Looks like the Mormon essays have finally hit the judge report with this catchy headline:


It’s Official: Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/us/its-official-mormon-founder-had-up-to-40-wives.html?_r=0

The NY Times article has a footnote stating this will be printed on the FRONT PAGE tomorrow.

This could get very interesting.

"This could get very interesting."

One can only hope. But the unfortunate thing is that the article is "soft" and primarily repeats what the essay said. It doesn't cover what the essay didn't say. Which is unfortunate for the NYT.

Comments section should be fun.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a comments section... I looked :)

Comments section perhaps can be purchased and removed for the right amount of money. I have become so cynical because of this stupid Church.

"This could get very interesting."

It won't. One thing I think this board is very naive about is how little bad publicity matters for TSCC. Sure there's a few people here and there it affects but nothing on a grand scale like so many people here seem to want to predict.

"One thing I think this board is very naive about is how little bad publicity matters for TSCC."

That may be somewhat true. But if nevermos know about this and ask TBM friends, then it's going to put the TBM on the spot. I really do think that a lot of shelves are going to be loaded and some will break over this. How many overall... I do not know. But there will be an impact.

I hope this wakes up my daughter who converted 6 yrs. ago and this is one issue I tried to get her to accept as true.

Wrong. There are reasons people are vacating mormonism. Great publicity like this is helping the greatest exodus since kirtland. Enjoyable. :)

> Great publicity like this is helping
> the greatest exodus since kirtland.

Hey, thanks for the shout-out :)

I think you might be the greatest exodus since Moses.

I don't know if the leadership or members care. However, for the public in general, particularly those who read the NYTimes, the angel with the sword puts Smith in the company of L. Ron Hubbard. An ANGEL made you do it?

Simply reading the story, however much they include the cult's spin, makes the story untenable. And more: he was going behind Emma's back, what she did know about it, she didn't like.

This reporting illuminates the straight line between J Smith and Warren Jeffs. It underscores that Smith was no Martin Luther.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2014 08:00AM by Lorraine aka síóg.

Agreed. He's done a bad bad thing. And now the rest of the world knows it.

I have to disagree with exldsdudeinslc. Bad publicity (and the fact that cojcolds is goofy and corrupt) is the reason they're publishing these essays, digging themselves in deeper an deeper. Bad publicity is why their national growth rate is stagnant or in decline. The cojcolds can't afford any more bad publicity, especially if it's showing up in the NY Times.

Sure, they're not about to implode. It's more of a gradual erosion.

“We need to be truthful, and we need to understand our history,” Elder Snow said.

The why aren't we then? Hmm?

Implicit in that statement is the admission that they haven't been in the past...

You have known the truth a long time and did not care...now we are to feel good that you are coming out with the facts. No, you deceived people.

to all the essays as they referred to them throughout the article.

Nobody reading this article will have trouble finding the essays.

OK, that's 7 more than I know/heard of!

Somehow I had the feeling that LDS Inc meant for these essays to be more quiet. Something along the line that local management such as bishops could send members with questions as if LDS Inc was being very open with this.

I do not think that these essays were meant for either public consumption or critical thought.

I certainly do not think these essays were intended to be on the front page of the NY Times.

I think the biggest loser in this is Mitt Romney.

Deco is correct. The church didn't want these essays to be reported by the New York Times or any other media outlet. They were solely intended for members who stumble upon these issues and gave questions. Therefore, I believe the church's strategy is backfiring.

It's like the Mormon leaders are saying, "Okay, we're honest now, see?" What were they before now?

They were the great deceiver....lying thieves!

How come this makes me so happy?

Come on, not even a year after polygamy was leaglized in Utah and they roll this out. They are getting ready to bring it back!

"Polygamy legalized in Utah"
????????

"The essays held nothing back, said Richard L. Bushman, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the book 'Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling.'"

The essays hold a lot back and are even a little misleading on some of the claimed facts. Bushman is such an apologist.

Hats off to NY Times - their coverage is much more accurate than the AP's story.

There's also this little turd from Bushman (emphasis added in CAPS):

'Dr. Bushman said of church leaders: “Somewhere along the line they decided they were just going to tell the whole story, NOT BE DEFENSIVE, not to try to hide anything. And there’s no single fact that’s more unsettling than Joseph Smith’s marriage to other men’s wives.'

