Cross-posted from History SE , since comments there indicate this might be the more appropriate SE. In the novel *Anne of Green Gables *, Anne wears a hat with flowers in it to church, and is criticized by her neighbour and adoptive parents for it: >It was not until the next Friday that Marilla heard the story of the flower-wreathed hat. She came home from Mrs. Lynde’s and called Anne to account. > >“Anne, Mrs. Rachel says you went to church last Sunday with your hat rigged out ridiculous with roses and buttercups. What on earth put you up to such a caper? A pretty-looking object you must have been!” > >“Oh, I know pink and yellow aren’t becoming to me,” began Anne. > >“Becoming fiddlesticks! It was putting flowers on your hat at all, no matter what colour they were, that was ridiculous. You are the most aggravating child!” This is weird to me, since I can easily imagine someone doing this in the modern world without getting much comment, in fact there are vendors selling exactly these kind of hats . Was it inappropriate to wear flowers in a hat to church in 19th century Canada? The comments in the History SE question indicate that this could be something to do with the author's denomination, which is Presbyterian.

There are reports of a measles outbreak in a Christian school in British Columbia, Canada . News reports speak of this as a community with "traditionally low vaccination rates" and say that many parents do not vaccinate their children on religious grounds. I'm unaware of any Christian group that prohibits vaccinations, or any line of theological reasoning that would lead to an issue with vaccinations. Wikipedia doesn't mention anything . Even Amish and Old Order Mennonites appear to go along with vaccinations . Who are the groups that take this stand, and what is their theological reasoning?

In Canada, the residential school system - run by the Catholic church took children from their families and indoctrinated them in Catholic ideology. They abused and buried children in unmarked graves, and did not document their deaths. 215 child corpses were discovered, buried outside a Catholic school. The deaths were unreported, graves unmarked, found through the use of sophisticated ground radar. > Six years of testimony from nearly 7,000 witnesses. The more than > 360-page document provides some stories from survivors, including > tales of children taken from parents, siblings separated and abuse and > neglect at residential schools. CBC . Testimony include detail of forcible rape by nuns, a boy beaten to death for stealing a communion waffer among a trove of other atrocities - CBC Does the Church today support its involvement in genocide? (As detailed in the Canadian Governments official investigation and report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission) Kamloops Unmarked Graves

I was at a gathering of group leaders for the Federation of North American Explorers, (a group operating under the FSE; a Vatican approved lay association of the faithful). A leader from Quebec said that they were either denied communion or told to leave by a priest because they would only receive Communion on the tongue. One of the rules of FNE is that members receive the Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue. Regardless of the plot holes in the above example (I should have asked more, but there was a bit of a language barrier), does a priest have the right to tell anyone to leave Mass (or deny them Communion) because of how they choose to receive?

There has been some discussion on SE about the differences between the various schools of eschatological thought surrounding the 1000 years ('the millennium') described in Revelation chapter 20. I am interested in the relative **popularity** of these different views amongst North American Christians who are not Catholic or from one of the Eastern Orthodox churches (since these groups are well documented in terms of populations, and have always been amillennialist in outlook). While some have made claims along the lines of, e.g., "school X has been hemorrhaging members for the last 20 years" etc, this is usually tendentious. I have found it very difficult to find actual statistics and other hard facts about the numbers of adherents these four-ish schools below (premillennialism itself could be divided up and counted as five separate schools of their own!) and their sub-categories have, and how they are changing over time relative to each other: - preterism : considers that all events discussed in Revelation (and the rest of the NT) have already occurred historically, and the 1000 years does not refer to any future events. Common amongst some mainline Protestant groups. - premillennial dispensationalism : considers that believers will be gathered up to heaven in a rapture which could occur at any moment, following which 7 years of tribulation will occur, followed by the Second Coming which will precipitate 1000 literal years of Jesus' rule on earth. This has four sub-categories: pre-Tribulation, post-Tribulation, mid-Tribulation and pre-Wrath , based on differing views about the timing of the rapture in relation to the tribulation. Particularly popular amongst conservative Evangelical groups. - historic premillennialism : same as above, but does not posit a separation between church and the Jewish people, and little emphasis on different 'dispensations' or particular time periods wherein God works differently. Popular amongst a variety of groups. - postmillennialism : the 1000 years is a general description of the post-Resurrection world, where the church will continue to increase until the entire world gradually becomes the Kingdom of God, whereupon the Second Coming will occur. No rapture. A common view amongst Calvinist groups and Christian Reconstructionists, but not limited to them. - amillennialism : the 1000 years is symbolic and does not refer to any actual time period, and there is no rapture, just the Second Coming only. The standard view of Christianity (both Western and Eastern), until the Protestant Reformation. It is still the standard in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and some mainline Protestant groups. Can anyone provide any information as to (1) the (rough) numbers of people who support these various views today, and (2) whether these populations have changed significantly over the last 30 years, say since 1980 and (3) what the major drivers possibly underlying such changes could be? (E.g., premillennial dispensationalism was extremely popular across all of North America during the early 20th century [linked to the Scofield Reference Bible], and had another spike in appeal during the 60s and 70s [aided by the Arab-Israeli wars], but seems to have declined since then - *perhaps*, since my info is anecdotal at best).

In 1886, a Mormon named Charles Card was directed by the then President on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, John Taylor, to go north and find a suitable settlement site in Canada. In 1887 he chose an area which later became the town of Cardston, then began recruiting settlers from Utah. Apparently the Canadian government was thrilled that so many skilled agricultural workers were settling in an area where the mining industry was settling down. According to the [LDS Church website](https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/09/canada-from-struggling-seed-the-church-has-risen-to-branching-maple?lang=eng) : >The favorable reception of the Canadian government to the member-settlers was a reflection on the times. At a moment when Ottawa’s national policy was to seek new settlers to populate the almost endless stretches of the Canadian West, immigration—particularly of skilled and seasoned farmers—was strongly encouraged. With both Church directives and government incentives as impetus, President Card returned to Alberta and in time organized the villages of Mountain View, Beazer, Leavitt, and Kimball. And the [Canadian Encyclopedia](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lethbridge/) : >Irrigation played an important role in the evolution of Lethbridge as agriculture displaced coal as the key local resource and the main source of jobs. Between 1898 and 1900, Mormon migrants from Utah built a 185-kilometre long system of canals to divert the St Mary River, the first large-scale irrigation system in Western Canada. With that background in mind, here is **a rumour** I often hear floating around about later settlements of Mormons that moved both east and west: Near all of these settlements was the new and growing town of Lethbridge (which now has a massive [Mormon population](http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lethbridge/)) . According to the rumour, when Mormons started arriving nearby, a law was passed that no Mormon was allowed to settle within 50km of Lethbridge. This is used as an explanation as to why there are so many little, predominantly Mormon settlements surrounding Lethbridge. I've heard this rumour for years. I've even said it to people before. However, the only source I've ever been able to find that this may have been true is this quote from the LDS website (same link as above): >What animosities nearby neighbors and fellow settlers may once have harbored against the Mormons gradually gave way in the face of the Manifesto of 1890 and the growing reputation of the Latter-day Saints for industry, thrift, integrity, obedience to law, temperance, strong family ties, and an enthusiastic loyalty to Canadian institutions and traditions. "[The Manifesto](https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/1?lang=eng#) " is a name that has been given to the LDS Church's direction to its members to stop practicing polygamy. So my question is: Is this rumour about Lethbridge true?