All Activity

I took this second bullet point and supplementing/complementing the first. The Church as a "big tent" is "not a call for doctrinal pluralism" because the "tent has firm 'poles': faith in Jesus Christ," etc. Thanks, -Smac

Metaphors are nice that way. Our lot, then, is to leave such things to the Lord and His servants. Thanks, -Smac

What stuck out to me: It Does NOT Mean It is not a call for doctrinal pluralism (“believe whatever you want and still be fully in good standing”). But also It Does NOT Mean: The tent has firm “poles”: faith in Jesus Christ, the restored gospel, living prophets, temple covenants, the law of chastity, Word of Wisdom, tithing, etc. So it neither means a call for doctrinal pluralism nor the firm poles of Jesus Christ, living prophets, temple covenants etc. Grok says it means something in between believing whatever you want and believing in something firmly.

Would you care to elaborate? Why do you think you would struggle with a prophet like Pope Francis?

Perhaps, then, we could say that the church is neither a big tent nor a small tent but more of a Goldilocks sized tent -- just the right size. Big enough to include the people who believe and practice the right things and small enough to exclude the people who believe and practice the wrong things. Every church needs to decide just how "big" it wants its tent to be, and what boundaries will determine who is "in" and who is "out," and I don't know that there will ever be a universally accepted answer to those kinds of questions. Thus, we get a proliferation of different churches and denominations, each deciding to draw in and out boundaries differently. I don't know that this should be surprising. At this point, perhaps the controversy is as much about whether, as Pres. Oaks said this week, God really wants each of us to be an active participating member of the LDS church. I sometimes think that the real controversy isn't about big or small tents, but about the nature of "strait gates" and "narrow paths."

I love Bruce R. McConkie. I think I'll like Clark Gilbert as well. I'm sorry this will be a test of faith for many of you. Were we to have a prophet like Pope Francis, I could be going through the same struggle.

So your first point is that I support all this gobbledygook you just made up because I want everyone, including myself, to be as miserable as possible. So I am not human? I have no desire for happiness and desire perpetual misery for myself and everyone I love? Do you realize how insane what you are saying is? Yes, I was born into the world desiring misery and so are all over people fighting for “Marxist” ideas like social justice and equality. Lunacy. A desire for justice and fairness is a desire for misery? So justice and fairness leads to misery? That is a radical take. So the United States was a big mistake? And now I am somehow envious of someone else’s unseen heavenly rewards? What? I don’t envy you. At all. So now not only was I born without any desire for happiness and a lust for perpetual misery I now desire a perpetual safe space where I will never experience any negative emotions ever? Oh, and I lack all ambition for anything. No wonder you live in perpetual fear of these imagined enemies you dream up? They sound monstrous. I could see how this would lead to xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and all the other fun fears about the ‘other’. I would grow up and realize that people actually experience the same emotions you do and have the same desires that you do. This fantasy world is toxic. So really you’re mad about those hellspawned ‘vidya games’ that make people deny Jesus and sap all their ambition somehow. There are no larger structural problems that make people unwilling to struggle to succeed as much as you think they should? It is just the vidya games. You realize this contempt you have for a lot of the people in the world that dehumanizes them to the point that they are just pursuing evil for its own sake is pretty much the polar opposite of charity right?

The Bible is the authority. Is the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (aka Michael the Archangel) a different Jesus than the what the LDS Church teaches? Do you believe putting your faith in Michael saves you? Didn't he "become God" in relation to us when we supposedly became his offspring, long before this plan of salvation was explained to us? Joseph Smith taught, "it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see". But this is not "becoming God in relation to us". If you can find it expressed in the King Follett discourse, then let me know. I think you are putting your own opinion of what it means to "become God" into his discourse. It's like the phrase "become like God" is substituted for "become a God". Do you also believe "exaltation" only applies to a resurrected, glorified being after he has his first spirit child through eternal increase? I just provide them. It's up to you to determine if they are false teachings, which lead people astray. By the way, they were considered official when spoken, although they were not canonized. This concept is also present in the April 1989 General Conference. "There are some of our members who practice selective obedience. A prophet is not one who displays a smorgasbord of truth from which we are free to pick and choose. However, some members become critical and suggest the prophet should change the menu. A prophet doesn't take a poll to see which way the wind of public opinion is blowing. He reveals the will of the Lord to us" (Ensign, May 1989). I think Mosiah 15:1–4 and 1 Nephi 11:18, 21 are the only places in the Book of Mormon which teaches that Jesus is God incarnate. Alma 11:39 and Ether 3:14 mention that Jesus is also the Father. From the Bible, we have it more clearly stated: John 1:1, 14 ("the Word was God ... the Word was made flesh"). Colossians 2:9 ("In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"). Philippians 2:6–7 ("Jesus was in the form of God and took upon him the form of a servant"). Hebrews 1:8 ("Of the Son: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever"). Titus 2:13 ("the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ"). 1 Timothy 3:16 ("God was manifest in the flesh"). Isaiah 9:6 ("the coming Messiah called Mighty God").

