LDS Freedom Forum

Dosent this sound like evolution.

2 nephi 26

20 And the Gentiles are lifted up in the pride of their eyes, and have stumbled, because of the greatness of their stumbling block, that they have built up many churches (places of learning)
; nevertheless, they put down the power and miracles of God, (creation)and preach up unto themselves their own wisdom and their own learning(revolution) that they may get gain and grind upon the face of the poor. (Tax others to pay for this education).

Thomas wrote:

Ezra wrote:Let's say evolution was the way we came about.

Some from animals like deer who Have 1 stud of a male to 100 female. Polygamy.

And others from geese. 1 male 1 female and mate for life.

I would have to say Im a stud. The lady's like me. But as God has commanded me to mate like a goose I have.

If he commanded me to be myself I would.


But I don't belive in evolution as there are to many evidences that disprove the theory and timeline as they currently have it.

So I think it's just human nature to want monogamy or polygamy.
I think that just as in nature the animals who practice either are doing gods will.
And I think that if our own situation was correct God would ask it of us to practice polygamy again. A lack of males. Or lack of worthy males. Or to modivate unworthy males into stepping up their game.

As both deer and geese are not evil neither is one or the other ways of reproduction.

If asked of us to do it one way other other. To oppose gods will would make it evil or not.

The situation is fluid though. As eviroments change, a trait that helped in survival can become a hindrance and all the animals with the trait could die off.

Alll life forms on the earth experience mutations. Some can be advantageous and some may be disadvantageous. When eviroments change suddenly, then those with the advanteous trait reproduce while those others die off.

Evolution takes place when a certain trait fosters survival. For instance giraffes are horses with long necks. The long necks become a advantage for survival. Over time when drought hits, the shorter neck horses die and the longer neck ones breed. This happens over many thousands of generations and can be,seen in differing eviroments throughput the earth. Species adapt over time to there eviroment. Shorter necks are an advantage in grass lands and longer necks don't help.

From my research and my current perspective this greatly over simplifies a process of significant complexity. It is calculated that in order for a new species to be defined 5 seperate genetic mutations must occur all at once within a particular animal. Those five genetic mutations must all be favorable and none can be terminal to the creature. The terminal issue is one which we have a great deal of current scientific evidence. It is accepted in every branch of medical science that genetic mutations are universally harmful to the organisms involved. There are no evidences contrary to that reality that mutations destroy or compromise the life and lives of those creatures affected and do not advance them. Thus while evolutionists postulate that there are positive mutations that can lead to species evolving from other species we cannot observe anything currently that lends support to the claim.

What mutations do accomplish however is they cause mutations. However, they do not cause evolution. In light of this discovery of mutations inability to define new species we have additional theories being suggested to compensate for the shortfalls. Genetic drift is one as is genetic adaptation. None of these do I find suitable explanatioins fro defining the means of creating new species and for me they thus fail the Genesis test of each reproducing after its own kind.

Thomas wrote: We can observe evolution take place in short amount of time with pesticides. Bed bugs were thought to be mostly erradicated. They have been treated with pesticides for about one hundred years. What has happened though is by mutation a small percentage of the bugs are immune to the pesticide so they survive and reproduce. Now after one humdred years of this sifting, all the bed bugs have this trait. That is only one hundred years.think about what can happen over billions of years.

When world wide changes in envirment occur that is when the greatest die off of species takes place.

One way this can happen to humans is during extreme drought. Some humans have intestines that are twice as long as others. They can survive on less food. If extreme drought hits they would be survivors while the others die off. The new trait is passed on to all survivors.

Mutation is constant and is a survival mechanism for life on this planet.

Technically what we observe in resistance to pesticides is what might be termed natural selection as Darwin might phrase it. A trait, which already exists within a population, allows a few individuals to survive a condition with which other members of the population are unable to cope. Those so fortunate did not mutate to become resistant they simply coexisted within the population of bugs. However, as the other bugs without the trait died off those with the trait become the dominant source of the genetic code which was replicated in the reproduction of these selected survivors. Thus through this process an existing trait within a population becomes enhanced and present in the greater population over time. Oftimes this function is described by some as an evolutionary process but as it lacks true mutational origin it is an inadequate proof of a mutational factor as an evolutionary precedent. Regardless of the adaptation and now dominate trait of pesticidel resistance the bedbug is still a bedbug and reproduces within the bedbug population as a bedbug.

