Newsroom responds to media attention

[_Chap]

In Maklekan's view, so far as I understand it, the reason why the new, 'broader' essay (with no tricky details of Joseph Smith's marital enterprises ) was slapped on top of the original two essays only a few days after they originally appeared had nothing to do with the explosion of public discussion of Joseph Smith's 35-40 wives, 14-year old bride, marrying women still married to other men, etc.

I think I am quite happy for readers of this thread to make up their own mind whether they are more persuaded by my or Maklekan's views on this point. We have both had ample opportunities to make ourselves clear.

[Maklekan] gave a description of the new summary essay. [He] did not explain why a summary essay was required and why, given this summary is now being portrayed as the "starting place" for reading about polygamy, it was not the very first essay published in the series on polygamy rather than the very last.

Um, yes ...

[_maklelan]

Actually, you didn't.

Actually I did. Consolidating four separate essays in one on the alphabetical listings page is an explanation, is it not?

You gave a description of the new summary essay.

I gave a description of the function of having the new summary essay. That's also known as an explanation.

You did not explain why a summary essay was required and why, given this summary is now being portrayed as the "starting place" for reading about polygamy, it was not the very first essay published in the series on polygamy rather than the very last.

I don't know what "it was not the very first . . . rather than the very last" means. Do you mean it was "not the first, but rather the last"? If so, that's utterly irrelevant. They're going to put the more general and broad essay as the place holder and link to the more specialized essays within that broader one. Despite what you may assume, there are actually human beings out there who care more about polygamy broadly than about the specific number of wives Joseph Smith had.

[_Chap]

... there are actually human beings out there who care more about polygamy broadly than about the specific number of wives Joseph Smith had.

Oh, I'm not much worried either.

So long as the number was well over (say) ten, I'm happy to let the details go hang. The rest is just extra chocolate sprinkles on the cup-cake, really.

[_maklelan]

In Maklekan's view, so far as I understand it, the reason why the new, 'broader' essay (with no tricky details of Joseph Smith's marital enterprises ) was slapped on top of the original two essays

Actually it links to three different essays on polygamy.

only a few days after they originally appeared had nothing to do with the explosion of public discussion of Joseph Smith's 35-40 wives, 14-year old bride, marrying women still married to other men, etc.

I think I am quite happy for readers of this thread to make up their own mind whether they are more persuaded by my or Maklekan's views on this point. We have both had ample opportunities to make ourselves clear.

Who's Maklekan?

[_Bazooka]

On November 11th President Newsroom stated:

Three weeks ago, the Church completed a series on the topic of plural marriage (polygamy), which has recently been the subject of a large number of media stories. Below is additional context for those essays.

(from the story linked in the OP)

Why did he state the series was "completed" when, presumably, he knew about the planned summary essay that had not yet been published?
Why, in his article talking about the series of polygamy essays, did he not even mention nor link to this new broader summary essay?

[_maklelan]

On November 11th President Newsroom stated:

Three weeks ago, the Church completed a series on the topic of plural marriage (polygamy), which has recently been the subject of a large number of media stories. Below is additional context for those essays.

(from the story linked in the OP)

Why did he state the series was "completed" when, presumably, he knew about the planned summary essay that had not yet been published?

Why, in his article talking about the series of polygamy essays, did he not even mention nor link to this new broader summary essay?

Who is "he"?

[_Mormon Think]

MormonThink's comments on this: http://mormonthink.com/responses/newsro ... 1-2014.htm

[_informant]

I think I am quite happy for readers of this thread to make up their own mind whether they are more persuaded by my or Maklekan's views on this point. We have both had ample opportunities to make ourselves clear.

in other words............ i give up because i have no real argument or intellectual chops that can outwit someone like mak

[_maklelan]

MormonThink's comments on this: http://mormonthink.com/responses/newsro ... 1-2014.htm

Have you finally dropped the facade of objectivity and balance? My comments on your comments:

The terminology used in the essay is vague, and "much," the word used to describe the quantity of information from the essays that can be found in other sources, leaves the reader unclear about the exact amount of information found elsewhere (particularly LDS sources).

