Calm

Anyone know what the oldest announced only temple is? Russia was announced in 2018. That is my guess. Scanned through the list and looked at ones most likely to drag a bit….Dubai and Shanghai were 2020.

There are 113 announced, but not in construction yet according to the Church’s webpages. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/list?lang=eng Pure speculation…this is a difference in ‘style’ between Pres Nelson and Pres Oaks, a more methodical or perhaps deliberate approach (not sure what the right word is…cautious isn’t it). Or they just decided to hold off on ‘new business’ until there is a new President. Added: I am going to start laughing if this triggers speculation that the Second Coming is quite near, so the Church isn’t going to invest in more temples than committed to so as to conserve resources.

So I take it no new ones, just updates? Added…answered, thanks.

For those of us not watching (I concentrate much better when I speed up the pace, so watch it later)…. What happened?

Seems unlikely it will be anytime soon given he’s been a general authority for only 5 years.

We need to fill this in for the most recent years, project number for 2025 and then subtract April’s amount. (AI says 35 for 2023, 32 for 2024, and 15 in April) So on average 34 temples a year the last 3 years, so 19. Or just wait an hour or so.

But it is not inherent to Islam as demonstrated by Indonesia, which has a Muslim majority (87%), but is officially secular without Sharia law, is democratic and pluralistic. has a free press and effective religious freedom. Given the locations of the most oppressive Muslim countries, it seems more like a regional issue than a religious one.

Every time I see a “new member” post, I get hopeful Nemesis has solved the spam pandemic problem and open registrations again. Alas, even though it’s great to see unfamiliar faces, 2012 is not actually a “new member” imo.

I think there is discussion about this photo of a portrait here if you are interested in it… https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74683-discovery-of-photograph-of-joseph-smith/ https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75366-discovery-of-photograph-of-joseph-smith-part-ii/ We have had a number of threads over the years discussing possibilities, though you need to use Google or another search engine as the board’s search only goes back one year before calling it quits and doesn’t always get the ones for that year even. (Not complaining, Nemesis, 😛 just explaining, Google does fine for me.)

And it’s not like they didn’t have hair dye back then.

I had a positive view of him as President of BYU, did not seem rigid or legalistic to me at the time (nor later, but then I tend to like his style of speaking more than folksy). I was wondering what the general view of him at BYU was, not sure how accurate AI can be with this (does it rely on the first sources it finds or seek more for a broader view?, after reading wiki, it seems heavily dependent on that), but it coincides with what I remember, though I don’t remember any rumors surrounding his release. The only issues I remember during Oaks’ tenure were honor code and the gay underground rumors and some controversies with Jim McMahon. And I don’t remember any of Oaks’ involvement (wiki says he was hands off with the honor code, left it to the dean of students which would explain the lack). There was quite a bit of discussion and controversy with the honor code while I was there, including one memorable scandal. Pants were allowed for women, but more dress denim only, no jeans (not till 1981, that was a joyous moment). A woman showed up at the Testing Center wearing nice denim pants and whoever was processing students (probably an older student I think) didn’t allow her to take the exam as it didn’t pass their personal standard. So she went to the restroom, removed her pants (had a coat that came down long enough) and went and took the test with nothing on her lower half (bare legs were not allowed with skirts if you worked for BYU iirc, had to be nylons or tights—it would be the only reason I would have had a pair, don’t think I have owned any since I left BYU—but I can’t recall if required for students in ‘78). The student wrote the Daily Universe about the craziness (guys were getting in wearing jeans). https://universe.byu.edu/2019/04/15/honor-code-changes-have-followed-controversies-1/#:~:text=One of its more notable,the no-pants episode followed. There were also some occasions where male students were policing female students, making comments and putting notes in coat pockets or backpacks. In these cases these women were not breaking the dress code, but were still seen as immodest and for some reason, the male students thought it was their duty to police women’s standards. No doubt there were men getting dinged by women for hair too long, etc, but I don’t remember them. I do remember hearing a lecture from another student in one of my psych classes on how it was the duty of men to ensure women’s purity with clothing standards, but he was not considered mainstream by other students. Most of the men I knew when it was discussed thought the self appointed modesty police were jerks. Because most students I knew saw Pres Oaks as a moderate at that time, I was rather surprised to find he became seen as conservative when an apostle. I started out in physics and then switched to engineering on the advice of my dad (should have talked to a career counselor as he was out of date), so I remember the affirmative action efforts Oaks was promoting for less discrimination against women. Didn’t like engineering and switched to psych after two years. Have to say it always feels a bit disconcerting to see Pres Oaks in the last 20 years or so, his appearance when he was at BYU seems to have been imprinted on my brain, lol. https://president.byu.edu/directory/dallin-h-oaks I was not surprised when he was called as an apostle. He carried himself with a natural sense of authority, imo. Probably his confidence. Mixed with a genuine sense of caring.