So again, for my perspecitve I find adequate proven scientific observation that complicates theoretical ambitions.

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Ezra wrote:Let's say evolution was the way we came about.

Some from animals like deer who Have 1 stud of a male to 100 female. Polygamy.

And others from geese. 1 male 1 female and mate for life.

I would have to say Im a stud. The lady's like me. But as God has commanded me to mate like a goose I have.

If he commanded me to be myself I would.


But I don't belive in evolution as there are to many evidences that disprove the theory and timeline as they currently have it.

So I think it's just human nature to want monogamy or polygamy.
I think that just as in nature the animals who practice either are doing gods will.
And I think that if our own situation was correct God would ask it of us to practice polygamy again. A lack of males. Or lack of worthy males. Or to modivate unworthy males into stepping up their game.

As both deer and geese are not evil neither is one or the other ways of reproduction.

If asked of us to do it one way other other. To oppose gods will would make it evil or not.

The situation is fluid though. As eviroments change, a trait that helped in survival can become a hindrance and all the animals with the trait could die off.

Alll life forms on the earth experience mutations. Some can be advantageous and some may be disadvantageous. When eviroments change suddenly, then those with the advanteous trait reproduce while those others die off.

Evolution takes place when a certain trait fosters survival. For instance giraffes are horses with long necks. The long necks become a advantage for survival. Over time when drought hits, the shorter neck horses die and the longer neck ones breed. This happens over many thousands of generations and can be,seen in differing eviroments throughput the earth. Species adapt over time to there eviroment. Shorter necks are an advantage in grass lands and longer necks don't help.

From my research and my current perspective this greatly over simplifies a process of significant complexity. It is calculated that in order for a new species to be defined 5 seperate genetic mutations must occur all at once within a particular animal. Those five genetic mutations must all be favorable and none can be terminal to the creature. The terminal issue is one which we have a great deal of current scientific evidence. It is accepted in every branch of medical science that genetic mutations are universally harmful to the organisms involved. There are no evidences contrary to that reality that mutations destroy or compromise the life and lives of those creatures affected and do not advance them. Thus while evolutionists postulate that there are positive mutations that can lead to species evolving from other species we cannot observe anything currently that lends support to the claim.

What mutations do accomplish however is they cause mutations. However, they do not cause evolution. In light of this discovery of mutations inability to define new species we have additional theories being suggested to compensate for the shortfalls. Genetic drift is one as is genetic adaptation. None of these do I find suitable explanatioins fro defining the means of creating new species and for me they thus fail the Genesis test of each reproducing after its own kind.

Thomas wrote: We can observe evolution take place in short amount of time with pesticides. Bed bugs were thought to be mostly erradicated. They have been treated with pesticides for about one hundred years. What has happened though is by mutation a small percentage of the bugs are immune to the pesticide so they survive and reproduce. Now after one humdred years of this sifting, all the bed bugs have this trait. That is only one hundred years.think about what can happen over billions of years.

When world wide changes in envirment occur that is when the greatest die off of species takes place.

One way this can happen to humans is during extreme drought. Some humans have intestines that are twice as long as others. They can survive on less food. If extreme drought hits they would be survivors while the others die off. The new trait is passed on to all survivors.

Mutation is constant and is a survival mechanism for life on this planet.

Technically what we observe in resistance to pesticides is what might be termed natural selection as Darwin might phrase it. A trait, which already exists within a population, allows a few individuals to survive a condition with which other members of the population are unable to cope. Those so fortunate did not mutate to become resistant they simply coexisted within the population of bugs. However, as the other bugs without the trait died off those with the trait become the dominant source of the genetic code which was replicated in the reproduction of these selected survivors. Thus through this process an existing trait within a population becomes enhanced and present in the greater population over time. Oftimes this function is described by some as an evolutionary process but as it lacks true mutational origin it is an inadequate proof of a mutational factor as an evolutionary precedent. Regardless of the adaptation and now dominate trait of pesticidel resistance the bedbug is still a bedbug and reproduces within the bedbug population as a bedbug.

So again, for my perspecitve I find adequate proven scientific observation that complicates theoretical ambitions.