An absolutely asinine expectation for a brief essay on a broad historical topic.

Regardless of how much, one can safely say that this is admitting that not all of the information in the essays has been known to the general Church membership.

You should know that through carefully chosen words nuances of meaning are created. Using the word "admitting" suggests that they are acknowledging they're doing something wrong. The Church publishes the First Presidency message around the world every month and urges members to read it and share it through home and visiting teaching, but all the information in that message is not known at any given time to the general Church membership. Is that also the Church's fault? Do they need to admit wrongdoing there, too?

Also, "general" is such a vague word. What is the exact number of members that don't know all this information?

Maybe of greater concern is wondering if the essays have shared all that is known about polygamy in the early Church.

How much wondering does it take to determine that a 3,000-word essay does not contain all that known about a topic that has filled multiple large volumes of scholarship? These comments of yours seem to hold this essay up to an impossible standard of comprehensiveness and detail.

From our research on polygamy that can be found elsewhere on MormonThink, we know they have not.

That's not very precise. Why are you being so misleading? Exactly how much research can be found "elsewhere"? It must be "all that is known." You wouldn't be wagging your finger at the Church for not dumping all existing available knowledge into a little essay only to turn around and not provide convenient access to all existing knowledge yourself.

It's quite telling that the article does not say that any of these sources were Church sources, or official sources, only that they were "diverse sources."

Yes, it tells the reader that it is spread across diverse sources. Very telling indeed.

One would be hard-pressed to find a hint of some of the information contained in the new essays about Joseph Smith and plural marriages (let alone the depth of information acknowledged), anywhere on the Church's website or printed materials for the past 100 years.

One would be hard-pressed to find a hint of some of the information contained in the new essays about Joseph Smith and plural marriages

You keep using those vague words. "One would be hard-pressed to find a hint of some of the information . . ." What information, precisely, would one be unable to find on the Church's website and in its printed material? You're leaving the reader unclear about the exact information that one cannot find among the hundreds of hits one finds when they search for "polygamy" on lds.org. Why so underhanded and sneaky?

If the Church really wanted its general membership to know this information, they would have revealed it to them in their many official publications and talks.

I guess we will need to know precisely what information is not revealed in their many official publications and talks. I have found hundreds and hundreds of publications on lds.org that address the topic, and I'm not about to go sifting through it all to see what is and is not included. Since you have an absolutely comprehensive perspective on all known knowledge about polygamy, perhaps you can just give me the bullet points. Then we can address whether or not the Church had the moral and ethical responsibility to pin that precise information to the front page of its website and the covers of all its issues of the Ensign.

Likewise, they would promote the essays and the information found there more than they are currently doing.

Since you've quantified the ethically acceptable amount of promotion of polygamy for a global church of millions of members, perhaps you can give us the exact number and I can pass it along to those who make those decisions. We prefer to measure in terms of 1750-character pages (including spaces).

It says "and" not "or": according to this statement, for a member to have known this information, they had to be both a long-term and well-read member.

So if they said it is "known to male and female members," the strict laws of conjunction––about which you appear to be extensively educated––would mean they are speaking exclusively about individual members who have both male and female sex organs? Who would have thought that we've been using the conjunction "and" incorrectly after all these years. I'll notify language production and editing immediately.

Why wasn't/isn't this information shared with potential converts?

Why don't you share with first-time visitors to your website that your claims to being balanced and objective are really just manipulative deceptions designed to mollify concerns from wary members? I guess you should also point out on your Introduction page that you support and promote frivolous lawsuits against the leaders of the Church. You should have the following quotes up there as well:

My dream and hope and aspiration: Members of the 1stP and the Q12 are walked out of the COB or their homes in handcuffs for tax evasion, racketeering, money-laundering,...Add the gender discrimination and fraud suits that many will pile onto the criminal charges, and I think 2013-14 just might be a banner moment. Maybe I'm dreaming. But some of us are working on it.

