Calm

Except you aren’t a believer in the Book of Mormon iirc and therefore there was never a hill Cumorah in the past that was the same in your own belief surely. Does make it easier to dismiss the text as fabrication if one insists they have to be considered the same by Saints.

I agree with the need for the legal system to be used for punishment, paying damages, etc. But due to things like technicalities, poor representation, statute of limitations (which are necessary imo due to issues with evidence), etc., justice is not always found in the courtroom. Often isn’t found in for most sexual assault and abuse cases if the usual stats are accurate (not reported out of fear and shame because of our culture as well as personal threats, reported but not charged, arrested but not prosecuted, etc). Due process shouldn’t be expected or required in any other venue besides the legal one, due process is required of the government and those who are its agents, included judges and juries. Everyone else in the community…there are, imo, more effective and important standards to judge by. As far as the mass tort firms…I would love to see a study on the percentage of actual, viable, non nuisance cases that are present in these inventories. I assume those types of cases get greater attention since more money is likely or does it matter to these firms? Seems like an upgraded (or down depending on how one views these) version of ambulance chasing. This should not be surprising to anyone.

I definitely see this in the families that have been here forever. Very hard workers, “salt of the earth”types, first to help the neighbors. This has been my favorite neighborhood to live in ever as the ones who are more recent like us have also been great people.

How do you define “leading astray”? Do you believe it must mean teaching anything false or does it have a more restricted definition such as persistently teaching something false? Or even leading into sin or apostasy as in ‘leading off the path of salvation or righteousness’? What do you think LDS leaders meant and mean by “leading astray”?

They held the event in 2025 (they have a video of it iirc). I wonder if that was “Muslim only” or this time was the first. Seems like it would have been noticed, Maybe I will try and see if Google can come up with the past year’s adverts.

Of course it was. Kind of like midwives became seen as uneducated, superstitious, and unsafe…

From the event website: https://dfwepiceid.com

Okay, can’t find the date issued for the original flier, but the reissued one was May 4th. https://nypost.com/2026/05/04/us-news/muslim-only-event-at-taxpayer-funded-texas-waterpark-gets-backlash/ If the Post’s info is correct, looks like the backlash was what caused the change from Muslim only to modesty only in the publicizing. And it is burkinis for all women. Not just swim shirt and trunks as the first article I posted claimed…unless there was been another change. Pretty sure not. “Knight told The Post that she did not mean to exclude non-Muslims in organizing the event. “The core intention behind this event is to create a space where individuals and families who value modest dress and a modest environment can come together and feel comfortable enjoying a recreational space that often doesn’t naturally accommodate those preferences,” she said. “While the event is rooted in celebrating Eid within the Muslim community, the guiding principle for attendance is the modest dress code. “Guests are expected to follow that guideline; such as burkinis for women and swim trunks with shirts for men.”” The “didn’t mean to not include non Muslims in organizing it”…does that mean in the planning or the partying? If the second, I get why one would assume if burkinis were required for all women, only Muslims would be interested…though there may be women like me who have considered getting one if ever outside swimming because burning so easily with skin cancer rampant in the family and my husband having to get a spot burned practically every year.

Yep, but the article said it was an early flier. Sounds like it was either a mistake (maybe the person who created the flier assumes it was and no one doublechecked) or they reconsidered shortly after printing the first? flier since the event person didn’t say ‘we had originally planned Muslim only, but reconsidered when we figured there would be others who would enjoy a family friendly dress code’ or ‘we were happy to compromise with the city’ (I am not making the claim something less than shorts and swim shorts aren’t family friendly, but that does seem the implication made). Now she may have been doing PR CYA stuff, but if not (and my guess is they will have to prove that it isn’t CYA or admit they were planning ‘Muslim only’ until given no option), the governor is going to have to explain why he made a threat on out dated info. I want to say more, but it will go political if I do I am guessing. Any chance we know the date of the early flier and any later publicity that opened it up to others? You want to publicize an event early enough for people to make plans, but then again close to the event…maybe even for several days because many people get distracted easily, so there could be weeks between the early flier and the date of the event. Added: event is June 1st, so definitely weeks. Wonder what other publicity has already been done besides the early flier. I still don’t understand why the governor just didn’t have someone on his staff contact the event person to ensure the info was correct or to persuade them to open it up to more than Muslims if that was his only issue with it. If it wasn’t the only issue he had as the article implies, then there may be a big problem.