Of course you’d think it’s stupid due to the fact that you’re an advocate for Marxist inspired DEI, a perverse “participation trophy” society designed to demoralize and squelch man’s divinely implanted desire to multiply his talents and press onward and upward in faith, in favor of a counterproductive system of enforced equal outcomes where everyone is equally miserable. But that’s the whole point isn’t it? To the most radical advocates of DEI, it’s better if everyone is equally miserable because it’s more fair and just that way. And heaven forbid that the motivation to be valiant in the testimony of Jesus should bless a man with greater bestowals of heavenly rewards than the slothful believer who buries his talents and sits on his butt all day. In a perfect DEI universe nobody’s feelings would ever get hurt enough to inspire a remorse of conscience and a desire to repent. What a perfect world that would be because in the DEI “heaven” there would be no need for a Savior and everybody could just sit around playing video games in hell forever without a care in the world.

We will always have room to improve, I suppose. But in the main I think the Church is trying very hard, with some real success, to accommodate members, invite new ones, and preserve the doctrines of the Church from pressures to alter them to conform to sociopolitical preferences/demands, and also respect individuals' right to autonomy and agency. Will the Church always succeed at this? No. I am open to hearing what you have to suggest about how the Church could improve. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

And it is not working that well. Which is exactly why using AI in a discussion is stupid.

They can do baptisms at the temple as soon as they want after being baptized. They just have to get the limited use recommend.

A fair point. I think "diversity" amply exists in terms of race and nationality. We still do not have much of a presence in some parts of the world, but not for lack of trying. "Diversity" as to "orthodoxy" is, in my view, broader than I would have thought, but still has some real parameters. Amasa Lyman is a good example. Actively speaking/working against the Church, while a member of the Church, appears to be unworkable. I think there is a lot of conflict about "diversity" touching on a relatively few current topics: marriage, Law of Chastity, same-sex behavior, women and the priesthood, abortion, use of church funds, origins of The Book of Mormon, and so on. Yes and no. "Doctrinal pluralism" as to the propriety/morality of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage? Yes, lots of "pluralism" going on there. This is perhaps the single biggest doctrinal stumblingblock in the Church (in the U.S. and other western nations, anyway). The challenge is that it is effectively impossible to square these things with the Restored Gospel, such that those who want to ratify them within the Church have to stake out a precarious doctrinal position. Same goes for abortion. Issues having both a "doctrinal" and substantial sociopolitical dimension can be difficult where those dimensions do not mesh well. This sort of thing seems more like a theoretical than actual controversy/stumblingblock. Yesterday I taught my ward's Sunday School lesson about Noah and the Flood. I included a slide about whether the flood was global or local, and it garnered the least amount of interest and comment. I think active and observant Latter-day Saints are find with "diversity" as to doctrinally unsettled topics, provided that the unsettledness does not become disproportionate or grow into rebellion/apostasy. Once that question takes center stage, the metaphor has failed, I think. I wonder how much of this ostracism is more perception than reality. I also wonder how much of this ostracism is about "doctrine" (e.g., should women be ordained to the priesthood) as opposed to sociopolitical issues that are being mostly imported into the Church (e.g., ratification of same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.). It's all about the presuppositions. I think it is difficult to have a preconceived, and strongly-held, position on this or that sociopolitical issue, and then reconcile it with the "big tent" concept where that position seemingly conflicts with the Church's clear guidance/doctrine. Thanks, -Smac

