Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) I was thinking about that reference in the heading that refers to the "History of the Church." Most (or is it all?) headings for each section in the Doctrine and Covenants tell us to go there for further context. However, I will admit I don't have this publication and I haven't looked it up. I do have BH Roberts' "Comprehensive History of the Church," and have used that. Could someone please tell me where I can get the publication referred to in the D&C?I have an old paperback set that I bought when I was a BYU student back in the '70s. But these days I think you can get it online as an e-book or perhaps an iPhone app. I'll see if I can find a link or two.Add-on. I see that calmoriah, the erstwhile bookseller, beat me to it. She is always two or three steps ahead of me on such things. Edited July 19, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
treehugger Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 This is all material that a Latter-day Saint earnestly obeying counsel to read and study the scriptures would be exposed to, all from official sources.So now those who do not know are disobedient.
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I have an old paperback set that I bought when I was a BYU student back in the '70s.But these days I think you can get it online as an e-book or perhaps an iPhone app. I'll see if I can find a link or two.Beat you. Have to give a warning if you run Safari as your browser; it bombs my laptop every time I try to search that pdf. Haven't tried it in Firefox yet. It is probably the size. Wish I had a link that has individual volumes rather than all 7 at once....maybe you can find that one, Scott.
selek1 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 So now those who do not know are disobedient.No- those who refuse to study and pray are disobedient.Isn't "reading comprehension" wonderful? 1
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) And if they are lucky they find FAIR. But if not, they are perhaps in trouble.Well, we are the fifth down on google for "polyandry" and "mormon", second one down for "polyandry" and "lds", first one for "polyandry" and "joseph smith" so at least for that topic, their chances are pretty good. Not so good for "polygamy" and "Joseph Smith" though Greg Smith's NAMI paper is 16th down and is the second site mentioned after the 8 wiki citations. I assume other polygamy citations are similar.Mormon.org shows up pretty soon after the wiki entries. Has the Church's comments and then members' comments including one young man (a scout, he looks sweet) making the claim that it was for the purpose of taking care of the widows and was discontinued when they were all taken care of. Guess he didn't read the church's comment too well. I hope someone takes him gently aside and corrects him soon.Paul gets it right though. Couple more really good, informed answers. Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Once that total passed 20, that claim becomes much too far fetched. Polygamy to Smith, was obviously not a bitter pill to swallow.Actually, I kinda view Smith's practice of polygamy as "not mine will but thine be done". (Someone who predated Joseph Smith said that once.)
Nevo Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Please see my reply to Why Me. I don't believe the average Church member reader is as obtuse as you seem to think.I don't think the average Church member is "obtuse" but neither do I assume that the historical context of a given section of the Doctrine and Covenants is transparent to most readers. As Steven Harper points out in the preface to his book, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, "reading the sections is akin to joining a conversation that is well underway." Unless readers learn "the background questions or problems the text was revealed to resolve" they are likely to find themselves lost (xviii). Anyway, I agree with you that a motivated learner can find out about Joseph Smith's polygamy (the mere fact of it anyway) from official Church sources. For details, they will have to turn to outside sources.
selek1 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Well, we are the fifth down on google for "polyandry" and "mormon", second one down for "polyandry" and "lds", first one for "polyandry" and "joseph smith" so at least for that topic, their chances are pretty good. Not so good for "polygamy" and "Joseph Smith" though Greg Smith's NAMI paper is 16th down and is the second site mentioned after the 8 wiki citations. I assume other polygamy citations are similar.Dagnabit. Read this and spent a full thirty seconds trying to figure out how "16th down" worked in a football metaphor before the light finally dawned.
Evangeline Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Beat you. Have to give a warning if you run Safari as your browser; it bombs my laptop every time I try to search that pdf. Haven't tried it in Firefox yet. It is probably the size. Wish I had a link that has individual volumes rather than all 7 at once....maybe you can find that one, Scott.Scott and Calmoriah, thanks for your help.
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Dagnabit.Read this and spent a full thirty seconds trying to figure out how "16th down" worked in a football metaphor before the light finally dawned.Me use a football metaphor....no way, unless it is the True Football that you silly Americans call soccer.
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Scott and Calmoriah, thanks for your help. I live but to serve and search.
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Over my many years I have heard that and several other reasons for polygamy. The one I have decided I like best and it works for me is: God commanded it.Yes. And akin to that is the fact that the LDS Church is the restoration of *all things*. That includes things Old Testament and New Testament. Thus plural marriage was to be practiced and then ended. The main difference is that today we know why it started and ended but we do not know any such thing regarding the biblical practice of plural marriage.
