Where Is The Essay Link For: "plural Marriage In Kirtland And Nauvoo"?

[Buckeye]

Joseph Smith plural marriage is obviously a sub topic of plural marriage in the church.

Are there other obvious subtopics that have their own link on that page?

 

Some of the other entries could be logically combined, but none are as tied together as the polygamy essays. You could tie the BOM and BOA translation essays together because "translation." You could tie the BOM translation and BOM DNA essays together because "BOM."

 

I guess it all depends on what the designer is trying to accomplish. I view the polygamy essays as part of one large essay that is, frankly, too large to be its own essay and so reasonably was broken into subparts. I have no problem with the TOC only displaying the meta-essay, in which links to the sub-essays can be found.

[Buckeye]

It seems clear the church doesn't want people stumbling across the plural marriage essays. We need to protect the delicate sensibilities and faith of members.

 

 

My problem is defining "the church." I tend to believe that there are varying interests and opinions in the COB regarding the essays. Changes to format, location, and even some content, are IMO more a reflection of changes within the COB than some concerted effort to confuse the membership.

 

Just look at the fiasco from last fall regarding whether to offically call the Women's Session part of General Conference. Clearly there are multiple interests and views at play. We're only seeing through a glass darkly the results of those inside debates.

[Calm]

It seems clear the church doesn't want people stumbling across the plural marriage essays.

 

And yet front and center (well,right side top actually) there is the link to the full Plural Marriage in the LDS Church article...which then has all the links to the other subessays.

 

And if one only uses the search function for "jospeh smith" "plural marriage" the first real hit (the other two are generic ones that pop up like on google whenever "mormon" is searched on no matter what is being search for in that category) is Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.

 

So no, they don't want people stumbling across the plural essays, they want them led directly to them.

[bluebell]

Some of the other entries could be logically combined, but none are as tied together as the polygamy essays. You could tie the BOM and BOA translation essays together because "translation." You could tie the BOM translation and BOM DNA essays together because "BOM."

 

I guess it all depends on what the designer is trying to accomplish. I view the polygamy essays as part of one large essay that is, frankly, too large to be its own essay and so reasonably was broken into subparts. I have no problem with the TOC only displaying the meta-essay, in which links to the sub-essays can be found.

 

That could work, but only if someone wanted "The Book of Mormon" to be the topic that all subtopics could be placed under.  

 

That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense though because the subject is way way to broad, and also, the essays that we have involving the BOM don't include everything about the BOM that the church has to offer.  It would end up being an incomplete topic heading.

 

Like Larsen said, this could change in the future (because it seems obvious that it's just a style or formatting decision and nothing sinister or covert) but like you said, it makes sense to me the way it's formatted now.  

 

If i had to make an outline of the essays, i would list 'plural marriage' as a roman numeral but all other essays dealing with that same topic would have to be a letter (for those who don't remember the rules of making an outline-http://www.quia.com/files/quia/users/mjalkut/outline-format ).  To give them their own roman numeral like all the completely different topics wouldn't be technically correct.

 

Not that the topics have to follow the rules for making an outline or anything.  Just explaining why it's not odd for it to be formatted the way it is.

[Calm]

Julie, the link that CCRW provided is to the beta site that had the link to the videos on it.  I don't know if they work now because I am trying to upgrade my adobe flash and have just managed to completely uninstall it...sigh.  

 

So if this doesn't work , go to CCRW's link and click on the three links, the first one "will Gospel Topics be enhanced":

 

https://beta.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=

[JulieM]

Julie, the link that CCRW provided is to the beta site that had the link to the videos on it.  I don't know if they work now because I am trying to upgrade my adobe flash and have just managed to completely uninstall it...sigh.  

 

So if this doesn't work , go to CCRW's link and click on the three links, the first one "will Gospel Topics be enhanced":

 

https://beta.lds.org/topics?lang=eng#media=

Thank you, calmoriah! Again, you are the best and I appreciate your help

[HappyJackWagon]

"And yet front and center (well,right side top actually) there is the link to the full Plural Marriage in the LDS Church article...which then has all the links to the other subessays."

"I'm not sure how anyone can say that, given as how 'plural marriage in the LDS church' is right there on the Gospel Topics page."

Come on guys. Do you really think the church wants everyone to read these essays? Or do you think they worry about how they could damage the testimonies of people who weren't necessarily looking for them but happened to stumble upon them?

They worry. We can quibble back and forth but these essays have not, until recently, been easily accessible and it can be argued the COB is hoping people will read the intro essay on polygamy and call it good without clicking through to the additional links. They worry a lot.