No mention of that however….plus if the city can celebrate Christmas (and I am betting they can), that would be discrimination. Added: I checked…Texas cities sponsoring Christmas events (got it from Chat so now will doublecheck it): “City of Lucas “Country Christmas” Event — official city-sponsored Christmas celebration with tree lighting and Santa activities. “Each winter, the City of Lucas welcomes residents and visitors alike to its beloved Country Christmas celebration — a cherished tradition that brings our community together for an evening of holiday joy, laughter, and light. Held at Lucas Community Park, this family-friendly event captures the warmth and wonder of the season with festive music, holiday activities, and the glow of the annual tree lighting ceremony” Bay City “HomeTown Christmas” — official Bay City Parks & Recreation Christmas festival and parade. “Bay City Announces HomeTown Christmas Celebration 2025 A Month-Long Series of Holiday Events Begins December 4th The Bay City Parks and Recreation Department is pleased to announce the 6thAnnual HomeTown Christmas Celebration, bringing a full month of holiday activities to the community this December. This year’s celebration features long-standing favorites, exciting new additions, and festive fun for all ages. The event kicks off with the 45th Annual Lighted Christmas Parade, in partnership with the Bay City Chamber of Commerce, in downtown Bay City on Thursday, December 4 at 7:00 p.m. Last year’s parade featured over 60 entries, with trophies awarded to top-scoring groups in each category.” City of Texas City Holiday Events Calendar — includes Christmas parade, holiday market, “Celebrate the Season,” and other city holiday programming. Lights in Liberty Christmas Festival — city-backed Christmas lights festival in Liberty, Texas. There are many others as well: City of Midland “Merry Lights” City of Conroe Christmas tree lighting and holiday festival City of Laredo Christmas parade Houston Mayor’s Holiday Spectacular” Requires only a swim shirt and trunks. You can get them pretty cheap on Amazon, though the cheap fabrics fade fast. I typically wear a swim shirt and swim leggings purely for comfort (my body poorly regulates temp and this keeps me warm long enough to heat up after about 15 minutes of laps). I much prefer these and will never go back to regular swim wear even if I get to the point of looking good on them again.

Except according to the article, that was an early flier and a mistake. The modest dress code was the actual requirement, not Muslims only. (Removed comment that felt nonpolitical since I was thinking of legal consequences of the likelihood of the government getting sued, not political ones, but likely would be seen as such.)

This news article suggests it was prejudice imo. https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/religion/2026/05/07/551202/islamic-celebration-at-grand-prairie-water-park-is-canceled-after-threat-by-gov-abbott/ Heaven forbid that a religious group promotes modesty.

Seems like if the government rents out the water park to any community groups or anyone that restrict the event to those invited only, the government should be allowed to rent to religious groups for exclusive events as long as they rent to all religious groups. It’s partial treatment that is the issue, iirc. If the Muslim group can show the water park was rented out for exclusive events, sounds like a lawsuit is appropriate.

With a cap

Not sure interfering with someone’s sleep is a good idea as that tends to contribute to irrational behaviour, like retaliation…what if they rush the house before they leave? Have no experience though with such things.

Do you (poptart) mean families that have lived a long time in the same home their great great grandparents built in rural Utah? We have a few of them in our ward, their family were farmers or had orchards, but most of those are gone now and we don’t count as rural anymore. Got our third stoplight even. One of the long timers has been our handyman off and on. A solid guy, but haven’t really done much talking with him. My husband has much more.

Update on the Heber Valley temple: https://www.abc4.com/news/religion/heber-valley-temple-utah-supreme-court-ruling/ https://www.kpcw.org/wasatch-county/2026-02-05/utah-supreme-court-heber-temple-construction-can-proceed

It’s been almost two years since this thread was started. I feel there must be another temple being built somewhere that is being protested. I may go look for it, lol.

Yes, that is why I mentioned time and money. It would not be able to be done as efficiently as before. Temples being LDS and restricted to the public grab attention more I am thinking than ‘Protestant church’. Was there much public discussion when it got approved? I am wondering if that steeple would have been something that was viewed as slipping through because people would be unhappy about it or it wouldn’t be an issue at all.