Calm Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 As Steven Harper points out in the preface to his book, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, "reading the sections is akin to joining a conversation that is well underway." Unless readers learn "the background questions or problems the text was revealed to resolve" they are likely to find themselves lost (xviii).But that is what makes it so much fun, a giant time traveling jigsaw puzzle with living pieces. So much more at stack too.
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) I live but to serve and search. Great! Can you find the peanut butter and jelly and make me a sandwich? Edited July 19, 2012 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Sorry Duncan...Polygamy had nothing to do with it. Not really interested.Who's Duncan?
selek1 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Great! Can you find the peanut butter and jelly and make me a sandwich? Word of Advice:RUN!!!!!!
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2012 Author Posted July 19, 2012 Beat you. Have to give a warning if you run Safari as your browser; it bombs my laptop every time I try to search that pdf. Haven't tried it in Firefox yet. It is probably the size. Wish I had a link that has individual volumes rather than all 7 at once....maybe you can find that one, Scott.There's an app on the iPhone store that's on a special now at $6.99, 80 percent off. I haven't tried it. Some of the reviews say it has no page numbers. It seems to me that would make it very difficult to use in conjunction with one's study of the Doctrine and Covenants. Calmoriah, I was able to open your PDF successfully in the iBooks app on my iPod Touch. But I agree it is somewhat cumbersome without the individual volumes separated.
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Exactly...That was my point. I don't really care about polygamy much, and can't understand why this thread is even an issue as far as I'm concerned...but it sure turned into a cwald bash...it had nothing to do with my getting thread banned as Duncan accused...and I don't really understand why Duncan would say otherwise except he is just going out of his way to being rude and a jerk.Nope. Not going out of my way nor being a jerk (at least not by choice but if I am one than I am one). I was pointing out that you complained about not being able to tell your side of the story in part because the moderators locked the thread you were posting on before you could tell your story. but te fact ofthe matter is that you were banned from that thread long before it was locked. So it's impossible that it was from the thread being locked that you could not tell your story. It was simply because you did not tell your story before you were banned. (And you were warned you'd be banned before you got banned)
why me Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I don't think the average Church member is "obtuse" but neither do I assume that the historical context of a given section of the Doctrine and Covenants is transparent to most readers. As Steven Harper points out in the preface to his book, Making Sense of the Doctrine and Covenants, "reading the sections is akin to joining a conversation that is well underway." Unless readers learn "the background questions or problems the text was revealed to resolve" they are likely to find themselves lost (xviii). Anyway, I agree with you that a motivated learner can find out about Joseph Smith's polygamy (the mere fact of it anyway) from official Church sources. For details, they will have to turn to outside sources.Scott is under the impression that mormons are very studious. It may be true that they read the scriptures every day but that does not mean that they have the facilities to research the scriptures and critically think their way through the knowledge. This is not necessarily the case for the general mormon population. And then of course, we have the problem of a worldwide church with members having very poor english skills. They are in trouble if they only depend on church sources.And I am sure that in their own language, the critics in their countries have a nice website with all the information interpreted to cast doubt.
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 There's an app on the iPhone store that's on a special now at $6.99, 80 percent off.I hate posting from my IPad. posting from IPhone is probably a nightmare.
why me Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Great! Can you find the peanut butter and jelly and make me a sandwich? I'm eating one now. Welch's grape jelly with skippy peanut butter. Thanks for the idea. Edited July 19, 2012 by why me
Libs Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Four or five years I can understand. But a 35-year lifetime?I can only shake my head in wonderment.Scott, I know I am waaaay behind on this thread (just now got a chance to look at it again), but I have to say, yes, it was only four or five years, but I learned the specific information, about Joseph's polygamy, from the "antis". If I had truly been faithful (my Bishop warned me about anti sites, and I ignored his warning), it could have been years more, before I ever learned the full story. I do know many members who have spent a lifetime in the church, without really knowing the specifics of Joseph Smith's polygamy. That may sound amazing to you, but I really don't think it is all that uncommon, amongst your average, everyday Latter-day Saints. Edited July 19, 2012 by Libs
Evangeline Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 There's an app on the iPhone store that's on a special now at $6.99, 80 percent off.I haven't tried it. Some of the reviews say it has no page numbers. It seems to me that would make it very difficult to use in conjunction with one's study of the Doctrine and Covenants.Calmoriah, I was able to open your PDF successfully in the iBooks app on my iPod Touch. But I agree it is somewhat cumbersome without the individual volumes separated.Actually, it appears the PDF link doesn't have page numbers either unfortunately. I think I might be better off ordering a paperback version. Thanks again to both of you!
Darren10 Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I'm eating one now. Welch's grape jelly with skippy peanut butter. Thanks for the idea. ¡De nada!
Recommended Posts