Hi, Tom--

You definitely piqued my curiosity with your statement in reference to the post about the anonymous authorship of the Mormon Cnurch's recently-released essays on Blacks, polgyamy, etc.

You wrote (and, btw, I appreciate your kind words):

"Thanks, Steve. MY SOURCES ALSO CORROBORATE THIS. [emphasis added]

"The gig is up and some of the 15 know that it is and are trying to change direction. Others will go to their graves kicking and screaming, too proud to admit the errors.

"They are in a Catch 22. Time and information availability completely discredits their truth claims. Yet, for them to admit the obvious 'Joseph made it all up,' throws out their only 'unique selling point.'

"Core doctrines are relegated to being 'policy' and mistaken cultural understandings of the time.

"I joined the Church because I was convinced Joseph spoke to God, as did the successor prophets. Fool me once......

"The gig is up but cowardly, proud, greedy men are perpetuating a fraud upon the innocent and the gullible. Shame on you self-proclaimed Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.-

"Your time of reckoning is fast approaching. There will be 'wailing and gnashing of teeth' amongst you--thanks to the likes of Steve Benson, who has done more for the cause of truth than his prophet grandfather ever did.

"Tom"

("Re: AUTHORSHIP OF THE MORMON CHURCH'S ANONYMOUS ESSAYS ON BLACKS, POLYGAMY, ETC" [original emphasis], posted by Tom Phillips, "Recovery from Mormonism" discussion board, 21 December 2013, at: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1114123,1114260#msg-1114260; for the original post to which Tom is referring, see: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1114123,1114123#msg-)1114123}

**********


If you can, Tom/"anointedone," please shed whatever sourced light you can on the production process involved in the authorship of these faceless, fact-twisted Mormon Church essays.

Thanks.



Edited 14 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2013 08:36PM by steve benson.

Steve, as you appreciate, I cannot reveal sources without specific permission from those sources.

People have to be protected for fear of repercussions with family, employment etc.

I will, however, copy below from an email I sent to the MT team on June 2 regarding this matter, leading to a news release that was posted on the site:-

Below is a suggested draft of a MT news release by my source who does not want to be named publicly at this time. I think it is brilliant and wouldn't change a word, but what do you guys think? I have copied the whole email without his name. The suggested release is in quotes then there is a para, FYI concerning a follow-up.

What do you think and can we put this on the site, or a version of it?

Exciting times.
Tom

"Mormon Think has learned from multiple reliable sources that the LDS Church will soon begin publishing on the official church website a series of at least 13 essays addressing controversial historical church topics. The rising tide of accurate, first-hand historical source documents available for faithful members to research on the internet has forced the LDS General Authorities to move beyond giving shallow answers to the issues these documents raise.

These historical re-write essays will provide more extensive details and will attempt to re-contextualize the first hand source documents regarding topics that the church deems most problematic for its members. Among the first essays approved by the First Presidency and slated for release at this time will be the multiple, differing accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision - a subject that will undoubtedly catch many lifelong members by surprise as most will learn about these alternate, conflicting First Vision accounts for the first time. http://mormonthink.com/firstvisionweb.htm#therareseveral

We are encouraged to hear that the church leadership is finally acknowledging the reality of the varying historical accounts, and is making what appears to be a good-faith effort to share this factual information with the general church membership. It is our hope that they will be forthright regarding all aspects of the historical record, and we encourage faithful members to explore the information and source documents objectively to determine if the interpretations the church provides are the most probable or likely interpretations."

Then you could talk about your plans, for example "We at Mormon Think will be certain to examine these essays for historical and contextual accuracy and provide the most relevant and accurate information to our readers for a balanced review of the topics addressed."

FYI, I thought that we should leave out the fact that we know who is writing them to see if the General Authorities try to take credit for the essays. If they do, then we can spill the beans that the essays are being written primarily by {deleted for this RFM post}

Let me know if this works for you! PS - I'd prefer not to be named at this time.

Steve, note that in the email it states "we know who is writing them to see if the General Authorities try to take credit for the essays".