So if you were a bishop and your son or daughter were arrested and charged with something you believed was false or at least not as bad as charged (maybe driving recklessly, but not DUI), you wouldn’t testify for them if your leaders told you they didn’t approve? Not challenging you, just curious about the way you think about this.

I agree with this. If the defendant only has a bishop to speak for him, seems like there might be a good reason for the bishop not to speak as maybe he is not as familiar with the defendant as he thinks. If he has other people to speak for him, he doesn’t need a bishop speaking as a neighbor, not a bishop, to speak for him enough to take the risk of implying official church backing somehow. Let the others do it. Again, I would still allow a bishop to speak for a family member or someone he was part of the caregiving team for because I can imagine cases where the only ones able to speak up for someone would be a caregiver/family member. My daughter is one of those people. No one else interacts with her enough on a frequent basis (she has great not so frequent contact relationships with doctors and extended family), so if by chance my husband was a bishop and somehow my daughter was accused of something, it makes sense for him to be a character witness. Curious if you (or anyone else) thinks a bishop should ask to be released if choosing to testify/write letters for a family member? The level of stress alone would justify resigning imo because family will need his attention. Now if a family member is found guilty and the bishop supported him for leniency claiming the family member was a good person and no risk when or was repentant and would never abuse again, I would find it hard to trust the bishop to be blunt as that is not a safe prediction in many cases. But if the case is not yet decided, I am not sure. Probably trust would be based on whether or not I think his relative is guilty. Life is complicated.

I certainly do. If a bishop is using his position or recognizes someone else intends to, then I agree it is problematic to not be forthright on it, though my preference would be to refuse to submit a letter if the position was intended to make a difference. I don’t think it should be allowed for a bishop in his position as bishop except in cases where known harm will be done and no one would be pleading for leniency hopefully in that case, but for stronger measures. Yes, but I don’t see it as dishonest , only inappropriate (in most cases…what if the accused is a close family member, should not the bishop be able to speak for his son or daughter as a father or wife as a husband, parent as a child?).

Just because someone is being asked to contribute because of their position (current or former) doesn’t mean they are acting in that position when they choose to act. Why would it be dishonest therefore not to mention they had or have a significant position? A bishop is a human being and can give a reference on that basis. He should of course inform the person asking he will only do it in a personal capacity and they are not to mention his position or former position. That seems to cover the necessities for honesty as far as I can tell. Did I miss something (about why it was dishonest)? Added to address something else: thought I had read to the end. Hadn’t. Yes, it is a massive problem that a current bishop is almost inherently seen at least by members as always a representative of the Church, it’s a 24/7 calling where authority is never set aside makes it difficult for a current bishop not to be seen as a representative. Are these letters just read by the judge or do they read them in court? If in court, I lean towards no appearance since the victim will, if present, have the visual memory of someone protecting their abuser who they believe for very good reasons should be protecting them. I also feel like there is a difference between sentencing and bail requests (I assume that was what the Dean’s letter was about). I would say if it’s obvious that he is being asked solely because of his duties, for example because that was where his main interaction with the defendant came from or he’s one of the few people being asked to submit a letter, it shouldn’t be approved. If however, he has been a friend for years and interacted outside of church more than within and is one of many who was asked to contribute, then it becomes more iffy. Seems like he should have a right to if he really wants to, but also needs to consider the victim, especially if a member of the ward. Maybe that needs to be decided on a case by case basis. If it’s primarily about protecting the victim(s) or even an alleged victim in a case that hasn’t gone to trial, my inclination is to ban current bishops from participating. But I wouldn’t ban them from speaking for the victim, so that doesn’t seem moral, legally balanced. Hope I am never in a position to have to decide such a thing for myself.

If it happens as often as it appears, circumstances seem to lean towards needs much more training imo. PS: I find yours and weebles’ comments quite reasonable, so just assume my conclusions follow yours as far as the questions go besides the comment below.

And Jensen obviously had no clue on how abusers hide behind a facade and use that to get into positions in which they have greater access to victims or they could even be a good person in one way, but have uncontrolled compulsions in another. And just because one controls himself with smoking and drinking doesn’t mean he controls himself in all other ways.