I challenge Bushman to show me a single place in the essay where JS is not defended.

i had a laugh at Bushman's comments. I think the times disabled the comments because you know ces letter and the mormonthink essay response urls would show up. He'll even David Tweades exmo conference talk power point slides were good teaching aides.

From this link: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1427879

Posted by: texexmo ( ) Date: November 11, 2014 11:09AM
(Modified with some of the comments)

From the New York Times article:

“The essays held nothing back, said Richard L. Bushman.”

Except for the few details that were held back:

• That Joseph sent men on missions and married their wives while they were gone

• That several of the women Joseph married were his foster daughters .....with a substantial inheritance.

• That some of the marriages included promises by Joseph of eternal life to the girls and their families

• That some of Joseph’s proposals of marriage included threats of loss of salvation if the girls or women did not consent

• That Joseph was already a polygamist when the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published, which unequivocally bans polygamy

• In 1842, Joseph got 31 witnesses to sign an affidavit that Joseph did not practice polygamy. Several of those who signed were already practicing polygamy, including one of Joseph’s wives.

• That when women refused his advances, Joseph impugned their reputation with lies and slander
• That Joseph disregarded much of his own revelation on polygamy:

• According to D&C 132, polygamy is only permitted “to multiply and replenish the earth” and “bear the souls of men.” The Book of Mormon also states that God sometimes commands it to “raise up seed.” Yet the essay states that several of the polygamous marriages did not include sexual relations.

• D&C 132 states that the woman must be a virgin. The essay admits that several of the women were already married to other men. One of them was already pregnant from her first marriage when she married Joseph.

• Consent from the first wife must be obtained (though if she doesn’t consent, she will be destroyed). Joseph kept many of his marriages secret from Emma, which means she didn’t even have the opportunity to consent

• The woman must be completely monogamous after marriage or she shall be destroyed (even though several of Joseph’s already married wives continued to live with their first husband after marrying Joseph)

They are toast.

TBMs may not care if the NY Times carries it. To them, that paper is just part of the "lame-stream media" persecuting the poor, poor church. If Drudge has indeed picked it up, that will raise the story's awareness and credibility among the Mormon masses.

Now, if the story were to be broadcast on Fox News, that would truly make a difference. No TBM could ignore that kind of cred.

Drudge indeed has picked it up:

"Mormon Founder Had Up to 40 Wives..."

http://www.drudgereport.com/

This is going to be a pain in the ass for Romney... lol

all those nevermo conservatives will have a nice laugh over some the history they have known for years when they bothered to research TSCC. They are probably laughing and saying "well it is about damn time...and by the way here us the rest of the story".

went to link did not find story on drudge.

It's there now.

Fox is carrying it (with comments, which are always entertaining), here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/11/mormon-leaders-admit-church-founder-joseph-smith-practiced-polygamy/?intcmp=latestnews

This is great...I think Glen Beck's honeymoon with the cult will end and maybe will start drinking again!

at least shake his head a few times. Maybe even join a different church in Texas as he learns more about fucked up horny Joe.

or start his own cult called theblazecult!

"smart" to get out in FRONT of it..????......eh Yah 75 years later.... They are so damn forthright and magical to be able to go back to the future again and again.

lightenup Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "smart" to get out in FRONT of it..????......eh
> Yah 75 years later.... They are so damn forthright
> and magical to be able to go back to the future
> again and again

Dare we say inspired or prophetic even?

Anyway about this, this has the appearance that LDS Inc has been deceptive regarding its history in the past and is only making this effort because it is out of excuses.

This will make the mainstream Christian churches want to distance themselves from LDS Inc.

One of the crucial statements this New York Times articles makes is quoting Elder Snow, the church historian saying the following:

I quote the New York Times: "The Church historian, Elder Snow, said that the process of writing the essays began in May 2012. Each one was drafted by a scholar, often edited by Church historians and leaders, and vetted by the Church's top authorities."

The words "...vetted by the Church's top authorities" struck me as being very telling. So then I looked up the verb VETTED, and the meaning is to make a critical and careful examination of (something).