I prophesy, in the honorable name of Jesus Smith, that 2013 will be the beginning of the 'Mormon Apocalypse' . The gig is up.

Yes, now looking forward to the 'Mormon Apocalypse' . With my inert evolutionary given gift of prophesy I hereby prophesy that 2013 will close as 'the beginning of the Mormon Apocalypse'. Not only will TSCC shoot themselves in the foot with the strategy outlined by Jesus Smith, there are more damaging events to yet unfold this year. Watch for big news before October Conference.

I could only take two minutes of Holland's sickly nonsense. Lying, deceitful, egotistical apostle. The Mormon Apocalypse is coming.

After all, we wouldn't want to allow readers to be mislead by all your misleading material.

To be "well-read" concerning this information on polygamy is not as easy as one would think. Because of the Church's penchant for marginalizing scholars and blackballing "anti" material, and reinforcing the notion that only Church-published material should be used in classes and personal studying, it is no wonder that not all of the members are well aware of the information contained in the new essays since the Church itself does not widely disseminate it.

I've asked several times for evidence that the Church promotes the notion that only Church-published material should be used for personal study. No one here has been able to come up with any. Since Mormon Think is all-knowing, particularly about all existing knowledge about polygamy, perhaps you can succeed where the others failed.

For example, less than three weeks before the publication of the final two polygamy essays, in a General Conference talk, Elder Neil L. Andersen said the following in his talk titled "Joseph Smith":

...We might remind the sincere inquirer that Internet information does not have a "truth" filter. Some information, no matter how convincing, is simply not true.
...We might remind the inquirer that some information about Joseph, while true, may be presented completely out of context to his own day and situation.
...The negative commentary about the prophet Joseph Smith will increase as we move toward the second coming of the savior. The half-truths and subtle deceptions will not diminish.

This only warns against false information. This says nothing at all about being Church-published or not.

It is language like this that stops the inquirer from seeking out information other than what the Church officially publishes.

This kind of language only addresses information that is untrue or deceptive, like the claims that Mormon Think is objective and balanced. It says nothing whatsoever about being published by the Church or not.

And since they haven't widely published it previously, the general membership is not well-read about it.

The general membership is also not well-read about the Bible, despite having two out of every four years of Sunday school dedicated entirely to its study. A few months ago my gospel doctrine teacher introduced his lesson about Gideon by throwing up his hands and lamenting that he and no one else really knows anything about Gideon, so they might as well just get on to the application portion of the lesson. It made me think of this article and the numerous times over the years that an entire Sunday school class has been dedicated to studying Gideon. Surely it was the Church's fault, since they don't discuss Gideon in every issue of the Ensign and in every General Conference talk.

This excerpt from Wikipedia nicely summarizes how the Church, its apologists and because of that example, many of its members, treat those who accurately portray Church history:

Wow, if only the Church could find such informed and insightful analysis as that found on Wikipedia.

This is an interesting phrase. Considering that probably 50% or more of the active members of the Church are in leadership positions, exactly which leaders are they referring to?

Gosh, it's just so confusing. How could anyone possibly understand what they mean? Are they referring to teachers quorum and Relief Society presidencies, or are they referring to general Church leaders? It's too difficult to tell. Why can't the Church just be more precise?!?

If the "leaders" actually refer to those who make curricular decisions within the Church, then why weren't they more forthcoming previously?

Probably because it was considered a no-no.

From our limited research at MormonThink, we have not seen that these important essays have been translated into languages other than English. Considering the fastest growing segment of the LDS Church appears to be Spanish-speaking, one would think that the Church would be getting these translated into as many languages as they can if they truly are getting this information into the hands of all members.

They are. Did something lead you to believe otherwise?

What an odd statement. The second Joseph Smith had a plural marriage relationship, it became a fact that he had that relationship. If that relationship was in 1831, then in 1831 it was a fact that he had it—so of course that fact is "not new" today.

