Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by HappyJackWagon

  1. FYI- There's about 80 years from the inception of the endowment to where you start in 1915
  2. 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
  3. 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 .
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. There's a concept that sometimes people need to be humbled before they will return. I've heard from very close friends/family this sentiment exactly. I've heard parents hope that one of their children will be humbled by God. So how is one humbled by God? Often times it's by some calamity or hardship that they must endure. So, in essence some families wish for a calamity or hardship upon their loved one so that they will return. IMO that is severely messed up.
  11. Utah people are hard core We definitely don't have churches on every corner where I live. Some people drive 30+ minutes each way.
  12. We probably have 1-2 church cancellations per year due to weather. Not common but not unusual either.
  13. Pondering- look up the definition for that word. It doesn't apply. Princess Bride, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." - Bing video IF it does somehow you'll need to provide some evidence. I am refusing to accept your characterization because you're using the wrong words but that does not mean I am rationalizing anything. This is growing tiresome. I'm out.
  14. That was a previous teaching. Again, you're equating things that aren't equal. Plural marriage is not the same thing as "pdphelia"
  15. That's fine. But I think the specific language you are using to describe the problem "pedophle", "child bride", "foundation", is imprecise. It seems clear (at least to me) that some of the early practices of polygamy with, in many cases, very young brides influenced later generations of individuals and off-shoot church's to also practice polygamy with young brides. This is awful. I think it is a bad fruit of that teaching. But nowhere have I seen anything about "pedophlia" or "child brides" as foundational to the church. Again, I think your choice of words in imprecise and therefore inaccurate.
  16. Obviously I knew where you were going with that. Were there very young brides? Yes. Was there coercion? Yes. Is that a shameful part of church history? yes. So my disagreement with the semantics isn't meant to diminish the problem. But "pedophle" and "child bride" have specific meanings which don't fit this early practice. I also disagree with the claim that it was part of the "foundation" of the church. Even though it happened as a practice doesn't necessarily mean it was a foundation, in teaching, doctrine, or practice.
  17. I agree with the bolded part. Claiming a "pedophle foundation" is going too far. But yes, changes could be made.
  18. Midnight Mass really is a cool experience. If you haven't been to one, and can stay awake, I definitely recommend
  19. Wow. I'm not sure which is more astounding: the rudeness or the ignorance. You should check out this book. You may find it helpful because you are failing spectacularly. There is a recent talk about "lazy learners" you may want to look up as well. I get it. Reading is hard. But I suggest you give it a try.
  20. I think this is how a lot of people feel about a lot of issues. It's a difference in view of what the government should impose, not even necessarily what our individual preference would be. As a compassionate, empathetic individual we might choose to be kind and call a person by the pronoun of their choosing even if itis outside of our personal preference. But if the government mandates the behavior that becomes a different issue altogether. I think we find this in all kinds of political issues (or issues that have been turned into political weapons) such as pronouns, masks, SSM, and even abortion. For example, an individual may be personally pro-life while also being pro-choice politically. I think a lot of people struggle to see this separation. But it is interesting that someone like me would see the process of pronouns becoming an "issue" in a culture war as weaponization whereas someone on the opposite side could just as easily see the people demanding certain pronouns be used as weaponizing the issue. In any case, it would be great if we could all remember that differences in opinion don't make others the enemy.
  21. I think that is exactly what "mansplaining" is. If a man is "mansplaining" to another man it's just called "splaining".
  22. I couldn't say for sure because it's my brother's ward. My guess is they saw the church release about Sacrament only on Christmas, realized other wards would be finished early so they could also get in early and get done earlier than usual. I don't hate that idea...but again, proper notice would be great.
  23. Except everyone feels they must (or at least really want to) attend their own ward so...whatever. We had the plan in place and then last week 1 of the wards announced a different schedule for Christmas day which threw our plans off. That was considerate We've had to scramble our schedule because of a church schedule. Yeah, I find that annoying.
  24. If he's "going Sam Young" to bring attention to the problem, then good for him.
  25. My family, my parents, my sister, my sister's family and my brother's family all live within a few minutes of each other, yet we are all have different church times. I have zero problem skipping church Christmas morning so that we can accommodate everyone else's schedule AND still get together for Christmas breakfast as is our tradition. Missing 1 Sunday isn't the end of the world.
  • Create New...