Yes, I was interested to see progress in transparency and honest acknowledgement of uncomfortable facts. This series missed the mark because the believing incentives are too powerful to overcome the most reasonable implications of the truth.

“Don’t tell us what they did, but tell us if they did something.”

So bishops could call the police and say “I have a parishioner do something serious. You should investigate.”?

I know this isn’t the point, and also it’s petty, but this guy is comparing a church prophet to an R-rated movie and using clips no less? In my day we didn’t even acknowledge we were aware of details gleaned from trailers of R-rated films let alone use it to pimp the church. Yesteryears blasphemy.

This seems more plausible an explanation for typical members to attribute whiteness to Jesus. Other than our own tendency to inject our own characteristics into the “chosen people” narrative.

Thanks Scoobah, I appreciate the additional context and for what it’s worth when I migrated to Bluesky you were the first person I looked for

How reliant would you say the church approved histories are on accounts of this nature? I considered myself slight above average informed member but can’t recall this particular detail of the first vision account.

Having not spent time reading the JSP, is the shared text fairly representative of the narrative? This seems jarringly shorthand and makes me wonder about the process of turning the text more palpable for readers.

Still wary of flashing headlights at cars without their headlights on.

Now we can mutilate our Brawndo the way God intended!!