I think at best it's based on a decision like you noted about Hinckley and McKay, at worst a belligerent attitude towards the issues as Fielding Smith demonstrated towards evolution. I get the sense Elder Oaks is the belligerent type.

These links include a nice summary of the evolution debate worth the time to read them:

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=7079
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=7109

[_Rosebud]

I am going to try to express my thoughts in terms of human development.

Those who develop beyond black and white thinking and diplomat, expert and achiever roles to post-conventional stages of development are able to see themselves as having many different facets. They comprehend that they are not whole or complete rather than believing (as they once may so confidently have thought) that they are one full person with answers to everything. As they hit this stage, they want to develop more parts of themselves and reconstruct meaning.

I'd assume this is the point of development at which many people begin to realize they've been living in a cult and engaging in cult-like behavior which includes encouraging others to make unreasonable sacrifices for the ideology in ways that are harmful to their individual development, their lives and families. The insight that comes with recognizing one's own flaws and lack of wholeness in higher stages of development also comes with an awareness of when one is taking actions that psychologically ensnare people who aren't yet as able to see the harm of giving too much for an ideology.

Development takes time and people at higher stages of development can comprehend where people at lower stages of development are and that it's okay and natural for them to be there. What can you do? They just can't and won't see more until they are ready.

I don't believe that none of the leadership have this much insight into themselves and the world. It is a rare level of development, but not unreasonably rare. What would (should?) a highly developed apostle do? If Uchtdorf is there, how is it that he justifies continuing alongside those he understands are promoting cult behaviors to members who aren't sophisticated enough to comprehend they're being victimized? At some point wouldn't someone who is moral and highly developed just drop off the team?

Just because you can't show someone who is at a lower level of development what they're missing through arguing with them (especially on message boards - wink), that doesn't mean it's okay to exploit their vulnerability from a position of power.

There's no shame in taking time to get to a place of higher development and not seeing one's own mistakes until they're already behind them. That's what we all go through as developing humans. But it is morally wrong to continue on in destructive leadership patterns once one comprehends the harm one is doing.

I don't believe that none of them have ever comprehended.

And I hold people who do comprehend the harm, have power to make change, yet do nothing about it more accountable for the harm that comes to those who are more vulnerable because they aren't developed enough to see what is happening to them.

[_sunstoned]

So again, it comes back to the experience(s) of these great men. I think that is a 'part of the equation' that is often left out by the critics. They present a caricature of 'yes men' who have come up through the ranks and risen...like cream...to the top. And, BINGO!, they are set up fine and fancy for life.

The thing is, how do you then explain the firm/powerful testimonies that these men/women have? They are not...one would assume...automatons that haven't done their own thinking and made their own judgments. The quote from Elder Uchtdorf shows this to be true. Critics would say that is the fame/glory/money that acts as the motivating force behind what these men do. I think that is a very simplistic way of viewing these folks.

Their EXPERIENCE...spiritually and intellectually...has brought them to the place they arrive at when they are called as a GA.

Think about this: How long would they survive...behind closed doors...if they were somehow 'faking it'?

Regards,
MG

It is called "church broke". Just like a trained horse. To become a candidate for one of the top slots requires you to be totally committed to the corporation. On the climb up the ladder: Bishop, High Council, Stake President, Mission President, etc. They had to show full commitment, which means doing everything asked of them, and 100% agreeing with church policy and everything the leaders say. These guys were vetted every step of the way. One small slip, one public comment that might be taken as a negative, and its all over.

Of course the 1 Mil "loan" they get and never have to pay back is also a big incentive to toe the line.