= This file was downloaded from a Christian occult = = BBS, and should be regarded as susp

===========================================================
=   This file was downloaded from a Christian occult      =
=   BBS, and should be regarded as suspect in areas of    =
=   factuality. The Christian cult has seldom displayed   =
=   any aversion to lying to achive their agendas. drice  =
===========================================================

THE GODMAKERS II UNDER FIRE FROM WITHIN AND WITHOUT


    A real controversy has been raging in Salt Lake City
ever since the film "The Godmakers II" was shown at a
local church. The reason the film created such a heated
debate was that it openly accused the acting head of the
Mormon Church, President Gordon B. Hinckley, of committing
homosexual acts with another man and even with "feminine
looking boys... about fifteen or sixteen years old... just
little youngsters, babies." In addition, he was accused of
consorting with prostitutes.


LAWSUIT THREATENED

    On Feb. 25, 1993, the Salt Lake Tribune reported the
following: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints is threatening to take legal action against the
producers of the anti Mormon video 'God Makers ll.' The
video 'contains numerous false statements that violate the
privacy rights' of Gordon B.  Hinckley... said Salt Lake
attorney Patrick A. Shea this month in a letter to Patrick
and Caryl Matrisciana of Jeremiah Films Inc. The statements
in question, relating to the personal conduct of President
Hinckley, 'are entirely false,' said Mr.  Shea, who is
representing the LDS Church....

    Ed Decker,who narrated the film and helped research and
write it, said this is the first legal action the LDS
Church has threatened against them.

    Even before a lawsuit was threatened, a number of the
important ministries to Mormons informed us that they
would not carry the video because it was too sensationalistic
in its approach. Dick Baer, a prominent critic of the
Mormon Church, took issue with the contents of the film
when he was interviewed by a newspaper:

    "A local resident who played a major role in the
    production of a film a decade ago which classifies
    Mormonism as a mind controlling cult is distancing
    himself from the just released sequel.

    "Richard D. Baer...says the follow-up to the 1983
    movie... misses the mark. Baer says 'God-Makers ll' is
    sensational and dwells on the bizarre. Baer and Ed
    Decker... parted company in 1984, when Baer began his
    own organization to, he says, expose the radical
    differences between Mormonism and traditional
    Christianity...."

    "Ed has a penchant to sensationatize, embellish on
    facts and center on bizarre issues to try to shock
    people, ' Baer says.  'This film will so turn Mormons
    off it will be difficult to even talk to them.'

    "Baer is not the only LDS critic refusing to support
    the new film. For instance, Sandra Tanner, who has
    written many books about Mormonism,including one that
    convinced Baer to leave the church, is not endorsing
    'Godmakers ll.'" (The Sacramento Union, Dec. 26, 1992)

    As the article cited above indicates, Dick Baer did
play a major role in the first film. The reader may
remember that Baer was present with Ed Decker in the
lengthy scene at the lawyers' office.

Mr. Baer now operates Ex-Mormons and Christian Alliance,
PO Box 530, Orangevale, CA 95662. In 1986, the Public
Communications/Special Affairs Department of the Mormon
Church prepared a list of ten "CRITICS OF THE CHURCH." Mr.
Baer's name appeared in third place on that list. Because
of Dick Baer's role in the first film and his extensive
work with Mormons, his critical evaluation of The
Godmakers 11 is very significant.

    Before looking at the charges against President
Hinckley, we need to take a look at another part of the
video that throws some light on the question of whether
the material presented in the film was thoroughly
researched. In discussing the coming forth of the Book of
Mormon, the narrator (Ed Decker) asserted: "There is
strong evidence that in 1824 Joseph Smith actually had to
dig up the body of hls dead brother Alvln and bring part
of that body with him to the Hill Cumorah in order to
gain access to the gold plates on which were written the
Book of Mormon." To further illustrate this startling
claim, a repulsive looking drawing of a skeleton is shown!

