Calm

I wonder how much this would cause problems later on with other cities. Otherwise I would say just lose the steeple as much as possible. I do think we probably have enough time and money now that the exterior of temples could be designed by locals more, have a design contest. Involving locals more, even nonmembers might help increase the feel of being a part of the community rather than an outsider. Having more unique temples might lose some of the recognition brand, but it could be approached like the Bond music…always something on brand enough you know it’s a Bond movie theme. If we can crowdsource the hymn book (why would spellcheck change that?), why not temple design?

My husband’s POV…obviously just personal experience as a prof, not as an authority; he says he is thinking of it in the APA context (Psychology, not Press): Authorship means doing part of the actual research and/or actual writing of the paper. Suggestions means ideas contributed that may or may not be used by the author(s) in their writing or analysis (if they are seen as helpful, I am assuming they are used, but he insists that I include “may or may not”). My husband is remembering a suggestion from one professor that dramatically changed his paper, but would never be seen as authorship (the prof told him he had to defend a claim made about a scale my husband created for his dissertation, he hated the suggestion as so much more work, but it did strengthen his dissertation significantly). He is okay with using the phrase “involved in the creation” for someone providing helpful suggestions, says that is accurate, which surprises me as that doesn’t feel that precise to me. I wouldn’t use it as it feels more than suggestions even if not necessarily authorship (it does feel close, so I get why narrator went there). “Involved in creation” feels like it should imply they are “creators” which means much more to me helpful suggestions. If an editor or peer reviewer offered a suggestion (such as the prof for my husband), they could be said be involved in the creation, but he wouldn’t normally describe them as such. He really got into clarifying it, lol.

You should have seen me last night. One of my notable meltdowns.

I agree it would be best if champatsch explained what he meant and if inaccurate, correct his comment. I hope he doesn’t feel too on the spot to do it. I know I would be personally offended if someone accused me of lying and wouldn’t want to interact with them in the future. I also think it would be good to resolve this so as not to influence future conversations. However, will you believe him if his explanation supports misinterpretation and not intentional deception? I am not sure I would if I thought someone was lying if they hadn’t explained right away simply because my brain considers all possibilities. I would want to believe them, but doubt would be present. I obviously disagree one should view at this point with the level of information we have about his thought process what is possibly a misinterpretation or misstatement as a lie, even if carelessly made. Dishonesty is very wrong, malicious in my view and therefore the accusation of dishonesty needs to be solid before being made. You may see this case as solid based on your own experience with the process scholarship and likely more precise way of speaking given your autism, but others may not be applying the same standard of measurement of involvement and precision to speaking, etc as you are. I would love it if all were precise and detailed in their speaking so as to make clear their thought process for their conclusions, but most people don’t want to read that detailed of an explanation and many don’t want to put in the effort to write it. I also wonder how much that would actually help understanding because often it seems like the more detail I put into a comment, the more likely someone focuses on a detail and therefore misinterprets my overall view. I think I may go find my husband and test him on how he would describe input from others (ranging from casual conversations about research he is working on to actual assistance) for his papers. He is not that precise in his casual language, so it feels like it might be a good test case….also the only one available to me, so it has to be good.

They will be by me.

The accusation of dishonesty is one of the worst in setting off anger for me, so this is bothering me from both sides as it also did come across to me as Carmack was inflating the contributions of others (though not for the purpose of detracting from the value of Davis’ work apparently since he doesn’t see it as accurate if I understand him correctly). As someone who highly respects the narrator from his long time posting and who has quite a bit of respect for Ryan and champatsch (they haven’t posted as long, so I know less about their personality but I think they are good people, committed and not malicious at all) and as someone who finds the conversation interesting if somewhat beyond me at this point (get the basics, but my English courses never went into syntax much so lost when it comes to specifics), I am going to say I agree with Ryan’s analysis of the initial comment that was labeled as lying by the narrator. While it suggested significant contributions by others, it doesn’t rise to them imo having done enough to be considered as authors. Plus jumping to lying when it could be misunderstanding even if it was intended to imply a level of authorship rather than just lots of fingers in the pie (don’t think he took it this far though) really bothers me. Maybe Davis thanked people somewhere for extensive help, maybe someone mentioned helping Davis along with others and champ took it as more than intended….so many comments could be easily misinterpreted especially if unintentionally exaggerating actual involvement and then that exaggeration can get exaggerated again just as this comment got exaggerated to authors and to a lie. It’s harder to recognize others’ good points in a conversation imo when those points get overshadowed by personal comments and it’s a shame when good conversations or debates get swallowed up in unfortunate misunderstandings.