It would be interesting to take a poll of our individual wards to see how many are familiar with the church essays. 10-20-30-60-90% I don't know but I'd guess the answer is on the low end of the scale. Why is that? I think it is unfair to blame the 50-60%+ of active members I expect are unaware of the essays.

[ALarson]

It would be interesting to take a poll of our individual wards to see how many are familiar with the church essays. 10-20-30-60-90% I don't know but I'd guess the answer is on the low end of the scale. Why is that? I think it is unfair to blame the 50-60%+ of active members I expect are unaware of the essays.

From reading comments on some other websites about this, some have reported that even their Bishops are either not aware of the essays yet or that they have heard of them, but haven't read them.  So, if the Bishops haven't read them, I think it's a pretty low percentage of members who have read them so far.

 

But then, I've also read where there are wards that the Bishop is going to start using the essays for the topic of their 5th Sunday joint lessons.  So in those wards, the members will soon hear about them if they haven't yet.

[Calm]

 I view the polygamy essays as part of one large essay that is, frankly, too large to be its own essay and so reasonably was broken into subparts. I have no problem with the TOC only displaying the meta-essay, in which links to the sub-essays can be found.

It would not be a surprise to me if in concept it started as all one article and then it was pretty quickly realized it would be best served by having a general one with 3 more detailed for each time period.

 

I don't see any of the others at this point likely to have gone through that kind of development process.

 

 It may happen in the future if they decide to expand more on various topics.  A lot I suspect will depend on how they are going to handle the noncontroversial subjects.  Originally it was set up like the True to the Faith book or Bible dictionary in topics, with very short brief descriptions that would probably only be helpful to the beginning student but if they want to add depth for studying Apostasy for example, they could provide subtopics on the different time periods (apostasy among the Israelites, Nephites, early Christians and then in the modern Church), but depending on where they take it, it might end up more like an encyclopedia with some rather long articles that would also be helpful to be broken up if dealing with multiple subjects, especially time periods.

[bluebell]

"And yet front and center (well,right side top actually) there is the link to the full Plural Marriage in the LDS Church article...which then has all the links to the other subessays."

"I'm not sure how anyone can say that, given as how 'plural marriage in the LDS church' is right there on the Gospel Topics page."

Come on guys. Do you really think the church wants everyone to read these essays? Or do you think they worry about how they could damage the testimonies of people who weren't necessarily looking for them but happened to stumble upon them?

They worry. We can quibble back and forth but these essays have not, until recently, been easily accessible and it can be argued the COB is hoping people will read the intro essay on polygamy and call it good without clicking through to the additional links. They worry a lot.

 

 

I don't have a problem with this opinion, but i'm not seeing that you've really supported it with any evidence other than a general, 'come on guys, you know i'm right', kind of thing.

 

I don't disagree that they probably worry, but from my perspective that hasn't stopped them from putting the information out for people to find.  This seems pretty clear especially with the understanding that as new manuals are done in the next couple of years these essays are supposedly going to be included right in the lessons.

 

Someone really would have to be struggling with basic cognitive skills not to know that if they are looking for information on how JS practiced polygamy they should click on the link labeled "plural marriage in the church".  

 

I don't mean that as a passive aggressive snarky comment or any kind of backhanded insult but only that i honestly and sincerely cannot see how someone could be looking for that information, come across the plural marriage topic, and not think to look there for the information they are seeking.

 

 

It would be interesting to take a poll of our individual wards to see how many are familiar with the church essays. 10-20-30-60-90% I don't know but I'd guess the answer is on the low end of the scale. Why is that? I think it is unfair to blame the 50-60%+ of active members I expect are unaware of the essays.

 

 

It would be interesting to take a poll to see how many members are familiar with even half of the stuff that is contained on lds.org.

[bluebell]

From reading comments on some other websites about this, some have reported that even their Bishops are either not aware of the essays yet or that they have heard of them, but haven't read them.  So, if the Bishops haven't read them, I think it's a pretty low percentage of members who have read them so far.

 

 

 

This doesn't surprise me.  I've known about these essays since they have come out and i haven't read any of them all the way thru yet and most of them i haven't read at all.  

[Scott Lloyd]

My problem is defining "the church." I tend to believe that there are varying interests and opinions in the COB regarding the essays. Changes to format, location, and even some content, are IMO more a reflection of changes within the COB than some concerted effort to confuse the membership.

 

Just look at the fiasco from last fall regarding whether to offically call the Women's Session part of General Conference. Clearly there are multiple interests and views at play. We're only seeing through a glass darkly the results of those inside debates.

What fiasco?

 

I agree that it time for the notification to get out to all concerned, but sometimes it takes time for the water to get to the end of the row. I wouldn't call that a "fiasco."