Again, that depends upon one's presuppositions. I think many (most?) faithful, observant Latter-day Saints see the Restored Gospel and membership in the Church as intended for the entire world. Indeed, that is how it is presented to us in scripture: 1 Nephi 14:42 - "And the time cometh that he shall manifest himself unto all nations, both unto the Jews and also unto the Gentiles." 1 Nephi 19:17 - "Yea, and all the earth shall see the salvation of the Lord, saith the prophet; every nation, kindred, tongue and people shall be blessed." 1 Nephi 22:28 - "But, behold, all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people shall dwell safely in the Holy One of Israel if it so be that they will repent." 2 Nephi 26:33 - "He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." 2 Nephi 30:8 - "And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall commence his work among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, to bring about the restoration of his people upon the earth." Mosiah 15:28 - "And now I say unto you that the time shall come that the salvation of the Lord shall be declared to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people." Mosiah 27:25 - "And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters." Alma 5:33 - "Behold, he sendeth an invitation unto all men, for the arms of mercy are extended towards them, and he saith: Repent, and I will receive you." Alma 5:49 - "And now I say unto you that this is the order after which I am called, yea, to preach unto my beloved brethren, yea, and every one that dwelleth in the land; yea, to preach unto all, both old and young, both bond and free; yea, I say unto you the aged, and also the middle aged, and the rising generation; yea, to cry unto them that they must repent and be born again." Alma 13:22 - "Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us." Alma 29:8 - "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have." Alma 37:4 - "Behold, it has been prophesied by our fathers, that they {the Brass Plates} should be kept and handed down from one generation to another, and be kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord until they should go forth unto every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, that they shall know of the mysteries contained thereon." 3 Nephi 18:22 - "And behold, ye shall meet together oft; and ye shall not forbid any man from coming unto you when ye shall meet together, but suffer them that they may come unto you and forbid them not." 3 Nephi 21:28 - "Yea, and then shall the work commence, with the Father among all nations in preparing the way whereby his people may be gathered home to the land of their inheritance." 3 Nephi 28:29 - "And it shall come to pass, when the Lord seeth fit in his wisdom that they shall minister unto all the scattered tribes of Israel, and unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, and shall bring out of them unto Jesus many souls." D&C 38:33 - "And from thence, whosoever I will shall go forth among all nations, and it shall be told them what they shall do; for I have a great work laid up in store, for Israel shall be saved, and I will lead them whithersoever I will, and no power shall stay my hand." D&C 39:15 - "I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations." D&C 42:58 - "And I give unto you a commandment that then ye shall teach them unto all men; for they shall be taught unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people." D&C 43:20 - "Lift up your voices and spare not. Call upon the nations to repent, both old and young, both bond and free, saying: Prepare yourselves for the great day of the Lord." D&C 45:71 - "And it shall come to pass that the righteous shall be gathered out from among all nations, and shall come to Zion, singing with songs of everlasting joy." D&C 58:9 - "Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited." D&C 88:103 - "And another trump shall sound, which is the fifth trump, which is the fifth angel who committeth the everlasting gospel—flying through the midst of heaven, unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people." D&C 101:78: "That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment." D&C 133:8 - "Send forth the elders of my church unto the nations which are afar off; unto the islands of the sea; send forth unto foreign lands; call upon all nations, first upon the Gentiles, and then upon the Jews." Moses 7:52 - "And he sent forth an unalterable decree, that a remnant of his seed should always be found among all nations, while the earth should stand." Isaiah 66:18 - "For I know their works and their thoughts: it shall come, that I will gather all nations and tongues; and they shall come, and see my glory." Matthew 24:14 - "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come." Matthew 25:32 - "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." Matthew 28:19 - "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Mark 13:10 - "And the gospel must first be published among all nations." Luke 24:47 - "And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Acts 10:34-35 - "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him." Acts 17:26 - "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth." Galatians 3:28 - “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” Romans 16:26 - "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." Of course, agency is involved. Nobody will be compelled in these things. Faith, repentance and obedience are also involved. Entering into and staying in the "tent" is difficult, perhaps impossible, without these things. Whether it is the most accurate characterization is another question. Thanks, -Smac

But they can do baptisms shortly after conversions, iirc. Though can’t remember when this became policy.

But she was living with her siblings, so it seems likely they came over in a group surely (pure speculation).