The truth of the matter, however, is that there is
absolutely no evidence to support such an accusation. The
idea that Joseph Smith would consider digging up his
brother to obtain the plates actually came from the mind
of document forger Mark Hofmann and was set forth by him
in his infamous "Salamander letter." In Hofmann's forgery,
the "old spirit" told Joseph Smith to "bring your brother
Alvin [to the Hill Cumorah] Joseph says he is dead shall I
bring what remains but the spirit is gone..." The rest of
the letter, however, makes it clear that even Mark Hofmann
did not go as far as Mr. Decker in saying that the spirit
actually required Joseph to dig up his brother's body.

In 1987, Mr. Hofmann confessed to prosecutors that he
forged the Salamander letter. He, in fact, was questioned
about the very part of the letter that mentioned Alvin: "O
What about, 'shall I bring what remains', talking about
Alvin? A Part of that was from my own Imagination and part
was from... different stories that I tied together."
(Hofmann's Confession, 1987, pp. 441-42) Although Hofmann
believed that Joseph Smith was involved in magical
practices, he was not able to come up with any evidence
that Joseph Smith was commanded to bring his brother's
body to the hill. Since Hofmann's confession that he
forged the Salamander letter has been known for over five
years, it seems hard to believe that anyone would still be
maintaining that there is "strong evidence" that Joseph
dug up Alvin's remains to please the spirit. In any case,
the use of this discredited tale should alert the reader
to be careful about accepting statements in Godmakers II
without doing further checking .

Ed Decker and others who have brought accusations of
immorality against President Gordon B. Hinckley claim that
they have hard evidence to support the charges. Our
examination of that evidence, however, raises many
questions with regard to its validity. While we cannot say
with absolute certainty that there is no truth in the
accusations, on the basis of the evidence that we have
examined, we find the charges difficult to accept.  In
fact, we find it hard to believe that they would be made
public without some confirming evidence from more reliable
sources.

Lest the reader should misunderstand our position, we do
not wish to be considered apologists for President
Hinckley or the Mormon Church. In fact, in the last issue
of our newsletter we severely criticized Hinckley and
other church authorities for suppressing the McLellin
Collection from prosecutors in the Mark Hofmann case.
Nevertheless, we feel that it is our duty to present our
readers with well-balanced research on this issue.  We are
deeply concerned about such serious charges being made on
evidence that seems questionable. We are very sensitive to
this issue because we ourselves have been the target of
very malicious stories circulated by members of the Mormon
Church.

The evidence against Mr.Hinckley comes from four
individuals. The first is Charles Van Dam.  Mr. Van Dam
made many serious charges against Hinckley in a video
tape, made on July 17, 1988. He died of AIDS just months
after making his statement.  Van Dam maintained he had a
homosexual relationship with Hinckley that lasted from
"about 1964 to 1966."  He also claimed that Hinckley was
involved in sexual parties and "heavy drinking." Moreover,
he charged that Hinckley was "a frequent customer" of
prostitutes. Van Dam indicated that he procured
prostitutes for Hinckley and that "he wanted wild, kinky
girls...Girls that wouldn't mind being tor- tied [sic] up
and things like that. He was a kinky man.

According to Mr. Van Dam, Hinckley would provide the used
car lot he (Van Dam) worked for "a hundred thousand, two
hundred thousand dollars at a whack" and that "a lot of
it" went out to pay for the "girls and guys" involved in
the sexual encounters.  Finally, however, Hinckley was
supposed to have warned Van Dam and others to flee from
the state of Utah to avoid an investigation. Later, when
Van Dam was in Denver, he received money from Salt Lake
City that he felt "had to come from the church."  He
bought a liquor store and "two gay bars," and they were
used as fronts to launder" money for the people in Salt
Lake.  Eventually, however, the law caught up with Mr. Van
Dam.  He was called before a grand jury and "went to the
penitentiary for telling the grand jury to hang it in
their ear, that I wasn't going to testify against them
Salt Lake people."