[Buckeye]

Come on guys. Do you really think the church wants everyone to read these essays? Or do you think they worry about how they could damage the testimonies of people who weren't necessarily looking for them but happened to stumble upon them?

They worry. We can quibble back and forth but these essays have not, until recently, been easily accessible and it can be argued the COB is hoping people will read the intro essay on polygamy and call it good without clicking through to the additional links. They worry a lot.

It would be interesting to take a poll of our individual wards to see how many are familiar with the church essays. 10-20-30-60-90% I don't know but I'd guess the answer is on the low end of the scale. Why is that? I think it is unfair to blame the 50-60%+ of active members I expect are unaware of the essays.

 

Who is "the church"? IMO, there some senior leaders who want more essay exposure to the members, some who want less, and most who are comfortable with things as they stand. What will change things is leaders' preception as to whether the information is a net help or hurt to the church's interests.

 

If I had to guess, I would say that 90% of the active members in my ward know about the essays, but only 25-40% have bothered to read any, and only 5% have bothered to read them all. My ward may be unique because the bishopric spent an entire 5th Sunday discussing the essays as a resource, and they have had speakers (me) address the essays in sacrament meeting.

[Buckeye]

What fiasco?

 

I agree that it time for the notification to get out to all concerned, but sometimes it takes time for the water to get to the end of the row. I wouldn't call that a "fiasco."

 

Over the course of a week or two there were conflicting statements from the newsroom and the church's websites regarding whether women's session was part of GC. Statements were posted, only to be taken down. Frustration and even amusement at the situation were well documented on major blogs (BCC, T&S) and even discussed here. You can find the sources.

[JulieM]

Who is "the church"? IMO, there some senior leaders who want more essay exposure to the members, some who want less, and most who are comfortable with things as they stand. What will change things is leaders' preception as to whether the information is a net help or hurt to the church's interests.

 

If I had to guess, I would say that 90% of the active members in my ward know about the essays, but only 25-40% have bothered to read any, and only 5% have bothered to read them all. My ward may be unique because the bishopric spent an entire 5th Sunday discussing the essays as a resource, and they have had speakers (me) address the essays in sacrament meeting.

Sounds like you have a great Bishop and ward, Buckeye! I'm jealous

I'd say our ward is just the opposite, maybe 10% have heard of the essays and probably only a fraction of them have read them. I'd guess that 90% have not heard about them.

[CCRW]

The thing that bothers me most about the essays is that they remain undated and unsigned by anyone in authority.

[HappyJackWagon]

"I don't disagree that they probably worry, but from my perspective that hasn't stopped them from putting the information out for people to find. This seems pretty clear especially with the understanding that as new manuals are done in the next couple of years these essays are supposedly going to be included right in the lessons.

Someone really would have to be struggling with basic cognitive skills not to know that if they are looking for information on how JS practiced polygamy they should click on the link labeled "plural marriage in the church".

When this information is included in new manuals and lesson material I'll probably agree with you.

What if someone isn't looking for anything about JS polygamy? I mean, why would they? They think they already know all about it. So they read the first intro essay not realizing that there is much more to dig into. Again, without the leadership making the existence of the essays more widely known they are really only out there for those few who are seeking it while the rest of the church continues on in ignorance. Then we can sit back and blame the members for not knowing to look for additional information. It doesn't have to be that way and I hope you're right that they include some of this information in lessons.

The fact that they listed the 8 essays on the front page of the topics page is a good start but much more needs to be done.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Over the course of a week or two there were conflicting statements from the newsroom and the church's websites regarding whether women's session was part of GC. Statements were posted, only to be taken down. Frustration and even amusement at the situation were well documented on major blogs (BCC, T&S) and even discussed here. You can find the sources.

 

Someone at the church even edited a prayer to remove the reference to the women's session being an actual session of conference. In a day of email and mass communication it hardly seems like it would take 1-2 weeks to get this information to the end of the row.

"Fiasco" may be a strong word but at the very least it was an embarrassing display of poor communication by the church.

[ALarson]

The thing that bothers me most about the essays is that they remain undated and unsigned by anyone in authority.

I agree with this too.  Why don't these come from the 1st Presidency?  And, maybe they do.  But why aren't they signed by them then?

[Buckeye]

 

 

Someone at the church even edited a prayer to remove the reference to the women's session being an actual session of conference. In a day of email and mass communication it hardly seems like it would take 1-2 weeks to get this information to the end of the row.

"Fiasco" may be a strong word but at the very least it was an embarrassing display of poor communication by the church.

 

I concede. Fiasco was too strong. How about 'blunder'?

[bluebell]

The thing that bothers me most about the essays is that they remain undated and unsigned by anyone in authority.

