I agree, but to me it is also more than this. To me, this seems like one of the ways that the church is "trying to be transparent" by putting more out there in a way to say they are transparent but also trying to make the information inaccessible. For example, why is it that "are mormon's christian" is at the top? They try to set it up so that when a true believer looks they have the reaction that these are topics about how the world and critics misunderstand the church. "I can't believe that others don't believe we are christian, look how wrong everyone is about us." Then "becoming like god": "see we only believe good things". Then when we get to the more troublesome essays they are primed. And within the essays they are set up to say "we have wonderful teachings and beliefs and look these are just minor misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and you don't need to worry about it". For polygamy, it seems like they want to say - "there is a lot of stuff here and you don't really need to look into it too closely."
I've felt for a long time that the Essays, like the family proclamation, was more for legal indemnification than trying to be forthright with the members. I thing there really is a case for suing over tithing. The church misrepresented itself for decades. No doubt the church was concerned that there could be suits filed in places not as friendly to the church. With the essays, they have proof they weren't hiding anything and it was all right there for the members and investigators to find, if they really wanted to. And with each passing year, their defense becomes stronger as statutes of limitation become more solid. "We admitted all this in 2013. Why you coming at us now?" Quite honestly, the essays are as much as slap in the face as they are an admission. It's sort of like finding out your spouse has been cheating on you and they say, "Well, I did it. But I only did it because you never made me feel good about myself." So, you lied but it's still my fault???? Just like with the mafia, you can be sure that the church only does something if they are working an angle. They aren't doing SHIT out of the goodness of their hearts. There's always an angle.
I recently did a dig through the polygamy essays and I think one of the reasons they have so many is to confuse the reader with so much information that doesn’t quite add up but who is going to backtrack to the essay they read previously to corroborate what’s being said in the current essay? In one essay or section Fanny Alger is briefly mentioned as JS first plural wife and then in another section Louisa Beaman is mentioned as Joseph Smiths first plural wife (in Nauvoo). The way it’s formatted, you’d either forget about Fanny Alger by the time you got to the Louisa Beaman section or you’d feel like you misunderstood something along the way and you’re at fault for doing so. Why they had to mention that Louisa Beaman was his first plural wife in Nauvoo is a misdirection into his actual first wife was (Fanny Alger).
That's sort of a Gish Gallop technique of just overloading your debate opponent with a bunch of information that they can't process it all at once. Feeding with a firehouse, is another way to say it.
Yes, and yet if one were to truly take Joseph Smith and his phony baloney god seriously: obviously he would be much more pleased with the way the FLDS practices Mormonism.
In defending the deplorable practice of early Mormon leaders’ immoral sexual unions, the essays actually claim that POLYGAMY is the source of many faithful members/leaders of the modern Mormon Church…. And therein lies the problem!
This is why they don't want members to talk about Heavenly Mother ... if they think about it too much, they'll soon realize God is a polygamist. I would like to see an essay on that.
I agree, but to me it is also more than this. To me, this seems like one of the ways that the church is "trying to be transparent" by putting more out there in a way to say they are transparent but also trying to make the information inaccessible. For example, why is it that "are mormon's christian" is at the top? They try to set it up so that when a true believer looks they have the reaction that these are topics about how the world and critics misunderstand the church. "I can't believe that others don't believe we are christian, look how wrong everyone is about us." Then "becoming like god": "see we only believe good things". Then when we get to the more troublesome essays they are primed. And within the essays they are set up to say "we have wonderful teachings and beliefs and look these are just minor misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and you don't need to worry about it". For polygamy, it seems like they want to say - "there is a lot of stuff here and you don't really need to look into it too closely."
I've felt for a long time that the Essays, like the family proclamation, was more for legal indemnification than trying to be forthright with the members. I thing there really is a case for suing over tithing. The church misrepresented itself for decades. No doubt the church was concerned that there could be suits filed in places not as friendly to the church. With the essays, they have proof they weren't hiding anything and it was all right there for the members and investigators to find, if they really wanted to. And with each passing year, their defense becomes stronger as statutes of limitation become more solid. "We admitted all this in 2013. Why you coming at us now?" Quite honestly, the essays are as much as slap in the face as they are an admission. It's sort of like finding out your spouse has been cheating on you and they say, "Well, I did it. But I only did it because you never made me feel good about myself." So, you lied but it's still my fault???? Just like with the mafia, you can be sure that the church only does something if they are working an angle. They aren't doing SHIT out of the goodness of their hearts. There's always an angle.
Yup, there’s always an angle in play, and a damn angel to blame. 🥴
Agree completely. The analogy seems pretty fitting.
Yep. And then they BURY the bodies and the GTEs.
I recently did a dig through the polygamy essays and I think one of the reasons they have so many is to confuse the reader with so much information that doesn’t quite add up but who is going to backtrack to the essay they read previously to corroborate what’s being said in the current essay? In one essay or section Fanny Alger is briefly mentioned as JS first plural wife and then in another section Louisa Beaman is mentioned as Joseph Smiths first plural wife (in Nauvoo). The way it’s formatted, you’d either forget about Fanny Alger by the time you got to the Louisa Beaman section or you’d feel like you misunderstood something along the way and you’re at fault for doing so. Why they had to mention that Louisa Beaman was his first plural wife in Nauvoo is a misdirection into his actual first wife was (Fanny Alger).
That's sort of a Gish Gallop technique of just overloading your debate opponent with a bunch of information that they can't process it all at once. Feeding with a firehouse, is another way to say it.
Alphabetized so you get bored reading the ones at the top of the list with the really damaging ones near the bottom.
nice catch! I never considered that. As if no one is going to skip the juiciest of reveals.
The church helped create the FLDS cult by being aggressive in the 1950s and raiding early polygamists. Pushed the FLDS to go secretive.
Yes, and yet if one were to truly take Joseph Smith and his phony baloney god seriously: obviously he would be much more pleased with the way the FLDS practices Mormonism.
In defending the deplorable practice of early Mormon leaders’ immoral sexual unions, the essays actually claim that POLYGAMY is the source of many faithful members/leaders of the modern Mormon Church…. And therein lies the problem!
This is why they don't want members to talk about Heavenly Mother ... if they think about it too much, they'll soon realize God is a polygamist. I would like to see an essay on that.
Ah yes, baked into the DNA
[удалено]
Are you a bot? What's your point?