More up front? Yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see it.

But if they do, will they then also back off the lies or half truths they’ve been telling?

To take just one thing for example, if they start teaching that Joseph Smith used a peep stone to “translate” the Book of Mormon:

Will they then down play any significance of the Urim and Thummim and divulge that not a single word of the Book of Mormon was translated using the Urim and Thummim?

Will they get rid of the painting in the temple square visitor center of Joseph Smith perusing the golden plates as if translating them without his peep stone and his head buried in a hat?

Will they teach that the golden plates were not even needed since J.S. used a peep stone with his head buried in a hat; that they truly were not needed if J.S. was just going to stick his face in a hat and wait for inspiration?

Will they admit that the golden plates were not present when J.S. was doing his hat trick?

Will they teach that none of the witnesses actually saw or handled the golden plates; that they did not physically see or touch them, but that they only imagined they saw and touched them?

Will they back off their use of the word “translated?” J.S. did not read from the golden plates and translate the characters into English as the definition of “translation” means.

Will they actually change what they teach their members and what they have their missionaries teach potential converts in regards to the golden plates?

Will the entire story be changed from translating characters on golden plates with the Urim and Thummim to one of creating the Book of Mormon through inspiration or revelation with a peep stone in a hat and no golden plates?

Or are they going to keep telling both versions of the story and only diverge from the fantasy story when pressed?

It seems they are being forced to do something about all the historical information readily available, but I see this effort to gussy up true history as being just as damaging as their efforts have been to hide it.

Even if they somehow manage to reframe their history into a (relatively) more truthful version......they still stumble over the Book of Mormon which is clearly a work of fiction. Then there is the Book of Abraham, another fraud.

How can you more "truthful" about a fraud without completely destroying your credibility?

I would be surprised if much will come of the talk within the church about becoming more upfront about its history. There's no advantage in it for the church. Just because outsiders make the church look bad by pointing out its history, there's no reason that the church should want to make itself look bad as well.

The reason that is sometimes given for the church to be more forthcoming is to keep people from feeling that the church has lied to them. But the whole foundation of the church is lies. The church's leaders know, or should know, that honesty is fundamentally incompatible with its continued survival.

Not necessarily true. Look at every other Christian church in the world. Most are more open with their history, many have significantly more members than TSCC.

The entire Anglican Communion was founded on an English King's desire to get a divorce that the Pope wouldn't grant. This is taught in history lessons in schools the world over. Yet it doesn't stop 80 million people from attending church each week.

I wanna know / see what's in the FP Vault...


just sayin'

Trophy panties from all of JS's one night wives. Dr Bennet's abortion hook. And much, much more.

Will they start teaching the lives of Joseph Smith's other wives besides Emma? Heck, will they start telling Emma's actual story? I want to see a seminary lesson about stories like this:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-ZinaHuntingtonJacobs.htm

complete with Brigham's quote that...

"it was time for men who were walking in other men's shoes to step out of them. Brother Jacobs, the woman you claim for a wife does not belong to you. She is the spiritual wife of brother Joseph, sealed up to him. I am his proxy, and she, in this behalf, with her children, are my property. You can go where you please, and get another, but be sure to get one of your own kindred spirit"