A careful examination of Van Dam's interview raises
questions regarding his motive, reliability and
competency. For in stance, the video shows that he was
rather bitter against the Mormon Church because he had
been expelled trom the church. When Van Dam was asked why
he was excommunicated, he responded: "Homosexuality."
Although this would not necessarily invalidate Van Dam's
story, it does raise the question of revenge.  Moreover,
there is another element in Van Dam's story that seems
improbable. He claimed that Gordon Hinckley, the very man
he had previously had sexual relations with, chastised him
for his deviant behavior just before his excommunication !
Mr. Van Dam claimed that in 1969 or 1970, when he "went up
to the Church Office Building to be excommunicated - for
an interview," he found himself in the presence of
Hinckley who rebuked him for his homosexual lifestyle. Van
Dam claimed that he argued with Hinckley at that time: "I
told him, I said, how can you... sit in judgment on me,
when you're as big a queer as I am." Mr. Van Dam said that
Hinckley refused to listen to his argument, and he was
excommunicated. He went on to state: "They kicked me out
of the city - threatened my life."

It seems very hard to believe that if Hinckley really had
a homosexual affair with Charles Van Dam, he would turn
right around and help engineer his excommunication. As
strange as it may seem, Van Dam also maintains that the
church was giving him money to keep him quiet. If this was
really the case, why would Hinckley want to have him
excommunicated and risk having the whole story come out?
This does not make any sense.

One of the most disturbing portions of Charles Van Dam's
story relates to another encounter he supposedly had with
Hinckley before he was reprimanded in the Church Office
Building. Van Dam maintained that when he was living in
California, the following incident occurred: "I was just a
deacon... they wanted to elevate me to a priest, and in
order to do that they've got to have a General Authorlty
come down and Interview you, and he [Hinckley] came to the
stake presidency and to the stake conference..."  Van Dam
went on to state: "...when I walked in and saw him there,
I said, 'there is no way that this man is going to sit in
judgment on me.' "

To those who are familiar with Mormonism, this is a
preposterous statement. All worthy boys who are 12 years
of age can be ordained deacons. At the age of 14 they
become teachers, and when they turn 16 they are ordained
priests. While the office of priest is a very important
office in the Catholic Church, in Mormonism it is just the
third step in the lesser or Aaronic Priesthood. Every boy
who lives a worthy life is expected to become a priest.
Contrary to Van Dam's statement that "a general authority"
of the church has to "interview" those who would be
priests, the interview is conducted by the local bishop of
the ward in which the candidate lives. The General
Handbook of Instructions, 1983, p. 29, makes it very clear
that those who seek the otfice of "Priest, teacher, or
deacon" are "INTERVIEWED AND ORDAINED... By or under
direction ot [the] bishop."

Since it is highly unlikely that any such incident could
have occurred, a shadow of doubt is cast on the rest ot
Charles Van Dam's statements concerning Gordon B. Hinckley.
With regard to Van Dam's moral character, his own interview
seems to speak for itself.  He acknowledged participation
in criminal activity and admitted he refused to testity
betore a grand jury. His interview of July 17, 1988,
contains no evidence to show that he had repented of his
evil activities. In our opinion, viewing this video in its
entirety severely weakens Van Dam's story.  The Godmakers
ll uses short extracts from another interview, and, of
course, none of the problems found in the first video are
mentioned.

Another factor that needs to be considered when we look at
Charles Van Dam's story is his mental state at the time he
was interviewed.  One of the problems associated with AIDS
is that the patient can suffer trom dementia.  Dementia is
defined in The American Medical Association Family Medical
Guide, p. 296, as "an incurable disorder of the brain in
which there is a progressive loss of memory and other
intellectual functions so that the mind gradually ceases
to function normally and the affected person slowly
becomes increasingly confused, incapable of sensible
conversation, unaware of the surroundings and generally
incapacitated."  The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and
Therapy, 1977, p.  1542, says that sometimes a person
suffering from dementia may embark on foolish and
ill-judged, perhaps illegal activities..."