Do you believe this verse?

It is relatively easy to copy paste a transcript of a YouTube.

Transcripts of what he actually said are much easier to access. Asking someone to wade through a video, not even providing timestamps to the relevant part isn’t reasonable in this type of conversation. You are asking everyone else to invest 15 minutes, 30, an hour possibly when you won’t take the time, won’t invest the effort yourself. And they aren’t committed to proving the quote wrong where you supposedly are. Refusing to take the time…whether to criticize or defend with accurate, detailed info indicates someone doesn’t care that much to me, so why should I bother myself to engage the material?

Think of it as an opportunity to provide context, clarification, or positive quotes that counterbalance the problematic ones. It’s giving you a great excuse to show why you see him as a great man. Just complaining about the lack of context without providing it is likely to leave the impression context doesn’t actually help, so your only option is to be dismissive. Btw, Nehor, it would be more persuasive imo to provide links to transcripts where he said these things to show the greater context and that such were his actual positions.

Noticed this at the bottom: I am speculating the residents asked for a limit to be put on the donations when they could have just accepted it all. I find that admirable. I wonder if they have hefty student loans to pay off.

This is one that was in the article: https://www.gofundme.com/f/aayc3-support-for-the-phelps-family Can someone else go in and pull out the rest and post because I apparently got my free page limit with the Detroit News. Looks like changing tech is going to let me do some more: https://www.gofundme.com/f/john-bond Additional ones from hub below: https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-jeff-mareis-healing-journey-after-church-shooting https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-the-family-ofthelma-armstrong-victim-grand-blanc-mi https://www.gofundme.com/f/greg-mikats-family-victim-of-the-grand-blanc-church-attack Smart, go fund me did a “hub” for all verified fundraisers: https://www.gofundme.com/c/act/michigan-church-shooting-relief

I thought you meant Nazi style rhetoric, which is sometimes seen in white supremacist language. You meant labeling others as like Nazis. In this case he’s possibly referencing doctors who experimented on concentration camp prisoners, including children like Mengele did though he skipped town and eluded capture and lived a long, sounds like pretty comfortable life without having ever been brought to justice unfortunately. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S235245291520014X

Went looking for the links today for the LDS victims and took me a bit to find them (been waiting to donate until I talk with my husband about how much, but keep getting distracted when I do see him), so reposting them here for my ease and everyone else’s easy access. These were originally posted by bsjjki. https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2025/09/30/family-friends-grand-blanc-church-attack-victims-launch-online-fundraisers/86436711007/# https://gofund.me/7ca4303d2 https://gofund.me/56d726f45 To be open, I am a bit surprised these aren’t equaling and surpassing the shooter’s family fundraiser. I am wondering if that is because the LDS victims are seen more as as one entity, so focus is getting split among several rather than one specific effort. It also may be because they aren’t raising the goal once it gets surpassed, so perhaps people assume the need isn’t as great. Please post other confirmed for real links to fundraisers for LDS victims (I can’t fathom why I have to remind people that there those who start fundraisers that look like they are for others, but they pocket the money themselves).

White males… Me too.

Huh?

No, he made it clear someone else saw Kirk as extremist. Is that not common knowledge? So you think Ben is lying about his explanation for posting as he did? One can recognize that others see Kirk as an extremist without seeing him as an extremist oneself. I have that situation in my home, my daughter sees him as pretty extreme…not sure how extreme because I am not feeling the need to get the nitty gritty details here. I do not see him as extreme. And btw, there are a lot of things I think my daughter gets right, so I ask her opinion and knowledge about them, but I also know she has biases that push her to see extremism when it’s not there in some cases. So just because Ben pointed out the ADL has had a decent reputation for identifying extremism, doesn’t mean he automatically agrees with them in every case. You are in a similar situation. You acknowledge (and even assume without evidence in some cases) that others see Kirk as extreme where you most definitely do not. Why not give Ben the same allowance?

You can say that again.

Seriously going there? Disagreement means death in your thought now…as in if you think someone is extreme, you think they deserve to be killed? And if it’s not what you think (which I am guessing it’s not), why are you assuming anyone else here believes that?

Thank you for not posting it.