Hmmmm......So if the church's top authorities made a careful and critical examination as proported by their historian Elder Snow, then we can assume the following in MHO:

1. They did not care in the least that there was an apologetic tone to the essays where facts were twisted and turned and conveniently not mentioned in order to "screw" the real story and the audience it was intended for.

2. If they did give their precious time and talents to make a critical and careful examination of the essays, why in hell would they not sign their names, and what's more, why would they not at least appear with Elder Snow when he presented these essays to the public?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/10/2014 11:49PM by presleynfactsrock.

So, there is a connection, albeit a loose one though, that there is top-level approval of the essays.... for when they disappear and/or get changed later on.

Why do you think this would affect Romney? He's NOT going to run again. The Replublican Party will NOT support a 2-time loser. Romney is out of the picture.

Assay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do you think this would affect Romney? He's
> NOT going to run again. The Replublican Party
> will NOT support a 2-time loser. Romney is out of
> the picture.

Umm Reagan lost twice before winning, and he is now the republican god.

not an actual presidential run like Mitt.

Reagan was a dark horse both times for the nomination, starting in 1968.

I feel the same way I did after the stupid "Here's our underwear" video: utterly ashamed that I was ever involved.

Does this horrible feeling go away? Does it just hit me hard because I'm new in leaving? I feel sick.

"Does this horrible feeling go away?"

Oh I'm sure it will go away...Just be proud of yourself that you got out of that crazy cult!

I think you're right though about hitting you hard, because you just recently left...But things will get better.

Please, don't feel so sick anymore...Just keep posting on this board. There are a lot of people here that can help you out!

Thanks. Really - so much.

it's probably because you still feel somewhat defensive of Mormonism, because you still associate yourself mentally as part of that group.

The longer you are out, the more mental distance you'll have.

Basically, you'll see it as THEM being embarrassed, instead of YOU.

The way Mormons identify so personally with their religion is one of the reasons they find it so hard to find fault with it, or listen to others when they point out problems.

You are very welcome Dinah, anytime!

The essays were gentler with the truth than Dr Bushman.

All this fretting and gnashing of teeth over whether a horn dog had practiced insemination or mere crimes of the imagination.

Come on folks, where's the beef?

Let us hear of Bloody Brigham's rocky mountain orgy of blood-atoning mercy that led to the Mountain Meadow of mormon infamy?

I love this. A lot of TBMs don't know about the 14 yr old, or the polyandry, or the amt of wives he had (neither my TBM sister or MIL did when recently asked). All they have to do is skim the first paragraph to see it all spelled out, unlike in the essays where you have to toil through long explanations and muck to get to the facts.

As a pp said, maybe not a lot of Mormons will see this, but a lot of nonmembers will, and may ask their mormon friend about it. This is bad publicity for the church.

Next, the seer stone will come out of the bag. It's only a matter of time before the truth about the Golden Plates and the first (and subsequent) vision(s) have essays also.

Actually I found out about that from the NY Times piece on Hans Mattson about a year ago. It's out there.

“There are lots of church leaders who say: ‘We can take anything, just let us know how it really happened. We’re a church that is secure.’ ”
So in case you read these things and just don't know WHAT to think, here is the faith-promoting reaction that we suggest you adopt.

I find it bothersome that many TBM are completely unaware of these essays, and that they are not readily found on the church's website.

I thought polygamy was "behind us."

Where's Gordy when you need him?

I saw the NYTimes article, so I popped over. *waves hello*

TBMs will have all sorts of stuff to say about this...and just basically project onto it whatever perspective they already have.

Nevermos (those who read it) will be like, "Weird Mormons...Ebola...Syria...10 ways to have thicker eyebrows..." Won't even register.

Staying or not staying in the mormon church is a little about "facts" you know, but it's a lot about other things, too. How you fit (or don't) with the culture, your trust (or broken trust) with the leadership, the difficulties you might face if you leave, etc.

B/c if it were all about facts, no one would stay. It's too silly, time consuming, and expensive, without much benefit other than the shared culture and self-manufactured emotional euphoria you are trained to keep yourself in. The "facts" aren't sufficient to keep you going if that's why you stay. Period. Never were.

