DiscussMormonism.com

Would the CEO of any corporation survive after being exposed that he has been a board member for decades of an organization that has knowingly misled its shareholders on matters of the utmost importance and then, when coming clean, manages the PR so badly that the good name of the corporation is a laughing stock worldwide for a generation?

Should Monson now do the honourable thing and resign?

-

Hasa Diga Eebowai wrote:Or it could just show the huge inconsistencies in the way local leaders deal with similar issues and comparable situations.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Bishop roulette is definitely a factor.

maklelan wrote:
Well, yes and no. Both articles are now replaced with a new and broader article entitled "Plural Marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," and at the end of certain segments there are links saying, "If you want to learn more about the beginning/end of plural marriage in the Church click here." Those links take you to the specific articles about plural marriage in Nauvoo and the Manifesto.

No, the articles are not "replaced" by a "broader" article. To replace something is to take away the old and substitute it with something new. That was not done here. This link, https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marri ... s?lang=eng simply takes you to an OVERVIEW or GENERAL OUTLINE of polygamy in the church. In other words it is a SUMMARY, with links to more detailed articles about polygamy contained within it. It would not be to REPLACE those articles, but to summarize them, perhaps for those who do not want to read long and maybe to them boring articles. To REPLACE them with the summary makes no sense if you are going for more ACCURACY and TRANSPARENCY as some here claim.

****

And this is hardly hiding anything which I don't think the church has ever had an agenda to do. (Though some "authorities" have as we all know) They have released far more documents in the last 5 years than at any time in their history. For example on archive.org they have quietly been uploading all of the Church periodicals like the Juvenile Instructor, etc. which frankly have some very bad things in them, and it has been done under the auspices of the Presiding Bishopric of the Church.

Unfortunately not many people know how to access these various document collections, and the Church does not link to them, which it should do on it's website. It's almost like the leadership is schizophrenic when it comes to it's history with some gung-ho to get it all out and others frightened at what might happen if they do. As a critic and someone who studies and writes about Church History, I've been very impressed with those who have been getting the documents out there (But not with some of the redactions in many of the documents). Someone is getting them out there though. But the Essays are horrible and show that there are some that just don't get it.

grindael wrote:Lorenzo Snow's Temple Lot deposition. I happen to have a copy of the original typed transcript.

Are these transcripts (or others from the Temple Lot Case) available anywhere online?

Tim the Enchanter wrote:

grindael wrote:Lorenzo Snow's Temple Lot deposition. I happen to have a copy of the original typed transcript.

Are these transcripts (or others from the Temple Lot Case) available anywhere online?

Here is the Transcripts as published by the ReOrganized Church which contain some differences with the one that is in the Church History Library. https://archive.org/stream/TempleLotCas ... 3/mode/2up

You may find the typed transcripts that the Church has here. This was recently put up. https://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/MS%201160/

grindael wrote:
Here is the Transcripts as published by the ReOrganized Church which contain some differences with the one that is in the Church History Library. https://archive.org/stream/TempleLotCas ... 3/mode/2up

grindael wrote:
You may find the typed transcripts that the Church has here. This was recently put up. https://eadview.lds.org/findingaid/MS%201160/

Thanks!

Now, how hard would be be for the church to link to those documents for the sake of transparency? It doesn't do anyone any good if they don't know where to look.

maklelan wrote:

Chap wrote:No-one would ever think, of course, that this rearrangement only a short time after the original essays appeared had anything to do with the unfortunate publicity caused by making the original two essays directly available. Nor could it be a slightly desperate stratagem to reconcile the conflicting aims of shielding members from unsettling information on the church's own website, and avoiding the embarrassment that would come from simply deleting the two essays altogether.

Could it be that somebody in the COB had to dream this rather shaky plan up to keep his job? Naah. Maklekan will soon tell us that he knows for a fact that didn't happen.

And you will all suggest that because it fits more comfortably into your worldview, you prefer to accept your assumption over my direct information.

Let's see ... first two essays appear, directly searchable. Lots of people read them, and find information about Joseph Smith that hits the headlines all over - 35-40 wives, married 14-year-old girl, other mens' wives. Frankly a PR trainwreck. What's to be done? Delete the articles? No, looks like admitting they are a problem. But what, then?

A few days later, the essays have moved a step away from direct search. Instead, the essay found by a search no longer contains the material everyone was talking about. It is thereby rendered just that bit less likely that members and others will come across what may be (to them) shocking information, without too much obvious backtracking or risking accusations of self-censorship.

I can't see anything that Maklekan has said that makes this view of the situation any less likely. It "fits comfortably into my worldview" only in the sense that it is consistent with my long experience of how large corporations tend to behave when the reputation of their brand is at risk.

It was probably the best the CoJCoLDS could do under the circumstances, so why wouldn't they do it? They are not a stupid organization, after all.