See http://mormonthink.com/
The Top Story on the front page: "Church to release answers to troubling issues - 6/3/13"

This came by way of Tom Phillips, managing editor, from an insider at the church.

Partial quote:

"MormonThink 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.

"The essays addressing historical concerns will provide more extensive details and will attempt to re-contextualize the first-hand source documents ..."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 08:50AM by Jesus Smith.

"Recontextualise"???

There is no context that makes collecting 14 year olds and other vulnerable women for your pleasure palatable!

Spin too late!

Can't you please show me the proof where the "marriage" was consummated between Helen Mar Kimaball and Joseph Smith?

I don't know if Wink Winks can show you any proof. I believe there is a statement by lil' Helen years later, wherein "if she had known" what was involved there.

Your question caught my eye because I believe this is the way the essay will no doubt deal with this sensitive issue, i.e. Pedophillia in our beloved profit. Where the proof it was consumated? Denial is not just a river in Eygpt, it also protects pedophiles.

Because God doesn't create useless things. God has to put people on the sun in Mormonism, so that it isn't a wasted space. Why would this same God then create marriage that did not have sex? That would just be a wasted marriage.

Indeed, the BoM teaches that the only reason God would ever allow polygamy is to "raise up seed." (Jacob 2:30) So either JS was sleeping with 14-year-olds, or his polygamy was in direct disobedience to his own scriptures.

For Me R Mormon 2,

There is a lot of info on this website and on MormonThink, you just need to ask. As far as HMK I just have a few questions, do you have any proof that there were no sexual relations? What was the purpose of the marriage? Did Joseph have sexual relations with girls of that age prior to his marriage to HMK? (Fanny Alger) Were there any prominent members of Joseph's church who thought that there were sexual relations happening? (William Law)

I could ask a few more but the bottom line is that there is no sex tape so for some there is never going to be evidence of Joseph's indiscretion. However, a preponderance of logic and evidence says that Joseph did have sex with his spouses and HMK was one of Joseph's wives.

Is it important to you that this be a slanderous accusation or can you see that LDS inc's falseness doesn't stand on Joseph being a horrible person but on his not being a prophet?

Not their underage lady bits.

And that's what makes him a prophet of god. A true gentleman.

So, why was he tarred and feathered again?

And if JS didn't actually consummate any of the plural marriages, why didn't he? And where is the revelation telling Brigham Young to do the exact opposite?

Presenting evidence for any of JS's kids through these marriages is problematic - but perhaps shows it was initially so much more clandestine and less palatable.

In the case of the Lawrence girls that was exactly what he was trying to do.

Small print may say all narratives are for information only and not to be construed as doctrine.

If they did something like that, they could unwittingly make many more members aware of the controversies, who'd previously had no idea of the issues.

If the church could safely* and convincingly address the "troubling issues", it would have done so many, many decades ago.

No one among us will expect to see anything but weasel words and idiotic rationalizations: the essence of mormon apologia since its inception.


*meaning without undercutting the testimonies of the membership.

Oh Crap...what if we are all wrong?? The church is going to make fools of us for doubting by pulling out docs from the President's vault that vindicate all their truth claims!

Yea, think about it. Pretend you are a senior advisor to Mormon Incorporated. You have tons of bad press and issues out there. What do other businesses do in that situation?:

1. Fire somebody, fix the problem. The church can't do that...Joe and Brig are dead. They could try excommunicating them post-humously, half serious here. They could denounce them as wrong. Never mind, they'd have to disavow everything they did, BOM included!

2. Deny that anything like was said/written down happened. Just enemies of the church doing their thing. They've kinduv tried this already though and it works 90% of the time but the other 10% is killing them and is likely to grow. So I don't think this will work.

3. Just come clean. We ain't what we claim to be, mistakes were made. The BOM is just good, clean, 19th century fiction with good teachings.


I think that's it. Honestly, going with number one may work. I mean not really with people like us, but maybe with 75% of the members.

Item #1

Stop saying you are the one true church. You're not.

Recontextualization. Some people use big words when little ones will work better. How about "spin?" or "lies?" Much easier.

This is going to be good. I'll go get some popcorn. Problem with covering a lie with another lie, is you only dig the whole deeper and wider.

It will also be interesting to see which historical controversies they ignore. If you can't come up with a good defense of something ignore it, then most brain numb Mormons will just assume it isn't a legitimate complaint, and will ignore it as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 11:09AM by forbiddencokedrinker.

This will be fun - can't wait to tear it up!