In the video interview, Charles Van Dam showed some signs
of confusion in telling his story. The interviewer tried
to explain why Mr. Van Dam was making confusing statements
by admitting that he had "dementia." When he asked Van Dam
to explain the disorder, he responded:"Well, it's a
forgetfulness that comes with AIDS... you lose contact in
reality in remembrances - in memory banks back years ago
and then all ot a sudden they'll come to you." While Van
Dam was able to talk fairly well, his own admission about
struggling with dementia raises the question of his
reliability as a witness.  The Godmakers ll is completely
silent concerning the fact that Charles Van Dam suffered
from dementia. Moreover, it does not mention anything
about his death.

We talked to three non-Mormons who were acquainted with
Charles Van Dam before he made the video attacking Gordon
B. Hinckley.  None of these men seemed to have any
personal knowledge about the accusations against Hinckley,
and all of them felt that Van Dam was unreliable.  One of
them, who worked at a used car lot with Van Dam, said that
he remembered Van Dam's wild stories concerning his
criminal activities. At that time, Van Dam was not
implicating the Mormon Church, but claimed he had been
working for the Mafia in Chicago. This man felt that Van
Dam was prone to telling tall tales.

In The Godmakers II three people were used to shore up the
charges against Hinckley. These witnesses - Viola (Vi),
Ben and Louie - all seem to be of questionable character.
William Claudin was present when these individuals made
the affidavits and has given us copies.  These statements
raise a number of problems that are not discussed in the
film.

The first affidavit, dated Sept. 17, 1988, was given by
Viola.  In her statement she admitted she was having "an
affair" with a married man who she said was Gordon
Hinckley's friend. She maintained there were "very kinky"
parties held at a "house on the East side" but she
"would'nt [sic] take part in it, so, I would have ______
take me home. I knew it was time to leave before the kinky
things started." This contradicts a statement by Van Dam
in his video.  He claimed that one night he came home to
find a very wild bisexual party going on and that Viola
was one of those he found on the premises.  At any rate,
she recalled that at one time Hinckley "was sitting next
to me on a couch with a drink in one hand and his arm
around a Girl with the other.... They then got up and went
into a bedroom.. . I was much aware of the use ot the
rooms and what went on inside." Viola made clear that
prostitutes were present at the "kinky" parties. In his
affidavit Louie said that "Viola ______ was a favorite of
the group...."

Viola apparently knew nothing at that time about a sexual
relationship between Hinckley and Van Dam, but she said It
does'nt [sic] surprise me now to know that Hinckley and
Chuck were Bed partners.

Viola admitted that when "the heat started to come down,"
she "left Salt Lake." While she does not give the reason,
in his video Charles Van Dam explained that he and his
associates fled to escape the law.

The second affidavit, dated July 8, 1988, was given by a
man named Ben.  According to Charles Van Dam, he was
involved in the scheme to "launder money" in Denver.  In
any case, Ben claimed that "one night in particular Chas
and I came to his house and found all the Bedrooms full -
His Booze all drunk and two additional people...on his
couch...Chas went Crasy [sic] - yelling[,] Screaming and
telling the [expletive deleted] to get. .. out of his
house. - I witnessed _____ & _____ and Gordon Hin[c]kley
running out the Door trying to Put on their pants over
their temple Garments - By the Way."

Ben's statement that Charles Van Dam chased Gordon B.
Hinckley out into the night under such embarrassing
conditions certainly seems hard to believe. As strange as
it may seem, Van Dam himself maintained that he did drive
Hinckley out of the house in the manner described above.

This does not fit well with the rest of Van Dam's story.
As noted earlier, he claimed that Hinckley was providing
hundreds of thousands of dollars to support the car lot
and the evil activities that were going on.  In another
place in the 1988 video he said that "the church was
definitely involved" in the matter.  In The Godmakers II,
Van Dam related: "I was personally involved with the
apostle Gordon Hinckley sexually. We became financially
involved in a house at 2213 Lakeline Drive. We bought the
house for a party pad, and Gordon Hinckley came up there
all the time and I had to arrange women for him, l had to
arrange booze for him."