My first thought was, "Must be a slow day at the NYTimes." My second thought was, "How is RfM these days?" Cheers!

It also made the front page of MSN

Viral

Most TBMs who see this will say wtteo: The GAs know all this stuff, and they're not leaving. So neither will I.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/11/2014 10:42AM by PapaKen.

It showed up in my newsfeed on Facebook of someone who posted it. One person commented

"I found this article and some of the comments bothersome, but when I read the statement on lds.org I felt peace. This doesn't concern me in the least."

For some, Tommy Monson could stand up and say the whole "church" is a hoax, and it wouldn't bother them.

Agreed. A TBM might think it was a loyalty test and continue to praise Monson. The same seemed to have happened to Warren Jeff telling his people he was not a prophet. Morons continued to follow anyway.

I think it's great. Maybe Mormons will bury their heads in the sand but non-LDS will think Mormons are even weirder and avoid missionaries and the church, protecting themselves from being seduced into the lifestyle. Saving people from getting into Mormonism is as important as getting people out.

Also, from a journalistic point of view, what it says is that it's OK to put Mormons under the spotlight. The press can be weirdly respectful of even bad religion. Any time they realize it's OK to put a religion's feet to the fire, the way they would a corporation, politician or movie star - that's a good thing. Why should any religion get a pass and not be held accountable for their bad behavior, bad history or bad financial decisions? If this signals a change in the journalist community that it's OK to put a spotlight on Mormonism, then they are just plowing the field for future stories that may be even more shocking. Doesn't bode well for Mormon politicians either.

"...(T)his has not been taught to most Mormons and the majority of them did not know about Joseph Smith's many wives (many were teenagers and other active Mormon men's wives).

Is this information included in the missionary discussions about Joseph Smith? Is it taught by your current Prophet from the pulpit at General Conference? Is it included in the lesson manuals when teaching church history? NO!!

...This is absolutely the first time that the LDS church has formally admitted to JS polygamy/polyandry? What was published, known, and studied was apologist opinions and NOT official church doctrine. Make no bones about it, the LDS church is being forced to publish these articles to stem the tide of resignations within the church. This is not a proactive move, it is purely reactive. The LDS church hid behind pithy and trite apologist explanations of difficult church topics for decades because it was "just good enough" for the masses to be content. Today, however, individuals have access to the source material which has forced the church to come up with some form of official response."

**************************
(End of commentator's quote)
**************************

Perhaps a few Mormons, already beginning to doubt, will now bolt. Look for change over decades, not specific events. This is erosion to TSCC on the outside, and corrosion on the inside.

It is also on the Daily Beast.

Since the story hit FoxNews I decided to check theblaze.com as well.

More stories about Duck Dynasty Saidie Robertson on Dancing with the Starts (DWTS).
Obama stories.
2nd Amendment stories.
One story about Jesus being married.
Mormon bishop under fire for Harry Reid Criticism
Other crap.


No stories about Joseph Smith and his 40 wives.

Come on Glenn Beck. Embrace the truth. If you want to be try and be open about politics, world events, and history then be critical of your own Mormon religion. I don't think theBlaze readers will fault you for believing in a con that appeared to smell like roses instead of fecal matter.

Checked again. I only found a blaze link to the book of abraham essay put out by the church. It was just a story picked up by the AP.

It did have this Editor's note:

Editor’s Note:

The below story is the sole work of the Associated Press. Some have noted that the AP has taken its interpretation of the Mormon Church's essay too far, and that instead of the church saying that the Book of Abraham is "probably not a literal translation," the crux of the essay was meant to say that it just can't say definitively. For a different description of the essay you can read how the Deseret News informed its readers about the church's release, which begins in part by saying "scholarly or critical efforts to determine Joseph Smith's ability to translate papyri are 'likely futile.'" The headline of this story has been updated in light of that.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/07/13/mormon-church-essay-departs-from-past-views-of-joseph-smiths-book-of-abraham/

I don't think the blaze is going to cover it.

Now that they have publicly admitted to all the lies and cover ups, when do we get all our TITHING back?

No kidding! That would be nice. I could use 2 new cars.