Eternity is a very, very, very long time bro Lenox. Repeat the bedbug experiment 100,000,000,000,000,000 times and you will have new species alright.

Thomas wrote: God may control the appearance of all matter and life and it could all be 6,000 years since it started running. He could make it appear as if it is billions of years old. Just another one the possibilities.

After a fashion, I actually believe this is what occurred. Not so much that he faked it looking this old, but that when we consider the process of dropping from a different measurement of time such as eternal to our current mortal state that there are physical observable transitions in matter and light influence that alter the laws of physics. Thus what we measure based on our laws of physics that would actually take a million years to accomplish a particular function but in an eternal state that passage of time might only be a few decades.

brlenox wrote:

Thomas wrote: God may control the appearance of all matter and life and it could all be 6,000 years since it started running. He could make it appear as if it is billions of years old. Just another one the possibilities.

After a fashion, I actually believe this is what occurred. Now so much that he faked it looking this old, but that when we consider the process of dropping from a different measurement of time such as eternal to our current mortal state that there are physical observable transitions in matter and light influence that alter the laws of physics. Thus what we measure based on our laws of physics would actually take a million years to accomplish a particular function but in an eternal state that passage of time might only be a few decades.

That certainly could be the case. I do believe God controls the earth and what hapeens here. The mechanisms of that control are up for debate.

And you would still have a bed bug.

That bed bug would not become a fish then a walrus then crawl on land and become a lion and then a monkey and then a human. Who then gos back to the ocean and become and mermaid.

Ezra wrote:And you would still have a bed bug.

That bed bug would not become a fish then a walrus then crawl on land and become a lion and then a monkey and then a human. Who then gos back to the ocean and become and mermaid.

I guess we will have to disagree on that one. I do not believe in a stagnant universe. I believe life is much more adaptable then we can imagine.

brlenox wrote:

jbalm wrote:
Those scriptures, like most scriptures, can have many implications.

One of those implications is that if we lived our lives based solely on what religious leaders say, we'd still be living in the Stone Age, quaking in fear, every time the local shaman proclaimed that every solar eclipse, earthquake, flood, or drought meant that God was really pissed at us. Then we'd have to sacrifice animals and/or people so that God wouldn't be pissed anymore.

It is interesting that you should see religious leaders as Neanderthalian in their ability to contribute to the exaltation of God's children. Of course I must agree with you when you include such uninspired sorts as shamans’ and witch doctors and such as are only exalted of men. However, it is into this same category that I must include Scientists, Doctors and Lawyers. These hold the exact same status, within reason, to the witch doctors and shamans of other societies being looked up to and revered after a fashion which is beyond the faith levels that these same people may choose to revere God.

However, ahead of this entire mix and sundry assortment of leaders of false principles is a set which make greater efforts to applying and teaching others concerning the proper forms of worship and advancement in the good graces of God. This group, the apostles and prophets and other servants of God are requisite with Christ's plan to make the atonement as efficacious as possible in the lives of all those who will abide his word. Thus the reason I see these verses as referencing a particular sort of leadership which is not inclusive of apostles and prophets from my perspectives.

Maybe you missed the word "solely" in my post.

Thomas wrote::ymsick: s

Ezra wrote:By the way I'm open to either way as I don't know one way or the other.

I however lean towards creationism. As this require more faith in God. Which is a good thing.
And most atheists belive in evolution. They can't be wrong right?

How did God create himself? He was once a man.

Ezra probably means that God created Adam and Eves bodies.
God didn't create Himself, His Father created a body for him, probably through an Adam and Eve on whatever earth he experienced his mortality on. Who knows, maybe He was an Adam for his mortal world. We don't know. But what we do know is that Godhood is generational. Where it began, if it even had a beginning, makes my head spin, but it wasn't simply "created". But our mortal bodies, yeah, they were created. On this earth, it started with Adam. God can create stuff like that I guess.

ocarinahuff wrote: I am not going to leave the church over this issue, make no mistake about that. I believe in Joseph Smith, and I believe that God rescued his church from polygamy. But, it appears that the church has a hard time admitting its mistakes in this one subject. With the release of these recent articles on the subject of polygamy, it seems they're only digging themselves deeper into a pit of error.