I think this is largely the heart of the question. What "diversity" will the church allow and what won't it allow. I think your idea of big and small tent largely centers on what you put in the allowed diversity and the "disallowed" (I'm having a hard time choosing the right word here) diversity buckets. I think that it would be largely universally agreed that race and culture are not things that belong in the disallowed bucket, which leaves us with what you are calling doctrinal pluralism. IMO, the question of doctrinal pluralism is where the question of big/small tent almost exclusively gets debated, and the debate largely centers on what doctrines/practices are not essential and which ones are. Perhaps an example (mostly historical, since the church is largely settled that this is an allowed example of doctrinal pluralism). Scott Woodward and Cassie Griffiths on their Church History Matters podcast have started 2026 with a multi part series talking about science and religion and related controversies (including, of course, evolution and creationism). They have emphasized multiple times that (in 2026) the church has plenty of room for people who believe all kinds of different things (doctrinal pluralism) about the origins of the Earth and life and humans. The church mostly only insists that one agree that God is the creator and that humans are "children" of God in some way and created in His image. Of course, over the years there have been a lot of efforts (almost exclusively by creationist believers like Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie) to try to assert that evolutionists do not have a place in the church. During those years when evolution was softly considered a heresy ("deadly" according to Elder McConkie), the controversy would have centered on whether or not this view was "true" (another poorly defined word that we use a lot). IMO, the question of big and small tent is really going to center on what doctrinal pluralism one believes should be allowed in the church. In this respect it is probably more of a relative identifier rather than some kind of absolute truth. If one's experience in the church is to feel ostracized for sincerely held beliefs, they will view the church as "small tent." If one's experience is to feel that the "boundary markers" imposed by the church are unfair ore exclusive, then one will likely view the church as "small tent". If one's experience in the church is to feel openly embraced by the church and they find themselves largely in agreement with the "boundary markers," then one will experience the church as "big tent."

I am adding a post on this because I think my error was significant enough I want to be sure anyone who read my previous post has a chance to see the correct info. Men did more religious volunteering hours than women….likely because of priesthood associated callings and activities, imo. They also did more community volunteering associated with the Church (I assume callings matter here as well): I wonder if California is more accepting of our church groups working with other church groups given the high density of LDS there (at least in the past). I know in Canada and Kansas we had some trouble with that, but when one group said “no way”, there was always another saying “yes, please”. Maybe it’s just with more LDS in California, there are more connections, networking, groups familiar enough to reach out and ask for help from us. There was no difference with secular volunteering hours…which actually surprised me but maybe the SAHM volunteering is much lower now (I know several mothers who volunteered at school now work there as aides). https://sp2.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/cnaan_lds_giving.pdf

The problem there is if a ton of food is delivered at once, that is more work for them than not having it delivered imo. It can be a big deal putting it into containers and finding room in refrigerator or freezers (one of the reasons I will often do a jar of good spaghetti sauce and a package of noodles and nonperishable trimmings so they have the option of when to have it and hopefully there is room on a shelf somewhere, but it can always slide under a bed for the time being). What the Church does very well in this case is spread out the wealth so it’s useful rather than overwhelming. Someone could take it on themselves to do that, but many would feel awkward using the ward’s email or social media and it might not reach everyone either. It needs to be coordinated somehow and the Church generally has that down pat (call the RS Pres). added: oops, see bluebell addressed this

I like AI for searching, including finding quotes, which seems to me Smac’s main purpose here, but even there best for detailed queries as its choices for authoritative sources aren’t always great. But using it for judgment, waste of time and effort, imo. I would not use its commentary unless it’s a trivial topic I am not interested in doing the work or not up to it at the moment….and I will put that disclaimer up when I use it (hopefully every time, but probably forget on occasion). I skip any such AI commentaries in threads like these as not interested….unless that is all someone else is doing and then it’s more teasing, lol.

But do you think Grok was correct when it said the LDS Church is generally characterized as a “small tent”? Grok did that because the predictive text shows that is the most popular characterization.

