bluebell

I somewhat agree. Presentism is a real issue when dealing with historical events. However, we also don't want to fall into the habit of treating historical exceptions as equal to the historical rule. Just because something occasionally (or rarely, or once) happened in the past does not mean it is representative of what was normal or acceptable in the past. Exceptions are dangerous things to use as precedent.

I agree with you on not needing to defend it. I think the reason that it gets so much defense (compared to other changes like the ones you noted) is for two reasons. First, because it is used so often as a stick to beat the church with and as evidence that JS was not a prophet and second, because--due to fundamental polygamist groups in the media and our own doctrine of polygamy in the celestial kingdom--it's still very much a part of the world we live in. If those two things weren't true I think we'd hear about it as much as we hear about the changes to sealings.

I suppose he could also be an advocate only because he believes it's a commandment from God and not because he personally finds anything appealing about having multiple wives.

It's hard to come up with a plus for men that isn't solely centered on all the sex with multiple partners/having your own harem. I'm interested too in understanding what he finds appealing in the lifestyle. Hopefully he will share.

NASA should know best! Website says total eclipses last anywhere from a few seconds to three minutes so Nehor could give it a whirl.

You definitely have to have special glasses no matter where you live. Never ok to look at the sun, even during a full eclipse.

Ok, but there are just as many members for whom the release of that information didn't change anything for them. So I guess what that means is that you can define what is consensual for yourself, and I can for myself, but we can't define that term for others. You believe that it can't be consensual without transparency and I think that's a reasonable perspective. But I disagree with it.

You got me. I was trying to come up with some way to see this as a good thing and was failing pretty badly. I was never so happy to read the last line of a post before.

Yay! I wish we didn't have to wait until 2026 for the printed books. I don't think much will change in sacrament meetings until that happens. At least we have a date now though.

I think it can be if the other party consents to the non-transparency.

It's something that has been added in the last couple of years (maybe it was last year, I can't remember). I didn't think you had been since then but that's a misunderstanding on my part. From my perspective, it's more than just a reminder. It's an aspect of a previous covenant come to fulfillment.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you explain?

Patrick Risk, a gay member of the church, published this post on social media:

There is a part of the endowment that gives more information on the symbology of the garment as well. I can't remember if that has been shared outside of the temple so I don't want to say more until I know for certain.

I wasn't offered a class either. I was endowed in the late 90s and those classes didn't seem to be a thing then, at least no in my area.

I don't remember men having the option of 18 months (probably too young for the information to have made an impact). Do you have any idea how long that lasted? I could look it up I'm sure.

I've never actually known a man or woman who wanted to serve again after doing so once. A senior mission sure, but not as a proselytizing mission again with an assigned companion, living in apartments with other missionaries, and all of that stuff. I'm sure they are out there, I've just never met them. I have met quite a few who have dreams about being back on the mission again, or having to go out again a second time, but are happy when they wake up. Missions are wonderful and amazing but they are really hard. I wouldn't want to do another one except as a senior with the level of autonomy that comes with those types of missions.

I'm not sure. I don't think that I ever viewed wearing garments as a separate covenant, but assumed it was a part of being endowed, and per the instructions given I knew that I by being endowed and accepting the garment I was agreeing to wearing it most of the time. I'm glad they are speaking more about it now.

I've heard it's because they don't want single men that age out and in a position to attract marriage partners while serving, especially since single women often love the Elders and go out of their way to interact with them. Elders have an aspect of authority that could make single sisters vulnerable to them in ways that you just don't see with single older sister missionaries. I don't know if it's true but it makes some sense to me. My grandmother served a senior mission in SLC at the family history center. She met a single elderly man from canada who were there for a few weeks doing family history and soon they were an item and got married a couple days after she returned. He was not exactly what he presented himself to be but my grandmother cared for him until his death a few years later. I've since heard that they aren't letting the single elderly men do that anyone because too many of them were coming down to find wives. I have no idea if it's true or not but I wish it had been when my grandmother was there.

It kind of reminds me of the covenants we make at baptism, which are never stated explicitly in the ordinance, just implied. I would guess that they felt it wasn't clear to everyone that they were making a covenant to wear them (and maybe that's why members weren't wearing them as they believe they should be) and that's why they've clarified.

I do think that we promise to wear our garments when we go through initiatory and receive the endowment, and I think that there are some members who aren't wearing them in ways that they have promised to wear them and are finding reasons not to so they can wear clothing that otherwise does not work with garments (which is between them, God, and their bishop who is called as a judge in Israel). But I think this issue is another one where we are seeing the fruits of overlooking or ignoring women's experiences for so long. A lot of women have health issues caused by garments (due to the fit and the type of cloth, especially in hot and humid climates). Many women find the designs to be extremely uncomfortable to the point of them causing some suffering. And then there's wearing them when you are on your period, which is a whole different can of worms. I think that listening to women and working specifically with the body that God has given us, will greatly cut down on women pushing back against wearing them as we've been instructed. Once that has been accomplished it will be much easier for the church to hold members accountable (via stronger teachings and directives, for example) for those times they are justifying not wearing the garment for sinful reasons.

Our facebook gets about 2 posts a month and they are all announcements for the ward.

Speaking of the RS operating independently, could it look a little like how Bishops operate? Bishops are still 'overseen' by the stake president (their priesthood leader) but they are not micromanaged. They have weekly meetings with him but He basically allows them to do their bishoping without his input. I know that bishops hold keys of presidency which give him the right to lead, so perhaps that's a bad example. Maybe it could look like area presidencies? I'm guessing (though I could be wrong) that they do not have to get permission from the quorum of the 12 for every decision that they make but are allowed to operate slightly autonomously, because one of their duties is to preside over the leaders in their area. And they hold no keys but work through the delegated priesthood and keys of the apostles. Or perhaps not being ordained means that a woman must always have priesthood permission for every action and decision, despite having both priesthood power and priesthood authority in her calling?

It's your turn.

I know you mean this sincerely, and as a compliment and I thank you for trying to help. But a lot of women find this idea that women are inherently better in someway offensive. Especially those of us trying to raise sons in an environment where others sometimes try to teach them how second class they are. The Savior was male and yet there is none greater. I don’t think the answer to men sometimes being treated or believing they are above women is to teach women it’s actually they who are superior.