Jesus Smith's write up is more detailed but mine is just as accurate.

I wonder how they'll address the issue of whether the Restored Church looks anything at all like the 1st century Christianity?

You know,'cuz everything else aside, the church makes as its most fundamental tenet that it is THE true restoration of the original church created by Jesus Christ.

How many times do you think they'll mention how "all these critisms of 'the church' have already been dealt with many, many times" while never citing a source for their argument?

All you will ever see is a reprint of something that originated with FAIR OR FARMS . Nothing new here .

Actually, my feeling is, the releases could marginalize FAIR quite a bit. FAIR did the "heavy" lifting the GAs didn't dare do since taking a stand on controveries would fix it in divine revelation (or leadership mandated interpretation). That's risky to a group of men who know they don't actually bask in God's presence.

However, where does FAIR stand if the GAs stamp their own name on apologetic material answering the issues?

The claimed authorship of the essays is still TBD.

Here are 17 bales of delicious hay grown just for you, now go back to sleep, flock of sheep. Pray, pay, and obey.

This is what happens when generation F tries to communicate in a generation Y world. They seem to think that 17 essays will placate people in the information age, when their site is just one of dozens people might consult for information about a subject.

It is laughable. Who knew that having a sea of ancient worthies would someday help in the downfall of organized religions? They have been controlling the message for so long that they cannot conceptualize a global free speech zone.

They don't understand the availability of data. They don't seem to understand that theirs is just one site people will find in a search. Can't play whack-a-September Six. Prop Hate will work one time and there will be serious fallout.

The "institutions" that have so long relied on secrecy and monolithic ideas and information control are the ones that fall hardest when information cannot be controlled.

Gutenberg's press planted the seeds for a literate populace that gave the finger to clerics. The internet is Gutenberg's press on everyone's desk, and the monolithic cultures are falling hard. Bewildered.


And so they turn to a word like recontextualize. Really? Did they focus group that word? Do the geezers not know about the word "spin." They could go Orwell and say "clarify." Or invent "truthify."

It is a pity the Bush administration rode the concept of "faith-based reality" into the ground. The major "religions" of the world can't recontextualize or rehabilitate that verbiage and it would have been so useful.

I can name reduce that six-syllable tune to three letters. L-I-E.

Cannot wait to read those propaganda pieces they will call "essays."

Jesus Smith, I'd like to ask a really big favor of you,
or anyone else who may be able to provide the following.

Before TSCC comes out with their "so called" answers
I'd love to have an itemized list of the methods of obfuscation
they are most likely to use. This would allow me, and perhaps others,
to more easily analyse TSCC's answers by recognizing their tatics of subterfuge.
For example, "Oh, yeah. That's #7, a "Run-On Sentence"
that's obviously designed to muddy the water and confuse the reader.

This list (for example: items 1 through 20) would prove to be an invaluable aide
in bresking down their answers, sentence by sentence.

Thanks in advance to you or anyone else who can provide such a list.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/03/2013 12:00PM by heretic.

I would greatly encourage you to watch the following youtube vid as an intro to the methods used to obsfucate the message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBXxJJfX3Nk

And for even more depth, watch the psychology of belief series by the same author. Episode 10 is a great summary.


http://www.youtube.com/user/AntiCitizenX?feature=watch

"One of the purposes of a prophet is to seek the wisdom and the will of the Lord and to teach his people accordingly. It was the case with Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was the case for the Old Testament prophets when people were faced with oppression and trouble and difficulty. That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves. That is what happens. That is what we see happen. Is it a matter of expediency, political expediency? No! Inspired guidance? Yes!"
(1996 General Conference) http://mormonthink.com/prophetsweb.htm#purposeofprop

Says right there "That is the purpose of a prophet, to give answers to people for the dilemmas in which they find themselves."

Well, these are the dilemas that the members are currently finding themselves in. I can't wait for the prophet to actually finally use his prophetic powers and give us the answers we've all been waiting for.

"re-contextualize the first-hand source documents" -- as has been noted by other commenters, WTF?

Nice way to announce that they are planning to use first-hand documents in a completely unprofessional manner that will give real historians a fit.

Wow...I knew TSCC has been worried about the hit their membership has taken from Mormonthink, but this just proves they're running scared! I can't wait to see how they're going to "re-contextualize" Joseph Smith the con-man. I just want a front row seat to watch them self-destruct.

>>>I just want a front row seat to watch them self-destruct.


I'll supply the popcorn.