Good point

I skip AI much of the time myself. What would be nice if someone uses AI in their post is if they included a TL;DR followed by a summary at the top in their own words of what they consider the essentials. If they want to put it at the bottom because it’s easier, then set it off with something to catch attention like a lot of ******* and identify it as a self composed summary (using TL;DR seems like the easiest way to do that to me). Having said that, I greatly appreciate everyone, even those using AI, having substantive conversations where they are attempting to both share their ideas and understand others. The tone of recent threads have been much more enjoyable overall, so a shout out to smac and others for staying on the positive side of personal and making the extra effort (and it can be a lot at times) to understand before criticizing.

You have to have money to run an organization and give it away while keeping the organization functional and iirc you have no issue with them holding on to enough for that, so it comes down to the why of the amount of the savings. You seem to believe there is no concrete foreseen purpose to the majority of the account, that leaders are saving money because they can for the purpose of “just in case”. That attitude is certainly possible as many of their age (post Great Depression and WW2) lived through or had parents who lived through traumatic times and caution in finances can be a result of that environment (I saw it in one set of grandparents and both parents). However there has been significant expansion in what the Church is doing and many of these things seem to be long term plans For example, the change from in person educational aid to online programs through Pathways and other stuff appears to me to have been in development for a couple of decades. The shutdown of nonBYU church schools in Mexico and New Zealand and possibly other sites I can’t recall started iirc in the late 00s with NZ in 2009 and Mexico in 2013.. Pathways had a pilot program that started at the same time 2009, but only really kicked off in 2017. BYU online high school officially started in 2020. Since it would have taken some development time and given what I was told in the past about how they budget three years in advance for projects, my guess is Pathways was first discussed mid or even early 00s. If so, online schooling through BYU has been in the works for 2 decades and likely still hasn’t reached the level of development originally planned. Who knows how they picture the goal since it just keeps growing. I would not be surprised to see centers located on each continent to allow for more native speakers getting involved in teaching. If so, that will require massive investment.

As someone with a child who will be dependent on others her entire life unless things dramatically change (and even if she can hold a job, because she lacks more than a basic education at this point, she will likely have low income even if she eventually can be employable) while requiring consistency, stability, and her own space and ability to control what she is capable of controling, we are planning her long term care along with our own needs as we age. All our long term financial decisions are about leaving as much of our wealth as possible for her so that it won’t be a burden for whoever takes over administering her estate because having another adult with strong preferences on the way things should be and moderate needs (shopping and cleaning for her and taking her to doctors’ appointments) hanging around is going to be hard enough. Trying to imagine what life will be like for her in 40 years when she hits her senior years and planning for that is ridiculous. The only thing we can do is provide a financial resource for her to draw on so she can adapt as times change…and hope that the economy never tanks so she loses that cushion. Expanding that to cover millions of individuals with a variety of needs in a myriad of situations, it is easy for me to see why the Church is choosing to continue grow their fund with a significant amount of the leftovers after current and known upcoming expenses are covered even with the amount that’s already in there. I have no doubt they have calculated expected expenses from a number of likely positive and negative scenarios for the future including where there is much reduced tithing as well as investment income and have projected ways to keep the Church able to address its commitments to its members. Whether those calculations account for the current level of funds or they add a large safety cushion for the unexpected like we are trying with our daughter, that I don’t have a clue about. My faith allows for both the Lord to be highly involved in inspiring leaders on how to approach financial management of the Church or the Lord being involved much less, perhaps all the way down to barely there. Given past behaviour of church leaders where major mistakes did occur, I believe this is likely one area the Lord feels hands off is usually more appropriate…which suggests to me church leaders have likely learned what kind of direction they can expect from God in this area by looking at what past leaders have reported and they are choosing to act based on that analysis (I get that nonbelievers will most likely assume the apparent/likely low involvement of God in this management is actually little to no involvement, either because he isn’t directing our faith any more than any other or he doesn’t exist).

