Lying on LDS.org

[_Maxrep]

At some point does the church forfeit its right to claim "mistake"? I kind of view it this way. Brigham's wives got left out of the Sunday school manual, the Wentworth letter was truncated in a strategic manner, Joseph refuses alcohol for his surgery - but we are never informed that he drank as an adult, etc. The list of purposeful historical omissions is quite long.

I don't see why apologists should expect to be handled with kiddy gloves when the church functions as a historical habitual offender.... Is that too harsh?

[_Ray A]

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.

Equally mysterious is this, Scottie:

By simply pumping "Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs" into a browser, all of the correct information on her life would have come up.

???

But it wouldn't be very obvious to those unacquainted with Mormon history.

[_beastie]

You know what's ironic about this - the church worries about protecting Zina's reputation for dumping her husband for BY, but the church slandered Martha Brotherton for refusing BY's proposal. Whore from her mother's breast and all that.

At some point does the church forfeit its right to claim "mistake"? I kind of view it this way. Brigham's wives got left out of the Sunday school manual, the Wentworth letter was truncated in a strategic manner, Joseph refuses alcohol for his surgery - but we are never informed that he drank as an adult, etc. The list of purposeful historical omissions is quite long.

I don't see why apologists should expect to be handled with kiddy gloves when the church functions as a historical habitual offender.... Is that too harsh?
At some point does the church forfeit its right to claim "mistake"? I kind of view it this way. Brigham's wives got left out of the Sunday school manual, the Wentworth letter was truncated in a strategic manner, Joseph refuses alcohol for his surgery - but we are never informed that he drank as an adult, etc. The list of purposeful historical omissions is quite long.

I don't see why apologists should expect to be handled with kiddy gloves when the church functions as a historical habitual offender.... Is that too harsh?

:::putting on apologist's hat:::: None of this information was relevant to the main material being presented, and none of it is relevant to the salvation of souls!

[_harmony]

:::putting on apologist's hat:::: None of this information was relevant to the main material being presented, and none of it is relevant to the salvation of souls!

Take it off, Trix. It is too small and looks silly on you. Maybe it fits a guy with a smaller head.

So... what is the main material being presented?

Follow the prophet. It might be kinda hard for the average Mormon to swallow that their beloved prophet, Brigham Young, was an adulterous jerk, in addition to his other sterling qualities. Much better to forget the 13th Article of Faith entirely. You know the one: We believe in being honest... blah blah blah. Obviously what the leaders believe (and live) and what the members are expected to believe (and live) are two entirely different things.

I'm so surprised.

[_Ray A]

One thing I'll say for the Church's website, it has improved a lot. I haven't checked it in a while, and was impressed with the additions. You can find articles on polygamy, lots, but only "Church-friendly" reports or defenses. They aren't going to link to Sunstone or Dialogue articles, obviously, nor anything too controversial. That's to be expected.
Polygamy is now a historical monument in Mormonism, more or less, except "in principle". That's why I think it isn't prominent, nor easy to find. And that's why I think they're trying to be "PC" in regard to entries such as Zina Young's, because it matches contemporary Church standards of monogamy.

I'll defer to any evidence/information that this is a mistake, and put it down to incompetence, but I do think it was manipulated to suit current beliefs. Henry did die before Zina, but she wasn't "widowed" as she was married to Brigham Young.

[_Ray A]

Some informative exchanges from MADB:

Allen Wyatt:

You pointed out an error in the Church's website (stating she was widowed from Henry). I agree that is an error, but does such an error rise to the level of "cover up?"

Just incompetence?

Allen's further defense:

And that is where presentism comes into play. I agree that in today's world it is absurd, but the relevant question is whether it was absurd in the 1840s. It apparently wasn't, even among non-LDS. Many people during that time, particularly those who were poor and transient (conditions that certainly applied to Henry and Zina), would engage in self-divorce. Rather than seek out the approbation of authority that was often seen as meddlesome, distant, and aloof, couples would simply agree to dissolve their marriage, and then each go their separate ways. This seemed, to those predisposed to distrust government, a practical and pragmatic solution to a marriage that was no longer desirable or feasible.

-Allen

But, but, but, Allen, it was not based on "practical considerations". Brigham told Henry to go find "a kindred spirit", and that Zina "belonged" to Joseph before any earthly "practical considerations". You're not suggesting this was all BS, are you?

But Allen concedes that the Church may have got it wrong:

I actually just sent an e-mail to someone who I think can fix it. I'll let people know how it turns out.

Do let us know, Allen. So far it hasn't changed.

[_TAK]

Oh this is rich..

From Allen on MAD..
______________________________________________

A couple of weeks ago there was a minor tempest in a teapot over a so-called blatant lie on the Church's website about the marital status (or, more precisely, the marital sequence) of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young. I mentioned in that thread that I would try to use some contacts at CHQ to get a change in the site so it was more correct.

That site has now been updated. Those responsible for the site have apparently decided to remove any reference to Zina's marital status or sequencing. You can see the updated page here:

http://www.LDS.org/pa/display/0,17884,5511-1,00.html

Just trying to return and report.

-Allen

[_Trevor]

Oh this is rich..

From Allen on MAD..

How silly. Yes, let's all celebrate that the have covered up their mistake.

[_TAK]

Oh this is rich..

From Allen on MAD..

How silly. Yes, let's all celebrate that the have covered up their mistake.

Mistake? or another omission of embarrassing history ..








XXXXXXXXXXX

[_Trevor]

Mistake? or another omission of embarrassing history ...

The mistake was the untenable version of history that was offered. I don't know that it was a deliberate cover-up in the first place.