I was reading Jana Riess' blog article about the recent church essays (this one specifically about polygamy) and came across in intruiging question posed in the comments section.

An anonymous commentor writes:

"I am curious as to why God would allow anonymous writers to write these essays when he has a perfectly good Prophet on the earth to speak on his behalf or even better write the essays…….it would give the essays more credibility."

I had never thought about that before! Why did the church ask regular people (or more likely the Church's team of professional writers) to pen these essays when they have the literal mouthpiece of God in the office down the hall? Surely if God wanted his sheep (and indeed THE WORLD through the internet) to know the truth behind all this polygamy business, why not go straight to the top dog? Can you imagine how the members would be falling over themselves with delight to read a statement like this written by the prophet himself? There would be shouts of hallelujah all across the globe! Or do members simply assume that any statment released by the church has the first presidency's stamp of approval (i.e. the prophet himself has proof-read it)?

To clarify, the commentor goes on the joke about Joseph Smith's claim that an angel with a flaming sword "forced" him to practice polygamy, so I hardly think this person is a TBM Mormon. Poor Joseph! He really wanted no part of it, but had no choice but to marry all those women!

If you're interested, the link to the blog article is here: http://janariess.religionnews.com/2014/10/23/5-facts-mormon-polygamy-wednesdays-controversial-lds-statement/

Why did God destroy Josephs Free Agency by sending the Angel with a sword?

Why didn't god just pick someone else who using their Free Agency would freely choose polygamy?

As for why didn't a Prophet sign his name to the essays, a prophet did not write the essays so why would he sign them?

A Prophet has more to do than write about the flecks of history.

They should pull the old seer stone out of the vault, blow off the dust, put it into a hat and get right to it.

They’re official declarations, just not that official.

Future plausible deniability.

The Holy Ghost wrote them (a bit problematic-typing without fingers).

He wasn't getting enough attention so they gave him an assignment.

- We receive "revelation" all the time!

- Is this specific text a revelation?

- Hum, well, you see, there's "revelation", and revelation. When we said we received revelation all the time, we didn't really meant "that" kind of revelation.

Everything that people claim as the word of god is poorly written and full of cruelty. The essays, while dodgy and riddled with fraud, just missed being nasty and stupid enough for Captain Planet to sign off on.

You always crack me up.

I had to say this because the last time I did, my girls said I was just full of nostalgic baby boomer sayings.


:)

Kathleen

Thomas Monson is just doing what has been done on other planets.

Gordon Hinckley was a modern example of the divine principle of Plausible Deniability, holier by far than Divine Progression.

He claimed not to know what was ever taught, being taught, had been taught...Monson can just point to a url. Or maybe have a lackey point for him.

Clearly the church has received its most important revelation of all time - Thus sayeth the Lord: mine prophet shall STFU.


Kathleen

PS. The talks the GA's give at General Conference can rightfully be deemed religious static.

"Captain Planet!" LOL

"Shallow be thy name," LOL!

Well, governmental leaders have speech writers, the LDS Church has ghost writers. Ya. That works!

It just occurred to me:

Why would Joseph have been so reluctant to enter into these unions if they were mere formalities, only meaningful after death? Would that require an angel with a flaming sword to persuade him?

Of course not! He was afraid of picking up an STD, so he had to be threatened!

That PROVES it was meant to be sexual!

Ya know that TBM Meg Stout lady who posted today that she doesn't believe Smith had sex with his plural wives. A rational, logical-thinking person should think about this:

If the "revelation on celestial marriage" didn't call for Smith to have sex with his "plural wives," there would have been no need for God to send the angel to threaten him and force him to practice polygamy---because if sex wasn't involved, Smith's sealings would have been merely spiritual/platonic ceremonies. There would be nothing improper, illegal, or illicit about polygamy in the least. Smith needn't have denied teaching or practicing it. A non-sexual sealing ceremony would have been no more improper than when two deceased people are sealed by proxy in a Mormon temple today. And polygamy would not have directly led to Smith's death.

But I'd bet that Meg Stout has never thought that far into it.

Thomas S. Monson is busy on a secret mission to stop Iran's nookleeurr program....ssshhhh!!!!

>>>>...it would give the essays more credibility."<<<

There's your answer. They don't want more credibility. They always aim for just enough credibility to get the job done in the present days, but not so much that they can't back away if needed later.

Like art conservators repairing a fragile antique or old painting, they want to make sure they only use glues and methods that can be undone easily at a future date

They learned their lesson the hard way long ago, when they needed to discontinue polygamy without renouncing it. Same with the curse of cain.

+1

The essays are anonymous so that everyone can throw their hands up and say "not me" ... "don't look at me"...

Manning up is not what the brethren are into.

The essays state what every mormon already knows, thus they are not "revelations". You didn't already know "all that stuff"? It's your fault for not studying hard enough. /end gas lighting

The essays were written by the Holy Ghostwriter.

Blessed be SweetSpirit for offering our new favourite term: "Holy Ghostwriter". Obviously, this needs to be included in the fine print of every upcoming issue of the Ensign.

It's the Orwellian world of Mormonism!

It reminds me when I was secretly visiting the Mormon history section of the public library during the time I was studying my way out. The Jehovah Witness history section was right before the Mormon section and the last book in it was "The Orwellian World of Jehovah Witnesses". That was the first time I encountered the word "Orwellian" applied to religion. Spot on.

Under the Joseph and Emma subject, the author states:

Joseph's journal, he wrote: “beloved Emma,” whom he described as “undaunted, firm and unwavering, unchangeable, affectionate Emma.”

Then the next paragraph the essay states:But Emma likely did not know about all of Joseph’s sealings. She vacillated in her view of plural marriage, at some points supporting it and at other times denouncing it.https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng

How can Emma be undaunted, firm & unwavering, unchangeable. Then they note that Emma vacillated and sometimes supported plural marriage and other times denouncing it?

Another "Wordplay" was the sentence-- The youngest was Helen Mar Kimball, daughter of Joseph’s close friends Heber C. and Vilate Murray Kimball, who was sealed to Joseph several months before her 15th birthday.

Several months before her 15th birthday?!?! Just admit that the child was 14. Do you think we're idiots who can't add?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/27/2015 10:17AM by dydimus.

I raised the same question in this thread. Someone started it saying the church essays contradicted what Joseph Smith said. Then he said he didn't want to ruin anyone's faith. Even though he was raising the central problem with Mormonism. I asked why they couldn't just ask the prophet what to put in the essays so they could get it right to begin with.

http://www.ldsfreedomforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=37089


"This quote above was given by Joseph Smith, one month before he was murdered. Our LDS Church released articles that state Joseph had multiple wives. This is clearly a contradiction, as Joseph's own words say he is innocent of that charge. I've read alot of things about him, and about Brigham Young, and others."