NightSG

Tune in next month for "Lucifer, the Misunderstood Teacher and Friend to All Mankind."
I'm starting to get the impression they know nobody actually reads the articles so they're just farming out the content from a special ed creative writing class. 

What is the Church policy on annulment?  I'm fairly certain the legal process doesn't void a sealing, and as such would entail the same difficulties as a divorce in that respect.
The number of divorces I've seen where one or the other (or in one case both) had been cheating more or less continuously since the engagement or earlier is downright disgusting.  I've also talked to a number of divorcees who found out shortly after the marriage that their spouse had been concealing one or more significant addictions, including one woman who found out while trying to renew her car insurance that her new husband had 3 DUIs, with the most recent being just a few weeks before he proposed.
I know one who, upon learning substantially more about the Church, realized that his girlfriend wasn't living up to anything near Church standards, and expected him to BS his way through a TR interview after a year of being coached by her on how to "act Mormon" in public.  How the missionaries, bishop, etc. hadn't gotten enough information through to him for him to spot that before baptism, (kid honestly thought LDS belief was that we shouldn't be seen drinking or smoking weed) I don't know, except that I suspect with the relatively low baptism numbers here, they just got a little too eager to dunk everybody they could as quickly as they could.  He hasn't become hostile to the Church, but he is openly hostile to the hypocrisy of certain groups of people within it.  (And really, after going to a Conference watching party where the hosts were spiking people's drinks with vodka, I can't blame him for that.)

Or maybe you're just such an obnoxious drunk that we had to neuralize you and plant this whole story about being Mormon so you wouldn't do it anymore. 

Armies are made up of and commanded by people with agency.

I’m sorry if I seem to be perseverating on differences here. It’s just that I agree with the vast majority of what you wrote—but agreement is so boring!  
That said:
If, when approaching the BoM, we are OK using the mainstream 1828 American definition of “revile”, why can’t we use the mainstream 1828  American definitions of “dark” and “skin”?
I suspect we both know the answer:  because such readings provide precedent for the idea of a change in skin tone as denoting a divine curse—or at least, a *sign* of a divine curse—and the revisionist BoM scholars are ashamed of being part of an institution that buys into that kind of idea.  They fear the condemnation of their secularist peers whose approval, they fancy, they could finally earn if they’d just jettison a little more of their latent Mormonism.

Carb the engineer at work!

I deleted the rest of my other post. Besides securing/building it better... let people know that if they try to take it down it will self detonate into 10,000 pieces of statue shrapnel. Then see who is willing to pull it down.

Interestingly, titanium is one of the most common elements in the earth's crust, more common than carbon. The only reason it's such an exotic and expensive metal is because the refining process is unbelievably complex, labor- and energy-intensive. This is the position aluminum was in a century or so ago, before the Bayer refining process was developed. Perhaps something similar will happen with titanium, and our grandchildren will drink their caffeinated, carbonated garbage from superthin titanium cans.

Weld and concrete those things in better. Make 'um so that it would take a tank to pull them down.

I think they should all stay up, but with an addition; place a placard detailing the positive reasons for why the statue was erected and also the negative or controversial actions or characteristics of the individual.  Regardless, I am okay with cities voting to replace or remove statues, but I'm not okay with vandals tearing them down.

I think I know what you mean.  But if you believe the rioters today have any semblance of sufficient historical knowledge to put that together or enough self-control to guide themselves by such knowledge, I think you give them too much credit.

I remember Drumhead.  I am embarrassed to say that if it were presented as a movement I were more amenable to supporting, I don't know if I'd be immune to it.  I would probably go along with it.
But the reason I'd consider myself more "sensible" is not because I'm immune to mob mentality.  I believe it because the "mob" that I'd tend to side with is the side that would be consistent with my set of values.  For instance:
I don't understand how taking down statues of Abraham Lincoln (the man most responsible for ending slavery in America) would correlate with ending racial injustice.  I don't know how protesting for racial equality would include ransacking small businesses owned by minorities. I don't know how Christians who believe a cult is growing too powerful would go about raping the cult's women to death and justify it as God's will.

