Comments on: I Have More Questions, 1895

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:17:34 +0000

That’s called “credit,” Anne, not “fault.” The switch was a good thing!

By: Anne (UK)

Anne (UK) — Sat, 17 Sep 2011 09:40:48 +0000

Background info on Thursday (and any other day of the week) Fast Days. Looks like the changing thereof to Fast Sunday is partly our fault.

http://lds.org/ensign/1998/03/i-have-a-question/i-have-a-question?lang=eng&query=thursday+fast+sunday

By: kevinf

kevinf — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:34:51 +0000

As far as reading the names of both those who drew on fast offerings as well as those who donated, I noticed that the answer really only shows disapproval of reading the names of the donors. I guess it’s still okay to read the names of those receiving? No shame in that, apparently. I wonder of GQC thought that the poor who couldn’t donate had their feelings hurt, not the poor who had to use fast offerings.

By: Stan W

Stan W — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:41:38 +0000

Reading off the names of those who receive fast offerings, we don’t do that anymore?!?

Wow, my branch is going to be in trouble then…

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:33:51 +0000

I have extracts from church leader correspondence of the 20th century constantly reassuring nosy brothers and concerned sisters-in-law that honorable marriage *is* honorable, regardless of whether a church member had been previously sealed to a spouse, or even endowed but never previously married. Apparently like many practices that have changed, this one lingered on for a few generations, creating consternation among many.

By: Bruce Crow

Bruce Crow — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:30:23 +0000

I think Arrington in Great Basin Kingdom wrote about the economic activities of the saints on Fast Thursdays. I’ve not read as much as you have Ardis, so it may be it several other sources too.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:09:49 +0000

Keri, the wording of the endowment covenants used to be different.

By: J. Stapley

J. Stapley — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:08:05 +0000

I’ve seen several references to fast meetings in Kirtland. E.g., here is a bit from Lorenzo Snow’s family biography (ch. 2, p. 12):

Public meetings were regularly held in the [Kirtland] Temple, after its dedication, on Sundays; and on the first Thursday in each month a fast meeting, commencing at or before 10 a.m., and closing at 4 p.m.

By: Keri Brooks

Keri Brooks — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:53:41 +0000

I found the answer to the first question to be interesting. By inserting the caveat that it’s not a violation of sealing covenants for a sealed widow to remarry if she marries a church member, that implies that it would be a violation of the covenant if she marries a nonmember. While there are reasons that interfaith marriage is discouraged, I don’t see how marrying a nonmember after being widowed would violate any covenant. A marriage for time only is a marriage for time only regardless of the religion of the new spouse.

Any idea what Brother Cannon is getting at here?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:41:52 +0000

#1: Amen.