NOM

So it's been kind of quiet around here lately - I nicked the list below from Reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... g_the_q15/). Personally I think whoever did this was being pretty generous, I am curious about what the rest of you think:

Here's my rating list, with explanations. I'd love to hear your thoughts about these 15 "inspired" men.

1 - Henry B. Eyring - Seems like a really nice guy who has been deceived

2 - Dieter F. Uchtdorf - Appears to actually care about other people

3 - Jeffrey R. Holland - Also seems like a nice guy, but more passionate

4 - Gary E. Stevenson - Probably would be having a great time with grandchildren if not so busy

5 - M. Russell Ballard - Nice guy, very grandfatherly, hard to escape with his family

6 - Neil L. Andersen - Nice but a bit too second coming obsessed

7 - Gerrit W. Gong - Comes across as nice, but too new to really tell

7 - Ulisses Soares - Same boat as Gong

9 - D. Todd Christofferson - Weird balance of bitter fruit & treating his brother kindly

10 - Ronald A. Rasband - A tad on the smarmy side

11 - Dale G. Renlund - Generally nice, but judgemental

12 - Russell M. Nelson - Smart but emotionally stunted

13 - Quentin L. Cook - Lawyer through and through

14 - Dallin H. Oaks - Toxic, but at least I think he comes by it honestly

15 - David A. Bednar - Somehow a jerk and really boring at the same time

I agree it’s been too quiet around here.

I also agree on the generous rankings.

I fully believe that the Q15 perpetuate dual personalities. One for the public apostleship image and their natural ego driven personality. Let’s be honest and recognize these men have been driven in their personal and professional lives and have been successful in some form or fashion. You just don’t ascend to the top of a large religious organization without having some skills and ability to make and keep allies and also step over competitors in your way to the top.

I’m sitting here trying to come up with my own rankings but after 30 seconds I realize it’s pointless to do so. In the end they all represent and support an institutional dishonest religion that takes people’s hard earned money, their Inherent right to sexuality, and their ability to think on their own.

So who cares if Elder Gong is nice or if Elder Uchtdorf is charming? These men are peddling a dogma that is toxic to members who no longer believe. Just look at all of us here over the years who have been emotionally hurt by this organization. Those of us who have been trapped by the love for our families. Those of us that are stuck listening to the rantings of these men who fully believe they hold moral authority over us.

They all fail. Every single one in my ranking system fails to meet my decency standards.

However for the sake of conversation and posting I’ll categorize them into two groups.

Dangerous: (in order...)

Nelson - Rebrands for ego and control; to adjust policy that long bothered him but is inconsequential. Polygamous pimp.

Oaks - lawyer, anti-homosexual, undercover BYU police tactics, shock therapy. dangerous dude. Could be cast as evil villain in 99.9% of movies featuring an evil villain.

Bednar - overall asshole and iron fisted ruler with an ego. The way he treats his own wife nauseates me. He’s the psychopath in the movies that terrorizes the small town while acting concerned at the town hall meeting. The school task master with custom made spanking paddles in his desk drawer.

Cook - lawyer, generally dishonest, does the dirty work, enforcer. He’s probably the guy running the church’s secret police unit now that Oaks is in the FP. Personally sits outside Radio Free Mormon’s podcast studio in a black van full of surveillance equipment bought on the black market with your tithing dollars.

Rasband - smarmy snuggler who kisses ass, ogles the attractive Relief Society president from the stand, and takes two helpings of funeral potatoes fully knowing there’s not enough for everyone.

Ballard - dishonest intuitional old timer, peddling the gospel topic essays knowing they don’t answer real questions. Loveable Grandpa on the surface, would easily slit your throat if you were a threat to him, his family name, and his legacy.

Holland - depressed angry man living with the side effects of long term denial and cog dis, peddling a cure, wouldn’t hesitate to run you over in his giant SUV in defense of the BOM.

Uchtdorf - too fake, overly charming, fully drinks the Kool-aid, would easily fly a plane into a building if the Prophet commanded him to just so he could tell the plane story in conference. Possibly exaggerates his German accent knowing the Sister Missionaries idle his vocabulary and are hung on every word. Does have nice hair.

Christofferson - chooses church over gay family, pretends to be outwardly righteous and smug because Christ is in his name, probably stole those Mr. Mac suits.

Likeable bland administrators:

Gong, Eyering, Stevenson, Soares, Anderson, renlund,

That’s my list.

I feel like being nice, but it seems they shirked their duty to Captain Moroni during the election. How do they choose their moral stands, anyway?

Ha! I like your list better RR.

And I like your categorization system, because while everyone one of them fail to meet my decency standards as well, some are dangerous and some are just cogs in the machine. And of the dangerous ones, clearly Presidents Nelson and Oaks are the dangerous ones with the power, but in some ways I think President Uchtdorf is the most dangerous of them all - in the words of Tolkien, to me he's the one who "seem(s) fairer and feel(s) fouler". There's no question President Oaks is a dangerous sanctimonious power mad bigot - he reminds us of that whenever he opens his mouth. President Ucthdorf, on the other hand, goes down a lot smoother, but is just as rotten underneath, he's just better at PR. At least President Oaks doesn't pretend to be anything other than he is. President Ucthdorf is the smoothy who convinces you he's your best friend as he steals you blind.

Not sure I'd put President Eyring in the "likeable bland administrators" category though - his emotionally manipulative on-demand crying may be more annoying than dangerous, but its manipulative nonetheless. And Elder Anderson's "Give Joseph a break" speech was enough for me to put him squarely in the dangerous column - I say anybody who is that obvious about trying to get people to overlook the red flags is dangerous.

But then again - they are all dangerous in the sense that they keep people chained to a lie, and try to keep them from finding out the truth. Every one of them would have you waste the rest of your life slaving away for the Church. And that, my friends, really is dangerous.

I agree with your assessment with Hal and Anderson but felt that my emotional disdain wasn’t pinged by them as much.

Ironically reading that thread over on reddit made me realize that today’s bland like-able administrator is tomorrow’s dangerous power “leader”.

They’ve been vetted and determined to be church broke more than enough to get called up to the Red Chairs, and the pattern shows that if they stay seated in one long enough they will become like their predecessors before them.

Soares may easily become the Brazilian Sausage King leading the church with an iron fist by 2050 assuming he lives to be 88 and remains in good health.

Or he may be the guy that ushers in the Brazilian butt lift, bikini thong, and wax regimen that ushers out the garments and forces every member of the church to embrace their sexuality to bow their head and scream Ay, Caramba!

Ay know what Ay’m praying for!

Obstinate Twin Bird wrote: ↑Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:40 pm I feel like being nice, but it seems they shirked their duty to Captain Moroni during the election. How do they choose their moral stands, anyway?

There you go again with your "do good in the here and now" yardstick of measurement. It is the "Pie in the Sky" stuff that is important; along with a white shirt, tie, a firm testimony of knowing it is all so true, and Ensign Peak Investments.

I think they are very human, just like the rest of us. The problem becomes when they and/or their followers try to convince each other that they have special powers that are not to be questioned. Sadly, this seems to me to be their #1 priority.