Perhaps it was. This (cheering mobs destroying statues) is an example of precisely the kind of mobthink that I abhor so much, and that afflicts the American political Left to such a great degree. Those with insufficiently enlightened opinions must be silenced! Persecute the evil non-believers! Perhaps my ancestral memories of just this sort of mobocracy that resulted in the persecution, imprisonment, rape, and murder of my ancestors and their neighbors only a few generations back tends to make me all the more intolerant of those who willingly abdicate their minds and emotions just so they can signal their virtue as loudly as possible.

I hadn't thought to connect this current issue with the gospel, but you make an excellent point. Temple ordinances, scripture, even visions both modern and ancient make heavy use of symbolism. They teach lessons far beyond the actual physical symbol used (Lehi's great and spacious building, Jacob's ladder etc.) I had a lot more visceral negative reaction to New York announcing it would remove that statue of Teddy Roosevelt, than I would have someone just speaking ill of him because of what the symbolism of that act represents.

I agree. This stuff is really starting to smack of the Chinese Cultural revolution in the late 60's. Everything from the past torn down by mobs that are acting with the approval of the government. As a historian, it turns my stomach, but I agree there is an overriding political will behind the madness.

And here I was hoping these people were just LARPing 1984.

The problem is that this is not about slavery, racism, or "Confederate traitors".   That is why black business owners are being targeted just as much (or proportionally more) than white business owners.  That is why Lincoln and Grant statues are going down as well.  How many people really care about Brigham Young being racist or not? (I don't think he was, but that is beside the point).
All this vandalism and tearing down of statues is really about:
Removing all symbols of the old empire and replacing them with symbols of the new empire.  Nature abhors a vacuum.  As these statues come down, just wait for what they're replaced with.  That will tell you the real agenda behind all this.  
I don't know what those symbols will be or the specific agenda that will come.  But when the symbols start going up, we'll know then. What I do know is that they will be evil under the guise of justice and virtue.  Thus the devil transforms himself into an angel of light.
BTW, this is what disturbed me about Don Trump Jr. joking about putting up Trump statues in place of all those which were taken down.  I know he was joking.  But the fact is that SOMEthing will replace them.  And anything new is undiscovered territory.  Whereas, we would rather suffer those ills we have than to fly to others we know not of -- so long as such ills are sufferable.

A parent doesn't have to teach his kids history.  A parent NEEDS TO TEACH his kids good manners and right conduct which includes self-discipline, repentance, forgiveness, humility and charity among other Godly virtues.
A parent doesn't need to know history himself.  A child will learn history out of curiosity.  "Nobody taught me this" - is a victimhood mentality.  The attitude that it is somebody else's fault that I didn't know X - that is an indication of a lack of virtue.  So yes, a parent can successfully parent even when such parent is illiterate if the parent successfully instills Godly virtues in his children, especially the virtue of humility - the acknowledgment that I don't know everything and, therefore, I can learn something from everybody else, living or dead, abolitionist or slave trader.
 

On sober reflection, my primary concern may be that the love of Vort is waxing cold. I have never in my life felt such disappointment and even disgust toward so many of my fellow Americans. I feel so drained that it's almost as if I have lost hope for society and just want to see the "other side" go their way while I and mine go ours. I want to care about my fellow man and mourn for the ignorance and hatred that blinds people. Perhaps if I could see my own fallen state better, I would be a lot more sympathetic and charitable toward those who vandalize businesses and chant stupid, meaningless, Orwellian slogans. As it is, I'm tired of putting up with their crap, and I just want them to go away.

MAGA!  😺

I suppose by "properly" you mean teaching them ALL the truth? and not just half truths or just the "good stuff"? Im talking American history and church history. As far as church history we were only taught what was in the manuals, which was only the good stuff. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were practically Gods next to Jesus. Its no wonder that many are outraged when they find out the "other" stuff written in the many journals.
Me personally, I have no problem in separating a mans achievements from their personal life. Ones achievements are the talents that God has blessed them with to do the great thing that they did. Not many individuals could have led a group of people across the country to settle in a foreign land as B.Y. did. My ex wife on the other hand left the church and hates J.S. and B.Y. with a passion. 
I don't know, is it mostly men that are more understanding and tolerable of the faults of other men?