It is not my intention to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. If you feel doubts after hearing about this issue above, please, please don't leave the church. There is no better place for you to be. I don't think anyone has all the answers on this subject, not me, and not the people who researched this topic for years. I trust that in time, the Lord God will reveal all things to our satisfaction.

Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

Back to the OP. So let me get this straight. We have access to a living prophet, who communicates directly with God, and yet you are saying the church still gets it wrong. And that is not a problem for you?

So what happened? Did the prophet forget to talk to God? Did God forget to tell the prophet when he was wrong? Did God give him the wrong information? Did God think it would be good for us to be given the wrong information?

I cannot comprehend why we would be led astray while we have a prophet. If this is not important enough for him to get straight, what is? Is he just overwhelmed by producing so much revelation that he doesn't have time for this issue which is driving thousands away?

Yes, I am confused.

djinwa wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote: I am not going to leave the church over this issue, make no mistake about that. I believe in Joseph Smith, and I believe that God rescued his church from polygamy. But, it appears that the church has a hard time admitting its mistakes in this one subject. With the release of these recent articles on the subject of polygamy, it seems they're only digging themselves deeper into a pit of error.

It is not my intention to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. If you feel doubts after hearing about this issue above, please, please don't leave the church. There is no better place for you to be. I don't think anyone has all the answers on this subject, not me, and not the people who researched this topic for years. I trust that in time, the Lord God will reveal all things to our satisfaction.

Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

Back to the OP. So let me get this straight. We have access to a living prophet, who communicates directly with God, and yet you are saying the church still gets it wrong. And that is not a problem for you?

So what happened? Did the prophet forget to talk to God? Did God forget to tell the prophet when he was wrong? Did God give him the wrong information? Did God think it would be good for us to be given the wrong information?

I cannot comprehend why we would be led astray while we have a prophet. If this is not important enough for him to get straight, what is? Is he just overwhelmed by producing so much revelation that he doesn't have time for this issue which is driving thousands away?

Yes, I am confused.

I have some suggestions: Read Joseph Fought Polygamy (you don't have to agree. Just read it). Then read/listen to Dr. Daymon Smith's work on the Manifestos (yes, there were multiple. One was a press release/smokescreen. One actually ended the practice). For additional consideration, read the chapters about polygamy in J. Reuben Clark's biography by Quinn. Try listening a Fundamentalist talk about polygamy.

It might not seem so cut and dry after this. It might not be a question of listening to a prophet, but which prophet you should listen to.

As for prophets not being able to lead you astray- the very assertion that they can't is evidence that they can. Prophets leading people astray is all over the scriptures.

djinwa wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote: I am not going to leave the church over this issue, make no mistake about that. I believe in Joseph Smith, and I believe that God rescued his church from polygamy. But, it appears that the church has a hard time admitting its mistakes in this one subject. With the release of these recent articles on the subject of polygamy, it seems they're only digging themselves deeper into a pit of error.

It is not my intention to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. If you feel doubts after hearing about this issue above, please, please don't leave the church. There is no better place for you to be. I don't think anyone has all the answers on this subject, not me, and not the people who researched this topic for years. I trust that in time, the Lord God will reveal all things to our satisfaction.

Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

Back to the OP. So let me get this straight. We have access to a living prophet, who communicates directly with God, and yet you are saying the church still gets it wrong. And that is not a problem for you?

So what happened? Did the prophet forget to talk to God? Did God forget to tell the prophet when he was wrong? Did God give him the wrong information? Did God think it would be good for us to be given the wrong information?

I cannot comprehend why we would be led astray while we have a prophet. If this is not important enough for him to get straight, what is? Is he just overwhelmed by producing so much revelation that he doesn't have time for this issue which is driving thousands away?

Yes, I am confused.

The church never said polygamy was wrong. People who assume it's always wrong are the ones who seem to have issues. They expect the prophet to declare it was wrong, when it wasn't. A self created dilemma, one that doesn't exist in reality.

Shadow wrote: Ezra probably means that God created Adam and Eves bodies.
God didn't create Himself, His Father created a body for him, probably through an Adam and Eve on whatever earth he experienced his mortality on. Who knows, maybe He was an Adam for his mortal world. We don't know. But what we do know is that Godhood is generational. Where it began, if it even had a beginning, makes my head spin, but it wasn't simply "created". But our mortal bodies, yeah, they were created. On this earth, it started with Adam. God can create stuff like that I guess.