In the 1988 video, Van Dam claimed that the money was
given to me" to buy the house that was to be used for
sexual purposes and that finally "the church took it back,
or someone took it back and they ended up selling it..."
According to his own story, then, it was not really his
house and he would not have the right to throw people out
who were using it for the purpose for which it was
intended.  lf Gordon Hinckley was really the benefactor,
as Van Dam maintained, it seems highly unlikely that Van
Dam would treat him in such a humiliating manner. In the
video Van Dam portrays Hinckley as a Mafia-like person who
would not hesitate to kill to protect his interests. lf
this were really the case, why would he allow Van Dam to
run him off from the premises without retaliating in some
way?

Ben's affidavit also raises an important question with
regard to when these alleged sexual activities actually
took place.  Viola set the time frame in "the early to mid
1960's, namely 1964 thru 1967..."  Charles Van Dam said
that his sexual encounters with Hinckley took place "about
1964 to 1966."  Louie's affidavit says that he partied "a
lot" with Van Dam, "especially from 1964 to 1966."  Ben
maintained that "Over a period of 2 1/2 to three (3) years
the activities took Place... The years of 1964 thru 1966
were the maln years that this part took place In Chas Van
Dam's house..."

Actually, nothing could have taken "place in" Van Dam's
house during the year 1964, nor in the first eleven months
of 1965, because the Salt Lake County Abstracts book and
the real estate contract for the house show that it was
not purchased by Van Dam until Dec.1, 1965.  This, of
course, does not rule out the possibility that these
activities were taking place at the car lot or at other
locations.

One very important omission in The Godmakers II is that it
never gives any indication of when these sordid affairs
were supposed to have taken place. The reason may be that
the producers did not want viewers to know how long ago it
was that these events allegedly occurred. If we can
believe Van Dam's statement that they took place "about
1964 to 1966," then it is clear that twenty-six to
twenty-elght years have elapsed!  Although Mr. Van Dam was
suspicious that Hinckley was still involved in sinful
behavior, he furnished no evidence that this was the case.
His story concerning the sexual transgressions ended in
1966. In fact, Van Dam admitted that in his last
conversation with the church leader, he (Van Dam) was
rebuked because of his homosexual behavior and told to
"change my ways." The Godmakers II presents no evidence to
indicate that Hinckley is engaging in sexual sin at the
present time. Also we doubt the propriety of exposing sins
that are alleged to have happened so many years ago on
such unsubstantiated accusations.

In The Godmakers II Ed Decker said that Bill Claudin was
responsible for the research on Hinckley.  In a letter
dated June 20,1990, Claudin claimed he had "more recent
evidence against Hinckley: "An audio tape is available
containing testimony from one of the call glrls who
regularly sexually serviced Gordon B. Hinckley during the
more recent late 1980's.  "The producers of The Godmakers
II must not have put much stock in this witness because
she is not mentioned in the video.  The reason her
testimony was omitted might relate to Hinckley's age.  He
was born June 23,1910, and therefore would have been in
his late 70's at the time.  This, of course, makes her
claim more difficult to believe.

As noted earlier, the last witness used in The Godmakers
ll was named "Louie."  He also gave an affidavit on August
9,1988.  In the 1988 video the interviewer asked Mr. Van
Dam if Louie was a "pimp." Van Dam replied, "Yes."  In his
affidavit Louie claimed he worked with Van Dam at the used
car lot.  While he said he saw Hinckley "probably 5-6
times" at the car lot doing business, he did not speak of
Hinckley being involved in any evil practices.  In The
Godmakers II Ben said that Louie would bring prostitutes
to Van Dam's house: "Louie would bring up four or five
girls at a time - bring them to the door. Mr.  Hlnckley
amongst other people were there."  Although Louie said
that he saw "bishops and other Mormons "going there or
leaving there," he did not identify Gordon Hinckley as
being at the parties.  In his affidavit he confirmed that
he did supply "girls - But cannot say If he (Hin[c]kley)
was useing [sic] the girls." He went on to say: "I never
saw Hlncley personally envolved [slc] wlth the women[.]"
Like Viola and Ben, Louie seemed to know nothing about a
sexual relationship between Hinckley and Van Dam.

