Tacenda Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 LDS.org ==> Teachings ==> Gospel Topics ==> P ==> Plural Marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ==> If you would like to learn more about the beginnings of plural marriage in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, click here.WeDid I do something different than the average, curious person would do in order to find this information?No, I did the same thing, haha. I hate to admit it but it seems much easier than before to find it, maybe someone from headquarters read this thread!
Calm Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 No, if you go back and read what I've written, that is always how it has been done since the update of lds.org, but there is one additional though natural step since the upgrade. Before then the articles were listed separately and the whole Gospel Topic page was more cluttered with more info...though apparently it didn't make much difference given that from what I've seen very few had used the information provided on the page for at least a year, so I can understand why the techies keeping track of what is and isn't used decided to remove it and simplify...perhaps in hopes of getting more people to use the site if it looked less difficult even if it isn't.
Buckeye Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 It wasn't all that big of a change in teachings. Those old theories hadn't been widely promulgated since long before the revelation in 1978. If only this were true. Unfortunately, the "theories" were widely promulgated as recently as 2012. In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop
Kenngo1969 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 No, I did the same thing, haha. I hate to admit it but it seems much easier than before to find it, maybe someone from headquarters read this thread! Perhaps those who believe it is too well hidden think that there should be a 72-point (144-point, maybe? ) banner crawling across the top of LDS.org's (or, perhaps better yet, Mormon.org's) main page that says, "Did you know Mormons used to practice polygamy?"
Kenngo1969 Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 If only this were true. Unfortunately, the "theories" were widely promulgated as recently as 2012.One instance of someone being quoted, even in a widely-disseminated medium, does not, in my book, count as wide promulgation.
Tacenda Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Perhaps those who believe it is too well hidden think that there should be a 72-point (144-point, maybe? ) banner crawling across the top of LDS.org's (or, perhaps better yet, Mormon.org's) main page that says, "Did you know Mormons used to practice polygamy?"Nah, even I know that's idiotic for the church to do.
ALarson Posted April 17, 2015 Author Posted April 17, 2015 One instance of someone being quoted, even in a widely-disseminated medium, does not, in my book, count as wide promulgation.I don't think you really want to claim that there was only one instance where these things were still being taught and discussed after 1978, do you? I heard them myself several times from teachers in my ward for years afterwards. I know people will claim that's not coming from the leaders, but it did come from the leaders previously and for years. Hopefully, we don't need to post a bunch of quotes or letters to prove that. Unless you'd like to see them?
Kenngo1969 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I don't think you really want to claim that there was only one instance where these things were still being taught and discussed after 1978, do you? I heard them myself several times from teachers in my ward for years afterwards. I know people will claim that's not coming from the leaders, but it did come from the leaders previously and for years. Hopefully, we don't need to post a bunch of quotes or letters to prove that. Unless you'd like to see them?That's right, ALarson. You got me. I'm simply in denial. Suffering from McCog-Dis. Content to bury my head in the sand. Yada-yada-yada. Pigeonhole me however you like. Whatever floats your boat and blows your skirt up. Please!
ALarson Posted April 18, 2015 Author Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) That's right, ALarson. You got me. I'm simply in denial. Suffering from McCog-Dis. Content to bury my head in the sand. Yada-yada-yada. Pigeonhole me however you like. Whatever floats your boat and blows your skirt up. Please! This made me laugh. right. out. loud. Thanks Kenngo1969! You are actually one of my favorite posters on here and I've thought of PMing you several times to tell you that I think you're a great guy and that you're posts are always so nonjudgmental and kind (almost did this just this week after reading something you wrote). I think that's why this made me laugh when I read it. Obviously you don't feel the same way about me! I do try not to put any personal attacks in my posts, but maybr I'm not always successful with that and I'll try to do better. And, I have never worn a skirt. But it's all good. Edited April 18, 2015 by ALarson 1
theplains Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 While I would hope that the Church of Jesus Christ would be sensitive to the feedback of those who believe the topic display could be improved (and I believe it will), the fact of the matter is, the Church produced this content. No one held a gun to anyone else's head to force that to happen: ultimately, it's the Church's decision what to do with it. And in a way, this this thread is proof, perhaps, that the Church is "danged if it does, and danged if it don't." The Institute for Religious Research (non-LDS) has what seems to be a fair critique on the materialthe LDS Church released. After I read it, I came away with the belief the church could have clarifiedmore. Regards,Jim
Kenngo1969 Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 (edited) ALarson, Look, I have no desire to make an enemy out of somebody I only know from Cyber space. Please pardon the bluntness in my previous post, but I simply don't have a lot of patience for the attitude that the only way someone could hold a particular position is to not be as well informed as his interlocutor. It's true that the 1949 First Presidency statement seems to endorse the "less valiant" theory as one reason for the ban, but, alas, none of the people responsible for it are still around for me to request clarification. I'll have to wait until the next life for that. I'm with Elder Oaks: I don't have any faith in the reasons put forth for the ban, and I think the safest answer is simply, "We don't know," and Isaiah 55:8-9. And with all due respect, I refuse to hold myself accountable (and I think it's everyone's right to refuse to do that, as well) for whatever uncorrelated nonsense Brother Hogg T. Hickenlooper, Gospel Doctrine instructor of the Mudville, Mississippi Branch, fed his class members ... whenever the class occurred. That's the responsibility of Brother Hickenlooper's branch and district Sunday School leaders. P.S.: And I'd bet (if I were a betting man) that you'd look quite fetching in a skirt ... but we'll split the difference: I'll let you try on a kilt, instead; people will just think you're a Scottish bagpiper. Edited April 18, 2015 by Kenngo1969 2
ALarson Posted April 19, 2015 Author Posted April 19, 2015 Thanks for the reply, Kenngo! We just disagree on this point and there's probably no reason to continue on that topic. It's off topic for this thread anyway, right? As far as making enemies on here, I hope I haven't done that with anyone. I certainly don't feel that because people have had different experiences in the church and hold different opinions on its history, etc., that this makes them enemies. I just try to be honest here and I am actually trying to learn from others too. I had a pretty rough few years, but I'm back to full activity now. That doesn't mean that it didn't change my perspective though. As I said above, I enjoy you on here. I also feel you add a lot to this forum, so thank you.
Recommended Posts