I don't know if this helps you in any way. I am happy to talk privately with you, off the record. Alternatively I can seek permission from sources to be more open. I know one is far more vocal than he was in May, but I would have to check as to how open he is currently willing to be and the impact it may have on one of the authors.

I personally would not protect such an author, as he was hired to deceive and that is what he has done. That warrants no protection in my book but, as I said I would have to check because I do not wish to cause harm to those who are innocent.

Rest assured that I am not looking for names to publish of protected sources (keeping their identities confidential, if they so request, is important in situations such as this).

I was asking, of course, about what your sources were--and are--telling you about the primary authorship of these essays, in so far as what you can make public. I appreciate you indicating that one of your sources knows who these individual authors are. (I have also, as noted in a previous post, been reliably informed as to some of their identities but, at the request of a source of mine, have not published them).

I am interested in how the production process of these anonymous essays worked--i.e., what group(s)/committee(s) were assigned the task of writing them; who assigned them the task of writing them; and what direction/oversight they were given from their superiors for writing them. It would also be informative to know, if possible, what these authors thought of the assignment given to them, as far as its purpose and results were concerned.

Any success you may have in getting your own sources to, as you say, "be more open" about this and any other aspects related to the circumstances surrounding the crafting and publishing of these essays would be appreciated.

At your request, I will not reveal you name, either (although if interested Mormon Church parties are reading RfM, they will likely see our exchange here). I would appreciate talking with you privately. You can obtain my email from RfM administrator, Susan I/S, exmolight@gmail.com

Again, thanks.

Steve



Edited 19 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 02:22AM by steve benson.

This reminds me of FAIR and the church...

The church has a pattern of allowing trial balloons like these essays.

The members who receive them well can go on thinking they are church approved.

The members who receive them poorly can rest assured they are not official doctrine.

One thing the church has perfected is plausible deniability.

Thanks to you both for sharing information about these essays.

Yes, I don't really understand the motivation of the real authors. They should know they will eventually be thrown under the bus along with Brigham Young.

They feel honored at the moment, but one of the authors I know by name will sorely regret the career move he made.

. . . get on the Mormon God's bad side. After all, this is the same "One and Only True Church" that preached as God's official truth that sinners should welcome being spear-slain in their beds by the Mormon faithful, in order that the Mormon Jesus could then accept their personal human sacrifice for their personal sins:

--"[If] you found your brother in bed with your wife, and put a javelin through both of them, you would be justified, and they would atone for their sins, and be received into the kingdom of God."

--"[U]nder such circumstances, I have no wife whom I love so well that I would not put a javelin through her heart, and I would do it with clean hands."


--For those who have violated their covenants with God, "[t]he blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it" either in this life or the next."

(Brigham Young, 16 March 1856)


--"[If a person] overtaken in a gross fault [truly understood that] by having his blood shed he will atone for that sin, and be saved and exalted with the Gods," he would voluntarily ask to have his blood shed so he could gain his exaltation.

--"Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood?"

--"[I]f your neighbor] needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it."

(Brigham Young 8 February 1857)
_____


Let's see an essay on that. (No wonder these authors are anonymous).



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 02:42AM by steve benson.

the essays also raise some questions, particularly since they are unsigned.

Will they be published in Ensign? Will attention to them be promoted at gen conference?

Or are they meant to be buried and unscrutinized?

. . . although a different source of mine today chuckled and told me that the reason for the anonymity of the exercise was "obvious" (with which I agreed)--and at which point we began discussing the Mormon Church's desire to dodge ultimate responsibility at the top (which keeps their options open) while, at the same time, reassuring faithful members that the Church had officially responded to its critics through these essays (and, therefore, that the thinking has been done for them).

You know the drill.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2013 08:09PM by steve benson.

Presumably missionaries are allowed to read LDS.org. Will they be prohibited from reading the essays about controversies? If they do read them, how many will have a WTF moment and ditch their mission assignments?

Steve,

I was part of the group that would eventually be charged with writing "essays" for the LDS church. Out of good conscience as a non-believer, I left the group during the discussion stage. However, I was approved to write for them after being interviewed for it.