In The Godmakers ll Louie claimed that he brought
prostitutes to the "exclusive neighborhood in Salt Lake"
and that "basically most of the girls they requested me to
bring to them were black girls. And most of them were tall
and kind of lanky." I n her affidavit, Viola said: "I know
that Louie brought the black prostitutes to the parties,
he always had to go out and get them for the Guys....
_____ and Gordon always seemed to like the Black women."To
those of us who are aware of the change of doctrine
concerning blacks, it is very difficult to give credence
to this accusation. During the 1960's Mormon Church
leaders were denying blacks the priesthood and would not
let them marry in the temple. In addition they were
opposed to interracial marriage. Because of their
"anti-black doctrine," which they attributed to God, they
were openly criticized in the press.  While almost
anything is possible, it is very difficult to believe that
one of the highest officials of the church would be
carrying on with black prostitutes in front of a number of
individuals who might betray him. Even if the prostitutes
did not recognize him at first, they might see his picture
in newspapers and on television.  This hypocritical
behavior would cerlainly raise the possibility of either
exposure or blackmail.

The Godmakers II charges that there has been an
"extraordinary media blackout" which "stopped the hottest
story of the 80's concerning one of the top Mormons in the
world."  Actually, the truth of the matter is that the
news media felt that the story was not credible.  We were
pressured to break the story in our newsletter about four
years before The Godmakers II appeared.  It was felt that
if we published it, the controversy would be picked up by
reporters.  We refused the offer, and on Jan. 17, 1989 we
published an attack against the story entitled, "A
Statement Concerning Some Charges of Immorality Made
Against a Mormon Leader.  Since we did not feel that it
was right to reveal Gordon Hinckley's name, we referred to
him only as "Elder Accused."  Because of the sensitive
nature of the subject and the fact that we might
unwittingly add fuel to the fire, we did not advertise the
publication.  We did, however, give copies to various
ministries working with Mormons and people who asked about
the charges against Hinckley.

Steven Naifeh was also asked to break the story. The
reader will remember that Naifeh co-authored "The Mormon
Murders", an anti Mormon book referred to in the Godmakers
video.  Although Naifeh pulled no punches in his attack on
Gordon B. Hinckley in the book, he informed us that he
simply could not believe the evidence presented with
regard to Hinckley's sexual improprieties and therefore
had no interest in breaking the story.

In a "Spedal Update Report," printed in January 1993, Ed
Decker candidly admitted that The Godmakers II "is not a
film to use in wooing Mormons." ln our opinion, the use of
Charles Van Dam's story distracts from the real reasons
why one should oppose Mormonism.  To focus on
unsubstantiated charges against one of the LDS leaders
comes across as sensationalism.  It seems to encourage
Christians to approach Mormons with derision instead of
compassion, and, as Dick Baer has stated, it will "so turn
Mormons off it will be difficult to even talk to them."

The case against President Hinckley seems to be based on
some very questionable statements.  Since there is no hard
evidence to support the accusations, we would advise all
those working with Mormons to refrain from disseminating
the story.  Even if absolute proof should turn up, a
Christian would still have to consider the fact that
twenty-six to twenty-eight years have passed since the
alleged offenses occurred and there is always the
possibility that there was repentance and a change of life
style during that interval.

If it could be established that the Mormon Church is
secretly promoting a doctrine of polygamy, adultery or
homosexuality, then it would undoubtedly be our Christian
obligation to bring the evidence to light.  As it is,
however, we only have charges that one General Authority
in the Mormon Church has engaged in sexual behavior that
is forbidden by the church itself.  Mr. Van Dam never
suggested that Hinckley taught that this was church
doctrine or that he had the approval of other members of
the church hierarchy.  While we feel that it is important
to expose Joseph Smith's doctrine of polygamy which played
an important role in the early history ot the Mormon
Church, we seriously question whether Christians should be
involved in diseminating unsupported charges of
immorality.