The Book of Abraham essay was absolutely insulting to reasonable people. But after "test ballooning" some wild theories, the essay concluded by stating that nothing can be proven by scholarly debate -- the only way to know about BoA is to pray about it.

So, why did the Morg deviate from the BoA strategy as it tackled an even trickier topic -- Joseph Smith's polygamous liaisons?

Wouldn't TSCC have been better off saying something like this?

"The legitimacy of Joseph Smith's practice of plural marriage cannot be settled by scholarly debate regarding how he received his revelation, how many women were "for eternity" only, and other intimate details. There is a lot that we just don't know. The truth of Joseph Smith's calling can ultimately be found through careful study of his teachings, sincere prayer, and the confirmation of the Spirit."

I wondered this as well until I thought about it. They seem more open in this approach with this subject matter. (i.e. more people probably have a problem with this one.) In the BoA they didn't need to appear as open.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/23/2014 11:58AM by Elder Berry.

Because if anyone prays about whether Joe boinked a fourteen year old the only people who will get positive feelings are not the people they want to have around...

Because reformed Egyptian and cureloms never existed, those girls did.

Knowing the details of how polygamy was carried out in the early Church, most people could not pray and get a good feeling that it was commanded by God. The feeling one gets is a sick, distasteful, disgusted feeling.

No idea - just wanted to say I love your "new name." :)