One definitely looks better than four (they look uncomfortable, cluttered), but I am not fond of the Crazy Horse monument. I get that others like it. I don’t. Never have since the first time I saw a picture of it. North by Northwest involving it didn’t help even if great movie. It can’t happen no matter how awesome anyone thinks it might look (not physically possible..at least not with today’s technology) even if they managed to pass a bill to try and do it. Trying to carve anymore will likely collapse some of it.

It’s already an eyesore.

Yeah, but if they had considered the possibility of marriage or at least commitment to each other before he went off to the Navy given their apparent “instant connection”, she might not have gotten married. Seems like it was more ‘not queen material’ that was the issue from the start. added: I am probably mistaken according to one thing I just read as it claimed Camilla dated Charles first to get back at Bowles because she was “potty” about Bowles and upset about breaking up with him and him being with Princess Anne. I didn’t realize she was involved with her future husband before she was dating Charles and that possibly their relationship was more one sided than both emotionally involved and Charles was more about being Anne’s brother than his own attractions. I ignored all the gossip as it happened as much as possible, so know very little about the whole thing and as usual in such cases, thought I knew more than I did. Sheesh, even more messed up than I thought. Going back into ignore mode after this post as I always regret looking at more details. So Camilla apparently wasn’t that interested in Charles until after she was married. And that means she would have had to divorce like you said and he would likely have lost the throne because the family and the government hasn’t yet been through the disaster that was that royal marriage and its aftermath which made divorce seem pretty minor.

There is a lot of variation on what people find beautiful. How to provide enough variety so enough find a sufficient level of beauty in the community. I think the biggest issue is size. How does the Church create the personal, supportive, intimate social community while still providing consistency of doctrine, if not practice. Consistency requires control and the more involved the more control is needed. Add in it’s all volunteers meaning training will be erratic. Therefore you have to keep things simple.

He had a very difficult choice as he and others would have lost a lot at that time, but he had a choice. And while in the beginning it might have been rocky, perhaps in the end it would have been better for all. He might have had to give up the future throne (but maybe not) and dukedom and likely any major political influence, but would have still been very wealthy. Think of the Duke of Windsor who married a divorced woman. Camilla wasn’t married to begin with, so that wouldn’t have been an issue and Charles might have even kept succession rights. Camilla was (is?) by many because of the affair. If they had been open and married, she might have had huge problems with the in-laws, but not as much with the public most likely. There would have been no Princess Diana with all she accomplished (and no little princes), but she might also be alive. Hindsight is always better, of course. A lot of the royals do work very hard and accomplish a lot of good, but they also live a good life with lots of support staff. Wearing the very best clothing for years is still wearing the very best clothing. Working hard while living in comfort is still living in comfort.

By misleading do you mean to suggest it was intentional?

And how did he (was it Lars or David saying this?) know this? As far as I can tell Lars makes a statement, adds some doodling on a handout that may or may not be accurate, but provides no actual documentation or sources. The balance of the fund at that time was more than sufficient to cover the building, 1.5 billion iirc over 5 years, so around 300 million a year when on average the fund was at 31 billion for those 5 years (starting at 29 and ending at 38 iirc). I believe that handouts described it as one of the small draws on the fund. From Lars’ (the brother who did not work at EPA, but as a health care consultant) report: He refers to this one check? apparently? But funds were withdrawn multiple times over 5 years according to the report if I understand it correctly.

You were in Scouts, weren’t you…

But operations funding is apparently pulled out before excess contributions are sent to EPA….