The implied meaning is obviously that knowledge of that fact is not new.

The purpose of this sentence

So now you're going to determine for the reader what the intentions of the author are, despite earlier not being able to tell what they meant by "Church leaders," or "much."

is to lull the reader into thinking that since it was a fact, it was known to all,

I don't see that as the intention at all. I think the intention is to point out that the Church is not revealing something never revealed before.

even though they admitted in the previous paragraph that the information certainly wasn't known to all.

So they were secretly contradicting themselves? Wow, it's a good thing we have such objective thinkers like you to expose the Church's own secret self contradiction.

The purpose of this paragraph is to pin the lack of knowing this information on the member: since it has been a fact for 150 years, everyone for the last 150 years should have known that. This is a classic case of blaming the victim.

I don't see anywhere where it explicitly or implicitly tries to do that. I think what it's clearly trying to do is mitigate the notion being shouted from the rooftops that the Church is revealing something it has unilaterally denied in the past. Y'know, like the title of the Washington Post article, "The Mormon church finally acknowledges founder Joseph Smith’s polygamy."

Information publicly asserted 150 years ago is of no use to the members of today unless that information is actually publicly shared and asserted today. Which, as has already been mentioned, it wasn't.

Not actively, but it's been available to those who have searched for it.

And why wouldn't those other groups assert that Joseph did not practice polygamy when he himself publicly declared that he did not practice it, as found in this quote:

What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers. I labored with these apostates myself until I was out of all manner of patience...

Isn't it natural to assume that the man who God supposedly declared as His mouthpiece (D&C 1:38, 21:1-5) would speak truth and not blatantly lie?

So you're defending other churches for denying Joseph Smith's polygamy and taking a rhetorical swipe at the LDS Church. How insightful.

The Church has archives and repositories with information they choose not to share. They always have. But this sentence makes it sound like they have suddenly come across information they didn't have before. Although the previous paragraph tried to show the opposite, that the information has been known for a century and a half. They are trying to have it both ways.

Right. Anyone reading can see they're referring to all existing information every time. It's not like they're saying the general facts have been known, but they're gathering and collating and publishing details not known previously. I mean, that would just be silly.

What did Snow mean by "a safe place"?

I think he meant to distinguish the Church's repository of information from places like Mormon Think where readers are deceived into thinking they're getting a balanced and unbiased perspective, only to be surprised by silly rhetoric and wild speculation about the intentions and motivations of people the authors know absolutely nothing about.

For a church that values truth, shouldn't they be more worried about truthful information instead of safe places?

Maybe you can tell me more about how you promote and unbiased and objective perspective.

The unflattering truth is that the Church has known all of the details of Joseph Smith's polygamy for 180 years and they have tried to suppress that information as much as possible.

Do you have any evidence to support the claim that it has tried to suppress the information as much as possible, or is it just an inference you draw from certain observations combined with certain assumptions about motivations and intentions? If the latter, that's flagrantly violating your standard of "privileging those we believe are the most accurate, consistent and empirically valid."

Their essays still do not cover everything they know

I didn't know the essays claimed to cover everything they know. Their failure to do so is obviously a shortcoming given the stated goal was to do just that.

nor are they disseminated to the faithful as well as they should be.

How well should they be, and how did you determine that level of dissemination?

[_grindael]

I again have to disagree with Daniel again. What matters is what is IN the Essays not speculations about their intent. He could have said this without all the hyperbole at Mormonthink. But Mormonthink makes GOOD points.

