HappyJackWagon

He downvoted mine as well. Maybe it's his thing? Keeps us on our toes.

But why not. If it's merciful to remove covenants that a person isn't keeping, why not extend that mercy to every covenant breaker?

Assuming this is the view of excommunication by the top church leaders, shouldn't we expect to see MANY more excommunications? If someone is unwilling to abide the WoW, or LoC, or attendance, or tithing etc. and shows no willingness to repent ...shouldn't the church mercifully release all of these individuals from their covenants? If Not, why not?

Didn't something very similar happen within the past couple of years at another Southern Christian school? Or maybe I dreamt it. I am definitely on the cynical side of these kinds of things as I have a hard time believing they are not manufactured to look spontaneous. FWIW- the LDS tradition very much started in revival and even Pentecostal displays (eg Kirtland). In other news, 20,000 participants in this revival may have been exposed to a Measels outbreak. Up to 20,000 people who attended a religious gathering may have been exposed to measles. What should they do next? (msn.com)

What are the main changes? Is it down to 30 minutes yet?

I think EVERYONE in the US should be concerned about Christian Nationalism. All Christians should be concerned All non-Christians should be concerned.

FYI- There's about 80 years from the inception of the endowment to where you start in 1915

It may go against the purpose as it is taught today. But that has not always been the case. Sooooo much has changed with regard to the garment and temple worship

It's been ages since I've read or thought about that so I'm trying to think of where I read it. In addition to the book Calm mentioned I'd look in The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History by Devery Anderson The Development of LDS Temple Worship — Signature Books There are also a number of podcasts where it's discussed Year of Polygamy Podcast: Episode 170: The Development of Mormon Temple Rituals, Part Two on Apple Podcasts or 15: Devery Anderson: The Development Of Mormon Temple Worship (Part 1) The Rational Faiths Podcast - Keeping Mormonism Weird podcast (player.fm) and there's probably one from Mormon Stories as well ETA- I see NEVO already mentioned Devery Anderson's book and says it's not in there. The podcasts may be a good starting out point to find it .

This looks like a very interesting book. How are these topics received in Sunday School? It seems like any possibility of subverting the idea of the Great (complete) Apostasy would also be viewed as an assault on the need for a Restoration and would therefore be met with vigorous opposition.

Nicely said. I'll just emphasize your point about how the church teaches to follow the prophet/apostles because they won't lead us astray. Except, sometimes they do. We didn't create high expectations for prophets, seers, and revelators out of thin air. We were taught to trust in their teachings. After all, they "are scripture"...except when they're wrong. The church itself has created a massive problem by requiring members to have faith in men and their teachings because those same members lose faith when those men aren't reliable. Think about someone like Brigham Young who lived during a time when racial matters in the US were a huge issue. He lived through the Civil War. It's not like the issue of race was some ancillary issue he wouldn't have thought about or hopefully prayed about, yet we get teachings about Cain, and fence sitters etc. Or think about Peterson who lived during the civil rights era. Again, major issues he would have been very aware of. There was a correct side and a wrong side yet as a prophet he still came down on the bigoted side. It doesn't instill much confidence. Or we have someone Like Ezra Taft Benson who lived through the same time and was even a part of the US government and he came down on the side of civil rights being a communist ploy. These things are not ancient history.

Clearly it is unimportant to you and apparently obvious that previous apostles and prophets would be bigoted. The problem is, when some of their "sound counsel" also includes bigoted teachings then it becomes harder to trust their other statements. It's not hard to understand why people might expect a prophet not to be a bigot when you consider the enhanced level of righteousness and ability to understand the teachings of the spirit. If a prophet teaches bigoted things and he can't discern the problem, then that is itself a problem. We're not just talking about misspeaking once or twice. Some of these individuals were very consistent in their bigoted teachings. Either God didn't care or that individual wasn't attune enough to recognize the repeated error.

I read the main question as "should we care that Prophets, seers and revelators have been bigots?" Yes. I think we should. Can we extend grace and recognize societal attitudes change? of course. But it would be wrong to assume that every person who shared the time and culture with someone like Peterson also held the same bigoted views. In other words, time and culture makes a difference but it is not a universal "get out of jail free" card for bigoted statements, attitudes and behaviors. There were contemporaries of Peterson, or Brigham etc who did not share the bigoted views they expressed which means that there was the possibility/opportunity for an individual not to have bigoted views/language/behavior. I definitely think people can change and shouldn't be condemned for their worst moments, especially IF they change/repent, but for someone who doesn't I think it would be fair for us to ask ourselves why we should care what that person had to say about gospel doctrines as a special witness of Christ, when they espoused bigoted views. That person's credibility is suspect at best. There are things a person could say today that would have me question every opinion they uttered going forward. And for individuals who are pedestalized as prophets, seers, and revelators I think it's fair to hold them to a higher standard. While we recognize they aren't perfect or infallible we can also expect them to be good examples as they help shape the attitudes of the church at large. I think we could expect that go would have a positive influence on that person that would improve their opinions/beliefs throughout time. Have there been past church authorities who have said and taught bigoted things? Yes. Are there current church authorities who have said and taught bigoted things? I think that the way we answer that is likely to impact our level of trust and confidence in church authorities.

Not sure why you're assuming I'm making up scenarios. While a person may not outright say "I hope someone dies so that you are humbled", them saying that they want God to humble you enough to do X is equivalent, just a little more PC.

I suppose it depends on the degree of hardship that is supposedly inflicted on a person to make them humble. I don't think most people would consider minor or very temporary hardships to be sufficient to drive a person to be adequately humbled. (we're not talking about a speeding ticket level event) I would suspect that in many cases the hardship required to fully humble a person would be severe. Perhaps the death of a child/spouse or a divorce or job loss or serious injury/illness? IMO wishing any of those types of things on another person in hopes that they will be humbled in a way that will lead them to believe the same way the loved one believes, is severely messed up. I believe that someone stating they wish a serious hardship on a person, sufficient to humble them, is at best jerky. If a loved one told me they wished me that kind of severe hardship/calamity I don't think our relationship could ever recover.