Lying on LDS.org

[_Ray A]

Honestly, if they had their facts straight, they could have written it like this:

Let me assure you, one thing the Church can hardly be accused of is "getting facts wrong". It took me five years to get an article approved for the Ensign (That's how much background checking went into it). And my friend Max Nolan, who submitted a MS to Church magazines, was sent a list of errors as long as your arm, and it was eventually rejected (though he had others published).

Your comment makes me think you have no idea of the scrutiny that the Church puts into what it publishes, in print or the Internet.

[_Scottie]

Honestly, if they had their facts straight, they could have written it like this:

Let me assure you, one thing the Church can hardly be accused of is "getting facts wrong". It took me five years to get an article approved for the Ensign (That's how much background checking went into it). And my friend Max Nolan, who submitted a MS to Church magazines, was sent a list of errors as long as your arm, and it was eventually rejected (though he had others published).

Your comment makes me think you have no idea of the scrutiny that the Church puts into what it publishes, in print or the Internet.

Possibly.

But this particular error makes no sense. The article would have read just as well without any mention of why Jacob and Zina were seperated. So why put it in at all?

Does anyone have any inside information on the review process for these web pages?

[_Ray A]

Does anyone have any inside information on the review process for these web pages?

I don't, but I can tell you of the review process for the print media. I got several phone calls from the Ensign, inquiring into my background, my activity in the Church, how long I was a member, how strong I was in the Church, what positions I held, and the final published article was quite "editorialised".

I'm not complaining, only telling you the facts. Both Max and I were subjected to very careful scrutiny before they would allow us into print.


Now it's kind of difficult to believe they'd relax that on the Internet.

[_Scottie]

Does anyone have any inside information on the review process for these web pages?

I don't, but I can tell you of the review process for the print media. I got several phone calls from the Ensign, inquiring into my background, my activity in the Church, how long I was a member, how strong I was in the Church, what positions I held, and the final published article was quite "editorialised".

I'm not complaining, only telling you the facts. Both Max and I were subjected to very careful scrutiny before they would allow us into print.


Now it's kind of difficult to believe they'd relax that on the Internet.

So you are saying that they scrutinized this article, and purposfully lied to say that Zina was widowed?

I just don't see a reason to lie. They could have altered the sentance like I did.

[_Ray A]

So you are saying that they scrutinized this article, and purposfully lied to say that Zina was widowed?

I just don't see a reason to lie. They could have altered the sentance like I did.

What I'm saying is that the Church's checking methods are meticulous. It would genuinely surprise me if this was an error that got past the checking process.

[_harmony]

What I'm saying is that the Church's checking methods are meticulous. It would genuinely surprise me if this was an error that got past the checking process.

so they lied. Deliberately. Oh, that makes me feel much better.

good grief.

[_Ray A]

so they lied. Deliberately. Oh, that makes me feel much better.

good grief.

I wouldn't charge them with lying unless I knew the facts. All I'm saying is that in my experience their checking process is meticulous, and I'd find it anomalous that this should escape them, but I suppose there's an outside chance of a mistake - like a mule winning the English Derby.

[_John Larsen]

The difference between this and most of the LDS Church's distortions is they usually choose to selectively leave out key pieces of information that reflect poorly on the history of the Church. However, in this case you have something that is factually incorrect. But it is something that is key to the history of Zina. It is inconceivable that the Church would employ someone to write the biography of a key figure in LDS leadership and not know the simplist facts. As Ray has pointed out, that is not how they work at the COB.

[_Alter Idem]

The distortion is there to protect Zina. She did not get a divorce, she moved in with Brigham Young (which she felt she had a right to do since she was sealed to him) and she left her legal husband and took his children. Her first husband was left to pine after her the rest of his life. It's not a pretty tale and puts her in a bad light.

Personally, I think they should have just told us the truth and not try to protect her reputation from 21 century sensitivities.

I also think Obiwan's comment on the meaning of "widow" was the most egregiously stupid thing I've read yet in apologetics to date!

Maklelan's comments were also ridiculous.

I haven't read the whole thread, but what I saw was truly sad.

[_Scottie]

The difference between this and most of the LDS Church's distortions is they usually choose to selectively leave out key pieces of information that reflect poorly on the history of the Church. However, in this case you have something that is factually incorrect. But it is something that is key to the history of Zina. It is inconceivable that the Church would employ someone to write the biography of a key figure in LDS leadership and not know the simplist facts. As Ray has pointed out, that is not how they work at the COB.

The problem as I see it is why they would choose to distort the facts by saying she was widowed?? You could sketch her life just fine without any mention at all of where Henry was.