I'm not sure whom generated the current list of topics. There is something not right with the situation and only because of the anonymity of the articles. The hierarchy doesn't appear to want to take credit for them yet they are allowing the go ahead to publish. I don't get why they are allowing this. Again, this doesn't seem right and is "fishy."

I know the tech group had oversight, but I'm not sure just how far up the food chain it went. It seemed like we had a more supervisory "chiefs" than "indians" working on the assignments.

If you have any more details (which, ideally, you can confirm as best you can), please post them here.

Or if you would prefer, you can email me off-board, where we can discuss these matters on mutually mutually agreed-upon terms. My email can be obtained by contacting RfM administrator, Susan I/S: exmolight@gmail.com

During my interview, I asked what topics we were going to be covering for the articles, but the list hadn't been finalized yet. I recall being asked what topics I would like to write on. When I replied that I would like to write about the atonement, I was told to come up with subjects that are more "church related" or "historical."

I caught the tech group's attention because I had previously written articles for the mormon church.

Ha! I recall one gal just about demanding that she be my supervisor. I wasn't too thrilled with this situation because the way she phrased it was if I was being claimed by her and that the credit for the articles was going to go to her.

When I was a member of it, the tech group was staffed by a bunch of volunteer idealists ready to fight the giant single handedly.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2013 10:13PM by steve benson.

Just that one! Ha!

. . . sexist themselves.

Just sayin.' :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2013 10:58PM by steve benson.

LOL! I understand.

I may still have your email address: I pulled a Snowden a few years ago. :-)

Now I'm curious what you released!! You should change your forum name on here to "elder Snowden". Haha

Richard Turley is writing them, with the input of M. Jensen, the two historians sent to Sweden to save the Saints from apostasy. While the statements thus far are historically accurate, they don't address the questions that Perplexed Members and Investigators would have such as...

*Did Joseph Smith lie about being a polygamist?

*How could the Church teach the Curse of Cain doctrine for 130 years as truth and now as untruth?

*etc.

Turley and Jensen are NOT apologists, but historians. They don't try to answer the questions that disaffected and confused Members and investigators would have; leaving it to the poor missionaries to "handle" (as always) by saying: "Gee, let's talk about the Book of Mormon. Have you read and prayed about it?"

If I were borrowing from FAIR and the techniques of the old Maxwell Institute crowd, I would content myself with pointing out that neither Turley nor Jensen has training as a historian.

Both were attorneys in private practice before becoming Church employees...

Any surprise there? Historians are trained to research and provide objective interpretations of actual history. Attorneys are trained to represent the agendas of their clients.

"Attorneys are trained to represent the agendas of their clients."

Great point. They need to be referred to as the church's lawyers and stop referring to them as historians.

. . . what sourcing?

I'm not saying that what you are reporting is necessarily untrue; I merely wish to know by what means you are getting your information and the source(s) for that information, if you are in a position to know and to divlulge.

Thanks.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 01:10AM by steve benson.

If the current articles are being written by Turley and Jensen, they are not part of the LDS tech group as I know it (or knew it to be a year ago).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/23/2013 10:43PM by steve benson.

Hello?

Please keep up the good work Steve Benson. I am trying to free my entire family from the clutches of this cult. Its guys (and gals) like you that will make my dream a reality.

thx!

It's been mentioned elsewhere that the author (of the blacks and the priesthood essay) was possibly Margaret Young or Paul Reeve. Additionally, Elder Snow said directly to the source that "it's really all about inoculating the next generation. They are well aware that skeptics will likely not be satisfied with these answers or their choice of roll-out. It's there for members to see if they are planning lessons, talks, and I know that they are working towards integrating them with curriculum; particularly youth curriculum."

This was then followed up by the same source with this...

"And, btw, I no longer believe that Margaret Young authored the article. I won't mention who I'm now certain it was, but it's safe to say that there will be an extensive book published on the history of race in Mormonism coming from this individual in the near future."

