the narrator

Dude better stay away from anime then. One thing I love about a lot of anime is that it often roots its notions of good and bad in Buddhism, such that villains are often presented with backstories of trauma that explain why they became the way they are, and the heroes are often very sympathetic to that fact. In Demon Slayer, for example, the lead Tanjiro is often in tears after killing a demon while in despair over the pain and sorrow that resulted in a person becoming a demon. The world isn't black and white, and so some people need to stop whining when media is acknowledging that.

That makes sense. Thanks.

Yo, chill out. I was merely pointing out that I did not know when and precisely why Mormons began using "sacrament" exclusively for communion.

Let me just add that so much of Mormonism is built on misreadings of scripture due to not understand the historical and linguistic context they were first given in--which I assume is the reason for the question posed in the OP.

If that works for you, then cool. One of my greatest nightmares is dying and discovering that the universe is controlled by a deity who demands that a ritual be performed using exact English phrases in order to not suffer eternally.

You completely missed the point. "Sacrament" is essentially synonymous with "ordinance" or "ritual." Baptism is a sacrament. Confirmation is a sacrament. Communion is a sacrament. The endowment is a sacrament. Sealings are sacrament. Etc. In the rest of Christianity (and in early Mormonism, I believe), the term is used to describe all of the key ordinances and rituals of Christianity. Early Mormons also used "Lord's supper" and "communion," but somewhere along the way they began using "the sacrament" exclusively for communion. I suspect it comes from a misunderstanding of D&C 20, which uses "the sacrament" as a simple reference to communion but then later began to be misread as the actual name of the ritual.

If precise ritual acts and precise ritual language are required to sway God's will or the cosmos, that makes it an incantation. Argue with English, not with me.

My point is that, in Mormonism, baptism and other sacramental rites have shifted away from their basic utility (covenant initiation into a community) and into magical rites by ignoring the basic utility and instead focusing on precise ritual acts and incantations--such that many Mormons believe that God (or some weird cosmic reality) will not accept a baptism if a toe, some clothes, or hair floated to the top of the water or the priest skipped or misspoke part of the incantation.

Exactly. I think that baptism, communion, endowment, sealings, etc should be understood as initiation rites into a community. In the Book of Mormon, particularly at the waters of Mormon, baptism is quite clearly portrayed as such, communion literally means "participation in something; that which is common to all; union in religious worship, doctrine, or discipline" (I have no idea how it came to be called "the sacrament" in Mormonism), and the temple endowment was literally modeled after initiation rites for the preeminent social club of the early 19th century. Somewhere along the way, though, these sacraments lost their role as communal initiation and became magical means to secure a spot in heaven.

I wasn't taught that all covenants were being renewed, but I was definitely taught that baptism covenants were--to the point that I thought if I died sometime between sinning & repenting and being able to take the sacrament again that I might be screwed.

Job is based on an older Sumerian legend which provides the main framing beginning with chapters 1 and 2, and concluding with 42:7-17. This is the standard story and part that people generally only read. The rest is an Israelite poem calling into question the very premise of the story, rejecting it, and even has Job announce that someone would avenge him by punishing God for such an injustice.

Unfortunately many high-profile apologists (and leaders) loudly claim the opposite and reinforce the belief that the BofM must be an accurate historical representation if it is to have religious value. For example, Stephen Smoot writes, "To abandon faith in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is to effectively abandon — whether intentionally or not — faith in Joseph Smith’s sanity, honesty, and divine ordination."--a claim I entirely reject. As I have long argued, religious apologetics that attempt to tie religious truth claims to secular epistemology not only completely misunderstand what it means for something to be a religious truth but do more in the long term to harm faith--especiallly as the gap (aka "How could have Joseph known?!?!") apologetics increasingly fall by the wayside as more secular knowledge emerges. (We can see a very similar thing happening as the arguments utilized by Christian creation apologetics have been almost entirely and conclusively eliminated in the past few decades.)

No they don't.

Seems post-Mormon is used more frequently now.

No they don't.