To me, it's implied. It's like since deceased people can be sealed to all their deceased heterosexual spouses, polyandry is okay in the hereafter. Understandable interpretation, but it's not LDS theology.
It's the same Family Proc thing that men and women are equal AND the man presides in the family. So the equality thing still has a major asterisk.
But it's still established at the beginning of the current endowment that men become high priests to God while women become high priestesses within the N&EC. The responsibility of men presiding was even inserted into the sealing ceremony.
I welcome the change! But leadership wouldn't see a material difference. The earlier wording was for women to obey/hearken to the husband AS the husband obeys/hearkens to God. That was obliging *both* men and women to obey God's commands.
But Bingham is correct that the doctrine hasn't changed. The 2023 portion of the endowment makes it sound like the relationship between God and man mirrors the relationship between God and woman, but the other portions of temple liturgy still show a God>man>woman structure. It's cosmetic.
With the release of the Joseph Smith Papers, folks researching contemporary records found Joseph denying and condemning polygamy. At that point, it became easy for them to claim that historians were wrong about polygamy. It was just like the priesthood ban, started by BY and misattributed to JS. 2/2
This is partly the Church's fault. Once the RLDS Church accepted Joseph Smith's polygamy in the early 1980s, the LDS Church dropped the topic. In later decades, Church materials promoted the love story between Joseph & Emma, which made the polygamy Gospel Topics Essays a massive shock. 1/2
They don't understand norms and rules. There is supposedly some sponsorship by the UVU history department for this year's conference, but I don't know the exact details. Kofford Books is publishing the hard copies of the journal.
Just techbros who believe that "automating lead filtration" will revolutionize missionary work. www.cwicmedia.com/blog/mission...
The TFH Leadership broadcast focused on three elements: (1) focus on the Savior, (2) use Ordinances Ready, and (3) add what you know. The TFH Callings panel speakers tried to argue that doing research is implied in the third step (add what you know).
Another was the FH Dept Leadership Roundtable, where Elder Bragg talked about AI being able to scrape family info from the compiled genealogies in the FamilySearch Library holdings and creating family trees from them (at 51:04).
Another one was the Temple & Family History Callings Panel. They pointed out that only 3% of people care about genealogy (see about 37:55) and it's unfair to ask others to. A questioner called it out at 54:37, asking if we're supposed to just rely on the work of non-Mormons to get names.
"We can buy collections of books that document families in a farmland in Germany. We can then digitize them, put them into an AI program, pull out the family names, and AI will be able to populate a family tree, and we'll be able to put that family tree in FamilySearch." 2/2
"There are always going to be a lot of members that love family history and love doing that work. There are going to be a lot that don't have that capacity or don't have the time, and we're going to be able to build out the trees [for them]... 1/X
It was multiple talks. The most concise quote comes from a YouTube interview with Elder Bragg beginning at 6:18. youtu.be/Hikv0mk2sOk?...
Working a TFH calling is frustrating enough without church leaders declaring research a low priority (our FamilySearch Center staff will be thrilled), but stealing the intellectual property of non-LDS folks is going to make the genealogical community hate FamilySearch even more than it already does.
When you're a genealogist... at Rootstech... and LDS leaders say it's unrealistic to expect members to do their own family history research, but it's okay, because we can use AI to scrape info from compiled genealogies and have it put together the tree for us.
Containment. There must be a limited area for them to destroy if you're going to try anything (like send an email or, Heaven forbid, take a nap). Playpens saved me when my youngest stopped doing their afternoon naps.
Beloved independent historian Ardis E. Parshall, known for digging out little-known tidbits from Latter-day Saint history, has died.
There’s a gofundme to help pay for funeral and headstone costs, keeping her blog alive and functional, and to support the Ardis E. Parshall Award at the Mormon History Association. Consider donating?
www.gofundme.com/f/honor-ardi...
Congratulations on the baby, and condolences on not getting admitted.
"I don't know if this actually happened or not..." 21st century discourse: facts are irrelevant.
The bad press is a short-term loss, and it's a drop in a bucket of crazy news stories. They basically won the "Bad Mormon" trademark thing. If anything, it seems like them taking on "Mormon Stories" after 20 years shows they are emboldened. They have unlimited time and money. Dehlin doesn't.
Right, but that's where the 21st century "fake news" element really shines. In the 19th century, RLDS folks *did* accuse LDS leaders of forging the 1843 revelation and getting people to lie in the 1869 affidavits. The current effort to claim that Clayton forged his personal diaries, though, is new.
We have sealing and divorce records proving Sarah Lawrence's plural marriage to Heber C. Kimball, so why in the world do people say that this is a straight-forward denial? She's clearly coping with some serious trauma and wants to erase ALL memory of polygamy, not just her marriage with Joseph.
Honestly, the way we've thought about this history needs to change. Everyone makes a big deal that Sarah Lawrence denied being married to JS. What's the evidence? It's Helen M. Kimball's statement that Sarah denied in 1872 ever being "connected" to Joseph Smith OR Heber C. Kimball.
The unique aspect of the current skeptic movement is that it's built on a 21st century mix of anti-intellectualism, anti-institutionalism, and unprecedented democratization of access to digitized historical records. It's all about determining which evidence to dismiss and why.
Oaks argued that it was okay within the legal context of that time for the city government to halt the printing. He clarified that it was NOT okay for them to destroy personal property (hence, they were still liable in that quote).
And I haven't even touched all the juicy stuff that happened in Utah with the Lawrence family!
The story told to descendants was that the widow (Clarinda) found out that the Butterfields were leaving for CA, and she applied to go with them as cook. Josiah balked at allowing an unescorted woman in the all-male wagon train, so he offered marriage as the condition for her to join. She said yes.