I finally watched it. I am not impressed. I wonder why he just went off of memory rather than notes or documents. I don’t trust my own memory, I know how it works. He is coming across as intense, ranting even (most of the time I have watched him he’s very mellow, I am assuming that is his usual demeanor, which makes this feel like a rant to me). For most (many?) people that is a red flag someone isn’t going to be that accurate (might even be unintentional). He contradicts himself by claiming they were demanding he never use Mormon again in any way and then later says they would be okay with ExMormon or Post Mormon. Now the ‘no using “Mormon”’ request may have been the starting point (makes sense if it was because it’s foolish to start at what you will accept in a negotiation unless the purpose is to show no compromise will work) and the ex or post Mormon the negotiated version, but he present the list iirc as the reasons they turned the Church down because they were unreasonable and if Mormon was not being restricted as long as it was qualified, then it wouldn’t be on the ‘what they were unreasonable about’ list. As far as rays go, my guess is OSF used the rays from heaven as evocative of the First Vision pictures, so while they may have been the first to use them in a logo (I have no idea), the rays imagery is very familiar to Saints and adds to the confusion, imo, that this is a devout, believing, proFirst Vision actually occurring site. Throw in more Church related imagery and it gets confused with the Church.

Every healthy cookie I made didn’t satisfy the cookie craving, but then I was probably too demanding (bananas belong in muffins and breads, not cookies), good luck!

Is there any credible Hebrew scholar who supports this claim?

Just an FYI https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/fair-conference-2026-tickets Not seeing a schedule yet, will put it up here when I do. This is from April’s FAIR newsletter: Theme: APOLOGETICS 101: BACK TO BASICS When: August 5–7, 2026 Where: The Show Barn at Thanksgiving Point, Lehi, Utah How to watch: In Person + Livestream Available This year's FAIR Conference is going back to basics — and that's exactly what the moment calls for. THIS CONFERENCE IS FOR YOU IF… • You've ever said, "I don't know how to answer that." • You have a loved one struggling with questions about the Church. • You want to better understand common criticisms of Latter-day Saint doctrine and history. • You value both faith and scholarship — and don't feel like you have to choose between them. • You want to feel more confident, more grounded, and more at peace in your faith. • You're a historian, scholar, or student looking for rigorous, faithful responses. Whether you're a lifelong member fielding hard questions, a new member trying to find your footing, a parent trying to help a struggling child, or a historian and scholar who wants to sharpen your thinking — Apologetics 101: Back to Basics is built for you. You're not the only one asking these questions. Join us — and let's talk about them together. "FAIR is really the only site I use for clarification to 'anti-Mormon' ideas. The last nine years I have attended, this conference has been the highlight of my year!" — 2025 FAIR Conference Attendee FEATURED SPEAKERS INCLUDE: Scholars: Dan Peterson | Matt Roper | Anthony Sweat Historians: Brian Hales | Janiece Johnson | Keith Erekson Faithful Experts: Wendy Ulrich | Josh Coates | Jasmin Rappleye …and more to be announced! TICKET OPTIONS — SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE 🏅 PREMIUM / VIP Full access + added benefits. VIP and Sustaining Member options available. → https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/2026-fair-conference-vip-patron-ticket/ 🎟 STANDARD IN-PERSON Full access to all sessions — simple and straightforward. → https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/2026-fair-conference-standard-ticket/ 🎓 STUDENT TICKET Limited discounted tickets for currently enrolled students. → https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/2026-fair-conference-sponsored-student-ticket/ 💻 LIVESTREAM / ONLINE Streaming Pass for home viewing; Classroom License for groups and wards. → https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/2026-fair-conference-streaming-pass/ ▶ Register now: https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/fair-conference-2026-tickets

Thought some here might be interested, plus doing my part for FAIR as we published this. https://fairlatterdaysaints.org/store/product/a-new-translation-of-isaiah-based-on-ancient-scrolls-and-texts/ Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0GXGQJMQ8 We are going to be publishing more in the future, including something relatively soon from Brant Gardner I am eager to see.

I am not the best tracker of details these days. So only him?