The LDS Corp wants a US President, to legitimize it. All the crazy info on mormon history will cost Romney many votes.

Will the Prophet come clean next Conference and admit errors of doctrine and character in the LDS past?

I agree with the poster in a previous thread who predicted that they will TALK about being more forthcoming and blah, blah, blah... without actually doing so in any significant way.

They will do as they have always done. Lie for as long as they can get away with it and then tell the truth with massive amounts of spin, but only when they can't keep it hidden any more.

This is how it happened with polygamy. JS, BY and the boys lied about it and said there was no such thing. Only after it was obvious to the whole world did the Church admit it, years after JS introduced the "doctrine."

This is how it happened with Adam-God. Apostle and Church Historian Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote that BY was just misunderstood. Only after historians and critics got the truth out beyond doubt did the Church start spinning the "He was speculating . . . only expressing an opinion . . . we can't know what he meant." etc.

This is how it happened with the different versions of the First Vision. They used to brag about how Josephs Smith told one, simple story and never changed a thing. Only AFTER the critics and historians pointed out the different versions that the Church had been trying to hide did they come out with the "well he was aiming it at different audiences . . . he never said ONLY one personage appeared." etc.

This is how it was on the Book of Abraham. The Church bragged that Joseph Smith could translate Egyptian. Then the papyri were found and only then was it "the papyri were a catalyst for revelation directly from God" etc.

So they will admit what everyone else knows but will spin the hell out of it. This idea of getting the information out there--letting it all hang out--could be done in a week if that's what they really wanted to do. However it will take a year or so to put enough spin on it. That's why this is a long-term project and not a change in their honesty. It's easy to start telling the truth. Imagine if you are asked, "just tell the truth," and you reply, "OK but it will take me a year or so to find the right way to present it to you." Do you think the other person would find that fishy? I know I would.

excellent analysis, baura.

No kidding. Try that in the bishop's office!

Give me a year or so bishop. I'll give you a great story about that if you just give me some time to put it together. HA! fat chance in hell.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2012 09:41PM by steve benson.

I used to work in public relations. Here's what seems like a plausible scenario to me.

The church goes to its PR firm and says, "They're on to us. Fix it."

The PR firm looks at the situation and has an internal meeting. They conclude that there's really no solution to this problem. But you never say things like that to the client. There's no money in it.

The PR firm meets with the church and says, "We can fix this, but it's going to take a lot of money, and it will be a long time before you will be able to see the results." So the PR firm is lying to to the church to make money, promising to fix the problem created by the church lying to the members to make money.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/05/2012 09:54PM by oddcouplet.