Mormonthink also does a fantastic job of presenting the history and doctrine of polygamy on their website which Daniel only snipes at. I would love to see Daniel address THAT material, instead of comments about intent, etc. As for misleading material, where in their article on polygamy at Mormonthink (found here http://mormonthink.com/joseph-smith-polygamy.htm#full) is their misleading material? I would like to see an analysis by Daniel. As for the claim that the church does not encourage members to study church produced materials,

First, Dallin H. Oaks made no distinction between TEACHERS and MEMBERS. Here he is from 1999:

Our concern with gospel teaching is not limited to those who are called to teach in the priesthood quorums, in the Primary, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Women, and in other assignments. In the Lord’s great plan of salvation THERE ARE NO MORE IMPORTANT TEACHERS THAN PARENTS, who teach their children constantly by example and by precept. Each of us teaches those around us by example. Even children teach one another. Every missionary is a teacher. AND EVERY LEADER IS A TEACHER. As President Hinckley taught many years ago, “Effective teaching is the very essence of leadership in the Church.”

…Several years ago the First Presidency challenged the Quorum of the Twelve to revitalize teaching in the Church. The Twelve, assisted by the Seventy, accepted that challenge. Now, after years of preparation, engaging the efforts of superb gospel teachers, scholars, writers, and others, the First Presidency has just sent a letter launching a Churchwide effort “to revitalize and improve teaching in the Church.” This letter states, “This renewed emphasis is intended to improve GOSPEL TEACHING IN HOMES and in Church meetings and help nourish members with the good word of God.”

We have just published a 10-page booklet, Improving Gospel Teaching: A Leader’s Guide. Copies are being distributed to all unit leaders and to every quorum and auxiliary officer in the Church. As it explains, our concern with “gospel teaching in the Church” INCLUDES PARENTS EVERYDAY TEACHINGS IN THE HOME as well as the work of teachers in the quorums and auxiliaries. ~Oaks, Conference Address, October, 1999.

Since the "leaders" of the Church are made up of lay members, there are no real distinctions here. So trying to claim that comments (about using only approved materials) doesn’t apply to individual members but was only given ONLY to “teachers” isn’t really true. Individual members are encouraged to read and disseminate the "leaders" material. In the Pamphlet that Oaks mentions it says on the first page, before it gets into teaching,

Home: The Central Place for Learning and Teaching the Gospel

It also states,

“The Teaching the Gospel course provides a foundation that will help Church members teach the gospel more effectively IN THEIR HOMES and in the Church. “

And so this is also applied to the HOME:

“Priesthood and auxiliary leaders are responsible for the quality of gospel teaching in their organizations. They ensure that teaching is effective and doctrinally correct. THEY ALSO ENSURE THAT TEACHERS USE CHURCH-PRODUCED MATERIALS. They work closely with members of their organizations who have formal callings or assignments to teach the gospel, such as advisers, classroom teachers, assistant teachers, music leaders, activity leaders, home teachers, and visiting teachers.” https://www.lds.org/manual/improving-go ... h?lang=eng

Who is a teacher? ANYONE WHO TEACHES, according to this pamphlet. The pamphlet is directed of course, at those who are in callings, but Oaks himself states that this should be used in the home as well by the direction of the First Presidency. This, right here shows that the Church wants individual members to use “Church-produced” materials. In fact in the pamphlet they call them “leaders” not really teachers and who are these “Leaders” but individual leaders of FAMILIES? In all of the Teaching Manuals it states to only use Church approved materials. If parents take this information home, they then teach this to their children and they are encouraged to. So to say that they don’t [The Church] promote the notion that only Church-published material should be used for personal study isn’t correct. They promote it. Some examples,

21.1.13 Curriculum Materials

The Church makes available scriptures, magazines, manuals, books, and other materials to help members learn and live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Priesthood and auxiliary leaders ENCOURAGE MEMBERS to obtain copies of the scriptures AND OTHER CURRICULUM MATERIAL TO USE IN THEIR HOMES AND AT CHURCH. Leaders ensure that teachers use CHURCH APPROVED MATERIALS for quorum and class instruction. The publication Instructions for CURRICULUM provides information about how to organize Sunday classes and WHICH MATERIAL TO USE for lessons.