 

I agree.  All we have is this explanation of where they come from-

 

Recognizing that today so much information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be obtained from questionable and often inaccurate sources, officials of the Church began in 2013 to publish straightforward, in-depth essays on a number of topics. 

It would be nice to know which officials were involved and how, etc.

[bluebell]

What if someone isn't looking for anything about JS polygamy? I mean, why would they? They think they already know all about it. So they read the first intro essay not realizing that there is much more to dig into. Again, without the leadership making the existence of the essays more widely known they are really only out there for those few who are seeking it while the rest of the church continues on in ignorance. Then we can sit back and blame the members for not knowing to look for additional information. It doesn't have to be that way and I hope you're right that they include some of this information in lessons.

 

 

I think this is exactly how the church, so far at least, has set things up:  For the information to be available to those who are actively seeking it.

 

From the Gospel Topics page-

 

We again encourage members to study the Gospel Topics essays cited in the links to the right as they “seek learning, even by study and also by faith.”

[Calm]

I agree with this too.  Why don't these come from the 1st Presidency?  And, maybe they do.  But why aren't they signed by them then?

While authorized by the First Presidency, they are written in a more academic as opposed to a revelatory or teaching doctrine style, either dealing with history or with science.  If more information comes to light due to discovering more documents among early Christians for that topic or documents from the modern church or the science becoming more detailed in what it can tell us in DNA, etc, these articles can be changed to reflect the increase in knowledge and that should be no more of a big deal than someone writing about doing genealogy who uses computers in contrast to articles on genealogy experiences back in the 1950s or so.

 

Their intent is to be supportive in helping us learn the context where revelations were received and how people attempted to put those revelations into place...sometimes successfully, sometimes not.

 

While the scriptures instruct us to gather histories of the Church including iirc attacks upon it, it does not assign this as a function of the First Presidency...they are sustained as our prophets, seers and revelators, not our historians and scientists.

 

As such I don't see that the 'hot topic' (for easy reference) essays relate to anything that would require the First Presidence to sign them anymore than an article about someone's exploration of their ancestor's life in a family history article in the Ensign needs to be signed by the First Presidency.

[CCRW]

Sorry, this is negative, but I believe has some measure of truth to it.  Just like Elder Oaks proclaimed, paraphrasing; “The Church never asks for apologies nor does it give them”.  I believe they needed to keep themselves distanced from admissions to truths which people have be excommunicated over.   I hope that the real reason the Church can never apologize is because of legal/lawsuit reasons, and yet that switches from the Church to the Corporation and is even uglier in many ways.

 

So to me, the reason I dislike that they were not signed is that no one has the guts to put their name to it, thus taking responsibility and the possibility of soothing many wounds with that acknowledgement, heaven forbid combined with an apology.

[Calm]

Also while I am not aware of all of the development of all the articles, I know a bit about a couple of them.  The articles I know of, one in particular is much the work of one man but there are others that contributed to it and it seems to me it would lead to misunderstanding to have him listed as the author, especially given that the article may be edited in the future without his involvement if he is unavailable.  He should not be held to having to justify something he may not desire to defend, a particular interpretation of data as a possibility.  Working colleagues and others who do not understand how the articles were created or the generalized purpose might assume a greater individuality to the articles than actually exists.

 

I have heard of articles in the EOM that does give names of primary authors where the end result had gone through numerous edits to the point where one can only guess how much is the original author's and how much were others and then again, much of this stuff is just rumor but it is still attached to the author's name.

 

Not having an author's name attached makes change easier, prevents or at least slows gossip about different factions gaining or losing power based on who is involved, won't result in gossip about the author's status with leadership if stuff gets changed etc. etc.

 

I can think of another possible reason and that is the Church doesn't want to give to any individual an aura of "church approved" (as opposed to the work that is posted on lds.org).  It is so easy for celebrities to pop up in our culture and there are those that think if someone has done some work for the Church, that there is no reason to question anything else they have done. I can see the Church leadership may not want to put any scholar in a unofficial, popular position of "Church historian" or "Church geneticist" by acknowledging that this is who they went to first to write on a particular subject.  I don't know if it still goes on, but there was a huge cult around certain BYU religion professors when I was going there and there were students that referred to them more often than scriptures or the general authorities when looking for answers to doctrinal questions.

 

I have seen some cult followings developing more recently with certain authors, authors who have actually been banned from speaking in church venues but still attract more and more followers.  Now I don't see the same thing happening given the topics of the essays, but I think it is wise to avoid the Church appearing to give the stamp of approval to an individual rather than specific information.

 

The footnotes themselves provide enough information so that those who care to do the research can go and study more without granting infallibility or authority in areas it is not meant to exist or is meant to exist up to a certain point, but not inflate it to mean more.