"I'm fairly certain that the author put more quotes into the original draft, but by the time it got wrung dry by the church correlation committee, all that was left is what we have now. Look for a more comprehensive book to be published next year by Oxford Press on the subject of the history of race and Mormonism. Something tells me the author might be the same. ;) "



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 12:21AM by Bite Me.

. . . were also mentioned to me elsewhere--along with names of others who may have, or were likely to have, contributed to the research used in writing the essay, "Race and the Priesthood." I cannot reveal the names here because of a pre-agreement with a source of mine who provided me some names of those involved in producing the essays.

Suffice to say that more than one source seems to be pointing in the same direction as to possible identities of essay authors. None of these authors appear to have been members of the First Presidency or the Quorum of the Twelve. What we have here is "modern-day revelation" by correlated committee-- its Godhead being comprised of the Falterer, the Some and the Badly-Burned Toast.

What is the credibility of the source(s) to whom you refer? And what is the personal vantage point that would lend credence to these sources' name claims (if that can be made known here)?
_____


More sourcing background, please.

Where is the following information originally sourced from, and what is the source's vantage point? (The quote you provided appears to be an expanded version of your excerpt, the latter which is quoted below):

"The concern going in from the brethren was how to roll this out without creating a ]look at all of our problems] page. The brethren don't want to start faith issues where they don't currently exist, and they are correct that the majority of active and believing saints don't know or care about this stuff, particularly outside of Utah and the United States.

"The decision was made to incorporate them into already existing areas of the website and not do a big or campaign (outside of the organic interest that will naturally result). From a business perspective, it's probably a wise move. As 'Stealth' said, it's really all about inoculating the next generation. Elder Snow has said as much directly to me. They are well aware that skeptics will likely not be satisfied with these answers or their choice of roll-out. It's there for members to see if they are planning lessons, talks, and I know that they are working towards integrating them with curriculum; particularly youth curriculum."

("The Debate Over the 13 New Essays?, " at; http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=33954&)start=20



Edited 13 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 02:48AM by steve benson.

My guess is that they want to inoculate - give exposure (usually to a weakened form of the infectious agent) that builds resistance. That is how it will work for many who are already members, but for doubters and non-members what they may get instead however, is a catalyst that aids and accelerates reactions.

I wonder what their degree of confidence is? Do they think this is a roll of the dice, but still their best option? Are there those who would prefer to stonewall the whole thing? I am mildly curious about the internal politics.

My guess is that they are sacrificing future growth for current viability. As has been noted, current members in Utah probably won't care, but prospective members who do any homework are going to find this stuff and run for the hills. Those who are already invested in the church will get some peace of mind that "all those issues have been dealt with" but that isn't going to cut it with outsiders.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/24/2013 01:05PM by steve benson.

Steve,

This much I can disclose as it was posted elsewhere. Information I had but had agreed not to share. Now I can.

"Ahhh yes. These are the essays being worked on by co-author to the book Rough Stone Rolling, Jed Woodworth. He was hired in May 2012 to go be a full-time history-re-writer and give these sensitive issues a first class scrubbing. He dropped the PhD he was pursuing at UW-Madison to be a lackey for the Q of the 12.

He was my gospel doctrine teacher in the Madison Wisconsin 3rd ward.Let me guess...per his wife's email to my wife, I'm guessing that the first two essays will be "Joseph's Polygamous Wives" and "The multiple versions of the first vision". These two had already been approved by the Q of the 12 clear back in May, so they are taking their sweet time in publishing. I can't wait to send my friends to learn all about these hot topics from a source they think they should trust!!!

Tell the sweet Elder's Holland and Uchtdorf that we're so pleased that this is coming. We're anxiously awaiting the release and please don't get cold feet and back out now!!!
Maybe trying to publish all 10 essays at once?

Oh....and let me guess one other thing. I'm guessing the urgency they feel is in response to ... MT ... that has them frantically trying to cover their asses before people learn the full history for themselves as they casually drive down I-15...

This is what I (Tom) wrote to a source:-

"If this guy gave up his PhD to write nonsense like this, I pity him even more. It is a pathetic response, yet it will satisfy so many TBMs who will now be able to say the church has answered that issue. How blind are those who cannot see."