21.1.39 Statements Attributed to Church Leaders

From time to time, statements are circulated that are inaccurately attributed to leaders of the Church. Many such statements distort current Church teachings and are based on rumors and innuendos. They are never transmitted officially, but by word of mouth, e-mail, or other informal means. Church MEMBERS should not teach or pass on such statements without verifying that they are from APPROVED CHURCH SOURCES, such as official statements, communications, and publications. Any notes made when General Authorities, Area Seventies, or other general Church officers speak at stake conferences or other meetings should not be distributed without the consent of the speaker. Personal notes are for individual use only. (Handbook of Instructions, lds.org)

*************

Sunday School President in Conference,

My granddaughter read the Ensign because she wanted to learn. She acted on her own by exercising her agency. The First Presidency recently approved new learning resources for youth that will support the innate desire of young people to learn, live, and share the gospel. These new resources are now available for review online. In January we will begin using them in classrooms. (Learn more about the new learning resources for youth at lds.org/youth/learn.)

When the Savior taught, the learner’s agency was paramount. He showed us NOT ONLY WHAT TO TEACH but also how to teach. He focused on the needs of the learner. He helped individuals discover truth for themselves. He always listened to their questions.

These new learning resources will help us all learn and teach in the Savior’s way IN OUR HOMES and in our classrooms.

…While teaching the Saints in Costa Rica, I held up a copy of Teaching, No Greater Call and asked, “So how many of you have a copy of this manual?” Nearly everyone raised a hand. With a smile, I said, “And I bet you’re reading it every single day.” To my surprise, a sister on the front row raised her hand, indicating that she was reading it every day. I asked her to come to the podium and explain. She responded, “I read the Book of Mormon every morning. Then I read something in Teaching, No Greater Call so I can teach my children in the very best way what I’ve just learned.”

She wanted to learn and teach His word in His way, so she studied His word in the scriptures and then studied how to teach His word so that her children could be fully converted. Her pattern of gospel learning and teaching did not happen, I believe, all at once. She made a decision to do something. And the more she did what she knew she should do, the more the Lord strengthened her to walk in His way.

Sometimes the pathway to conversion can be long and hard. My brother-in-law was less active in the Church for 50 years. Not until he was in his 60s did he begin to accept the Savior’s invitation to come back. Many helped him along the way. One home teacher sent him a postcard every month for 22 years. But he had to decide he wanted to come back. He had to exercise his agency. He had to take that first step—and then another and another. Now he and his wife have been sealed together, and he is serving in a bishopric.
Recently we showed him the videos that have been developed to help leaders and teachers implement the new learning resources. After watching the videos, my brother-in-law leaned back in his chair and said, somewhat emotionally, “Maybe if I had had that when I was young, I wouldn’t have fallen away.” BY RUSSELL T. OSGUTHORPE, General Conference, October 2012

Maybe if he had had the new leaders resources he wouldn't have fallen away. Which tell leaders to use only Church-produced material.

+++++++++++++++++++++

Missionaries are not alone in benefiting from Preach My Gospel says Richard Scott,

• One mission president’s wife studied and pondered every word in Preach My Gospel, including every scriptural reference. She then did something she had lacked the courage to do—she invited a close relative to study and ponder the Book of Mormon. That individual accepted her invitation and has been greatly benefited.

• Another family uses Preach My Gospel to help prepare their children for missions. They reported: “Our 17-year-old was the first to get an assignment. As expected, he looked for the shortest segment in the book. His lesson, however, was a 20-minute heartfelt expression of the principles, complete with scriptures and testimony.”

• From a father preparing a son for missionary service: “Preach My Gospel has … given me perspective and clearer understanding of the purpose of life, my duties and responsibilities as a member of the Church, as a father, and as a husband. … It has also given me concrete tools to better pursue that journey.” His son was called to be a missionary yesterday. ~Richard D. Scott, General Conference, April, 2005.

------------------------

Here we see Church Material prepared for Teachers/Missionaries encouraged to be used by Members, which contain the counsel to use only church published material to teach/study from. We also see that all men and women are Teachers, and teachers should use Church produced material. These are only a few quotes that I dug up rather quickly. I’m sure there are many more I could find if I looked a little harder.