When you are discussing the theories of how mankind come into being it would seem that God created man is not a rational answer if you also believe God was once a man.

Thomas wrote:

Shadow wrote: Ezra probably means that God created Adam and Eves bodies.
God didn't create Himself, His Father created a body for him, probably through an Adam and Eve on whatever earth he experienced his mortality on. Who knows, maybe He was an Adam for his mortal world. We don't know. But what we do know is that Godhood is generational. Where it began, if it even had a beginning, makes my head spin, but it wasn't simply "created". But our mortal bodies, yeah, they were created. On this earth, it started with Adam. God can create stuff like that I guess.

When you are discussing the theories of how mankind come into being it would seem that God created man is not a rational answer if you also believe God was once a man.

Why not?

Maybe we need to clarify a difference between body and spirit? We probably are mostly in agreement.

Thomas wrote:

Shadow wrote: Ezra probably means that God created Adam and Eves bodies.
God didn't create Himself, His Father created a body for him, probably through an Adam and Eve on whatever earth he experienced his mortality on. Who knows, maybe He was an Adam for his mortal world. We don't know. But what we do know is that Godhood is generational. Where it began, if it even had a beginning, makes my head spin, but it wasn't simply "created". But our mortal bodies, yeah, they were created. On this earth, it started with Adam. God can create stuff like that I guess.

When you are discussing the theories of how mankind come into being it would seem that God created man is not a rational answer if you also believe God was once a man.

ya we know we are eternal intelligences and we know we lived as spirits before we came to earth for a body etc. we know as man is God once was and as God is man may become. we know ALL things come from God, the scriptures and prophets tell us that. we attribute ALL things we have to God, ALL things that are good come from God. We also believe we are the offspring of God, but our intelligences are eternal.

are you being difficult on purpose or what? this isn't the first thread you have discussed this on in the past year or so.

we know matter can never be created or destroyed and that we are matter. so whats your point?

we attribute ALL creations to God. this is one way on which we worship Him and His majesty and creations, although we know we are eternal. we have jobs and earn salaries but we give thanks to God for what we have and what He has given us and allowed us to have. We all have talents but thank God for our gifts and things He has given us. ALL comes from Him.

whats your point here?

I believe if you through all religion away and all its ordinances and ceremonies past and present (placed it on the alter and let a fire consume it) and practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought, word and deed) just the teaching Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug:

SkyBird wrote:I believe if you through all religion away and all its ordinances and ceremonies past and present (placed it on the alter and let a fire consume it) and practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought, word and deed) just the teaching Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug:

Traditional Christian theology for certain, however certainly not LDS theology.

brlenox wrote:

SkyBird wrote:I believe if you through all religion away and all its ordinances and ceremonies past and present (placed it on the alter and let a fire consume it) and practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought, word and deed) just the teaching Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug:

Traditional Christian theology for certain, however certainly not LDS theology.

If that is to simple for the LDS community... maybe if this phrase written on every LDS Temple were practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought word and deed) you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug: ...by the way I am an active Mormon and see "God" in the full sense of the word in and through all things.

SkyBird wrote:

brlenox wrote:

SkyBird wrote:I believe if you through all religion away and all its ordinances and ceremonies past and present (placed it on the alter and let a fire consume it) and practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought, word and deed) just the teaching Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount, you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug:

Traditional Christian theology for certain, however certainly not LDS theology.

If that is to simple for the LDS community... maybe if this phrase written on every LDS Temple were practiced (as in live, assimilate, become a manifestation of in thought word and deed) you would end up as a Celestial resurrected being as a "God" in the full sense of the word. :ymhug: ...by the way I am an active Mormon and see "God" in the full sense of the word in and through all things.

So you see Brahman! Awesome me too.... : )

Muerte Rosa wrote:

djinwa wrote:

ocarinahuff wrote: I am not going to leave the church over this issue, make no mistake about that. I believe in Joseph Smith, and I believe that God rescued his church from polygamy. But, it appears that the church has a hard time admitting its mistakes in this one subject. With the release of these recent articles on the subject of polygamy, it seems they're only digging themselves deeper into a pit of error.