I concur. Grok commentary on its own should be taken with a grain of salt. Hence my open acknowledgment of both the queries and the responses. Much of the responses, though, seem to be pretty clinical. Nothing I wrote can be remotely characterized as "openly fascist or full anti-Semite or whatever." So it is not an empirical fact but Grok has an opinion on where it falls. Hence my query about presuppositions. I think Grok did a pretty good job of summing up the "big tent" and "small tent" positions, and in acknowledging the role and import of presuppositions. Thanks, -Smac

I can't find anything about the ex-boyfriend Caleb Hayden Fosnaugh being a member himself. He may not be, maybe his connection to her is through the Uniting for Ukraine program, which requires a private sponsor in the U.S. to sign a form (I-134A) promising financial support. Many single female refugees find sponsors through online matching groups or social media. This creates a dangerous power dynamic. If Fosnaugh or his family served as her initial point of contact or sponsor when she first arrived in the U.S. perhaps in Ohio before she moved to North Carolina, it would explain how a native-born American from Ohio met a woman from Ukraine. It is also possible Kateryna initially lived in Ohio when she arrived in 2022, met Fosnaugh there, and later moved to North Carolina to seek a fresh start. "Ex-boyfriend" suggests a relationship of some duration. Kateryna Tovmash was a relatively recent convert after her arrival in the United States. Kateryna grew up Seventh-day Adventist (family history suggests this), and the ward members in North Carolina have described her as a "shining example of a new convert." The photo of her at the Raleigh North Carolina Temple was taken in the last year or so. In the Church, a person typically waits at least one year after baptism before they can receive temple ordinances. This timeline fits with a conversion that took place shortly after her 2022 arrival. Domestic violence experts have warned that predators sometimes use platforms to find vulnerable women who lack a local support system or legal status. He may have viewed himself as her "rescuer," which often turns into obsessive or controlling behavior when the woman tries to gain independence (like moving to away or joining a new church). If she moved to North Carolina to distance herself from an obsessive relationship in Ohio, North Carolina should have provided the safety she needed. Making this Valentine's Day murder even more chilling.

@Analytics (speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : "I am not claiming that physics 'disproves God' in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense." Also Analytics (also speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen." "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case." "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen." "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up." "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven." "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." "According to the massive experimental evidence supporting it, quantum field theory is true, within its domain of applicability. And if quantum field theory is true, we know there is not a mysterious thing made out of "more fine and pure matter" that connects with the brain in a way that has enough energy to have any effect on how the brain functions." Science (especially physics) cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims. Carroll is a philosophical naturalist expressing a strong opinion that, though grounded in current physics, is not a neutral scientific pronouncement. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits. The apparent absence of detectable spirit-forces is not conclusive evidence of absence. Religious experience, historical claims, and philosophy of science provide space for theism. "Science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Carroll seems to concede this, but Analytics does not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science..."). Moreover, as I have noted a few times, neither Carroll nor Analytics claim to have a coherent definition of "God" and "spirits." The Book of Mormon does make some historical claims that are susceptible to some empirical testing/evaluation (geography, archaeology). However, miraculous elements (angelic visits, translation via seer stones, etc.) are, by definition, not repeatable lab experiments, nor are they otherwise empirically testable/falsifiable. Physics does not "disprove" a one-time divine act any more than it disproves the Resurrection or any other singular miracle. Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, Kateryna Tovmash was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. An active member of the Holly Springs Ward of North Carolina. In the photo she is standing in front of the Raleigh North Carolina Temple. Second Ukrainian Refugee Kateryna Tovmash Murdered in NC Ukrainian refugee, 21, and military boyfriend shot dead by ex-lover Her brother, Mykhailo Tovmash, set up a GoFundMe to cover funeral costs and support their younger siblings who were present in the home during the attack. Caleb Hayden Fosnaugh of Ohio allegedly drove 7 hours to North Carolina, broke into the home, and killed Katya and Matthew Wade, an active-duty U.S. Army soldier. Fosnaugh was apprehended in Ohio on February 14th after a multi-state manhunt. He faces two counts of first-degree murder. This is the second high-profile killing of a Ukrainian refugee in North Carolina in six months leading to significant political and social debate in the state regarding the safety of refugees. Members of the Holly Springs Ward have spoken to local media (like WRAL and ABC11), describing her as a "shining light" in their congregation. They noted that she sought refuge in the United States not just from the war in Ukraine, but also to build a better life within her faith community. Kateryna arrived in North Carolina in 2022 under the "Uniting for Ukraine" program. Local church members were instrumental in helping her settle, find work, and navigate the transition to life in the U.S. Her death has hit the local ward particularly hard, as many members were involved in supporting her through her transition and her efforts to maintain a safe home for her son.