Riots, vandalism, looting, and mobbing normally do not win people to your side of the equation.  I think it actually turns many who would otherwise be sympathetic to one's cause against them in most cases.  Rarely is it beneficial, though on occasion when it actually reflects popular opinion, it can boost a campaign IF it is done specifically and directly against those the majority opposes.  When one does not have the majority to support you, it doesn't really help much.
I am probably outspoken on many of the Confederate statues and other symbology from the South.  They rebelled against the nation, which is true.  Most were also pardoned after the war and the veterans honored as Americans.  It was part of the Southern legacy and as such, was something that Southerners had grown to respect (at least many of them).  Part of this was that during the reconstruction the Southerners had trouble grappling with their past.  They were a defeated people and as such, it was hard to find pride in those their heritage came from.  A concerted effort through the years showed that we did not necessarily have to be ashamed of our heritage, that even if they were wrong in many aspects, the leaders and people who were Confederates during the Civil War were MORE than just people who fought against the Union.  Many had noble qualities that one could look up to, and even if many of the reasons were wrong to fight the war, there were still many honorable people on both sides.  It was a tragic war, but one did not have to be ashamed of their legacy, even if the people were flawed themselves.
The Confederate flag is seen today as the symbol of racism and racial hatred.  When I was growing up it was not so.  I think people in the rest of the nation and even some of the youth today do NOT understand why it was utilized.  It was the symbol of rebellion.  It was the symbol of stubborn pride, and that of "being against the system."  This is why it was adopted by many of the racist groups at the time, because they were also rebelling against the system as they saw it.  HOWEVER, even as they also used it, they were not the ONLY ones that used it nor held it in such a manner.  It represented a sentiment that the Federal system was also tyrannical to a degree, and that states should hold more power over that of a strong Federal Government.  It also was used in a manner just to show one's independence and independent thought.  Sometimes it was just to show rebellion against local law enforcement (a popular notion that was utilized in such fashion by the design of the General Lee, a car in a 1980's TV show called the Dukes of Hazzard).
I know why many in other parts of the nation do not understand this about the South's heritage, NOR about the Flag that was used...but it was common for many in the South to understand when I was young and growing up.  There is no reason those who are youth in the South that they should be that ignorant though.
As time has moved on though, and it has become more associated with racist groups and racist thoughts, I agree that the old stars and bars battle flag should be done away with (though ironically, Georgia still uses the stars and bars, but an older version of it that was an actual flag of the confederacy...so...still a sign of heritage and rebellion against the overbearance of government).  Some of the statues that have become rallying points for racists probably should also be done away with...but the amount and way that many go about trying to get rid of these statues bothers me occasionally.  It seems more like they are trying to erase history rather than erase the symbols of racism.
In the same way, as popularity has gained in this manner, I see a movement to do away and erase Brigham Young from history in the West also.  As the church has bent it's knee to some of the Anti-Mormon demands in recent years and incorporated their ideas (ideas which would have previously gotten people excommunicated had they spread them in the church like they are today) it could be eventually the church does as these people demand.  However, it has not yet. 
In addition, there is no call for the vandalism, and I find it appalling.  Hopefully there are cameras that survey campus and they know exactly what those who did this look like.

Tons of people want it to stop but nobody is going to do anything to stop it.  You know why?  Because the time to stop it was when these people were born - 20 or more years ago.  That's when their PARENTS could have raised them properly.
So, you want to do something about it?  RAISE YOUR KIDS PROPERLY.

I'm really sick of how things are going in general.
We have a flawed past.  Each person is flawed.  We need to acknowledge that, learn, and move forward.  That's not achieved by erasing the past or pretending that a person is defined by a single flaw or virtue.  

Non-liturgical churches have used pre-packed wafer & juice for years now. I would think this would be even easier with water as the liquid element. 

My suggestion is two-fold:
1. The teachers who prepare, priests who bless, and deacons who distribute the sacrament, as well as the leaders and congregation members who partake of those emblems, take care to wash their hands carefully and avoid coughing on the emblems of the sacrament or otherwise acting in an unhygienic manner.
2. Everybody calm the heck down about COVID-19 and quit freaking out about a virus.