It is not my intention to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. If you feel doubts after hearing about this issue above, please, please don't leave the church. There is no better place for you to be. I don't think anyone has all the answers on this subject, not me, and not the people who researched this topic for years. I trust that in time, the Lord God will reveal all things to our satisfaction.

Now then, who else is as confused/concerned about this topic as I?

Back to the OP. So let me get this straight. We have access to a living prophet, who communicates directly with God, and yet you are saying the church still gets it wrong. And that is not a problem for you?

So what happened? Did the prophet forget to talk to God? Did God forget to tell the prophet when he was wrong? Did God give him the wrong information? Did God think it would be good for us to be given the wrong information?

I cannot comprehend why we would be led astray while we have a prophet. If this is not important enough for him to get straight, what is? Is he just overwhelmed by producing so much revelation that he doesn't have time for this issue which is driving thousands away?

Yes, I am confused.

That's because you're assuming that everyone on here believes in our prophet as being a true one. I do. But many others on here do not.

I was directing my comments to the OP who appears to believe in the prophet, as he says he doesn't want to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. Yet he brings up an issue that should cause doubt. The recent statements by the church conflict with that of Joseph. The OP says God will reveal the answers sometime. Well, why not get the answer right the first time? Why put out a statement without consulting the prophet, who could then consult with God and get it right?

How are we to proclaim we are guided by a prophet when it seems otherwise?

Maybe you could help me, Muerte Rosa. If you believe we are guided by a prophet, why did the church get their essay wrong? Was it intentional? Is being wrong as much evidence of divine inspiration as being right?

Can you quote what was wrong in the essay?

Muerte Rosa wrote:That's because you're assuming that everyone on here believes in our prophet as being a true one. I do. But many others on here do not.

Count me in, Pres. Thomas S. Monson is a great spiritual man, has a great sense of humor, and, having watched many a general conference with him as a speaker, one whom I feel is full of charity for all. I love watching his talks.

djinwa wrote:I was directing my comments to the OP who appears to believe in the prophet, as he says he doesn't want to cause doubt in anyone's faith in the church. Yet he brings up an issue that should cause doubt. The recent statements by the church conflict with that of Joseph. The OP says God will reveal the answers sometime. Well, why not get the answer right the first time? Why put out a statement without consulting the prophet, who could then consult with God and get it right?

How are we to proclaim we are guided by a prophet when it seems otherwise?

Maybe you could help me, Muerte Rosa. If you believe we are guided by a prophet, why did the church get their essay wrong? Was it intentional? Is being wrong as much evidence of divine inspiration as being right?

Try to be calm. I may not answer you a second time if you respond again in anger.

I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and fulfilled his mission honorably, and fought the good fight right up to the day he was murdered. I do not doubt his words when he says he is innocent of polygamy. My "doubts" are on Brigham Young, the one who appeared to have made polygamy the official practice and doctrine of the church. Yes, such an issue as this can indeed cause doubts in our faith in the Church and God, but it takes even greater faith to stick with the church in spite of these "inconsistencies." I may very well find out that I was wrong, in the end. Answers do not always come when we want them to, and seeing as the answer to this question/dilemma has not yet come, I sense that it means I am not yet ready for it. I have to wait on God for this. This is the test of faith.

Concerning the essays that were released on lds.org recently, I do not know the process for publishing articles on lds.org. I don't know if the prophet or one or more of the apostles reviews things before allowing them to be posted online. I suspect that they may not have time for that. It is possible that whoever is in charge of lds.org acted on their own, since it may be within the authority of their calling(if there is such a thing, a calling to manage lds.org?). Remember, Stake Presidents and Bishops, for example, do not consult with the Prophet on every action they take for their stakes/wards. They are given power and authority to act on their own, under the direction of the Holy Spirit and within the guidelines set by those higher in authority.

The question comes down to whether or not Joseph Smith was telling the truth or was lying to cover up his polygamist relationships. I choose to believe he was telling the truth. He was a good man and doesn't deserver to have his name drug through the mud. Honestly I was disappointed to see the press release from the Church attempting to justify Joseph's supposed polygamy. Sounds like they're trying to justify Warren Jeffs behavior not a true Prophet of God. IMHO

Polygamy is as much automatically tied to Warren Jeffs as eating meat is automatically tied to Jeffrey Dahmer.