Kenngo1969

Hey, if it weren't for Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and you fine folks here, I would have no friends at all!

I don't have any comment, really, about retrofitting chapels, or what might be needed to do so. Personally, if I'm not in the right headspace, my exterior surroundings cannot do anything for me to put me in a more worshipful mood. I rather suspect that some of the most meaningful worship has been done in foxholes, or in grass huts, or in other, similar "facilities." Could our worship spaces be improved? Perhaps. But it does seem as though Latter-day Saints can't win. On one hand, our chapels aren't ornate enough. On the other hand, why does the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints blow such massive "fat $tax of ca$h" [my term, obviously] on Temples rather than feeding the poor? (I say that when it comes to building Temples and ministering to the temporal needs of the poor, the Church of Jesus Christ can "walk and chew gum at the same time," but ... that's another subject for another day.) This does seem like a very first-world problem to me. For example, as humble as the Church "building" in the link below is, is it an improvement (and, in many cases, a vast improvement) over where these Saints worshipped previously? I would say yes. I think a healthy sense of perspective is in order. [Note: I know someone posted previously on the "Meetinghouse Plus" project here, and I know I commented on that thread, but my efforts to find it have been unavailing. Please pardon the duplication.] https://www.thechurchnews.com/members/2026/07/20/simple-meetinghouse-plus-project-remote-pacific-islands-light/

Whoa! Just goes to show, one never knows, does one? Never say "never"!

Nine-to-Five, with the absolute blockbuster cast of Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda, Dolly Parton*, and Dabney Coleman. I was too young to appreciate this fully when it first came out, and, often, I've thought, in the years since, "Yes, absolutely, I get it: Women are oppressed in the workplace, and yes, it's absolutely awful, but—do I need to watch a movie about it?" I didn't realize how much I had been missing out. Maybe I'm just feeling sentimental and too charitable in light of Dolly's passing, but this movie is absolutely laugh-out-loud funny, and not [at least to me] in a "cheap laughs" kind of way, though it very well could have veered in that direction very easily. I think it's comedy that is clever in ways and to an extent that is not often seen today. ("Why work too hard to make a comedy? We'll make money hand-over-fist even if we just aim for the 'low-hanging fruit' and go over-the-top rather than for subtlety, anyway!") Certainly, I'll be the first to admit that I'm no connoisseur of comedy, but, surprising to me is that it is rated only "71% fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes, and has only a 7/10 rating on IMDB. I wonder if those will improve, now, with Dolly's passing, as she gains a new generation of fans (as often happens after a performer's passing). After the movie, 20/20 had a retrospective on Dolly's life (sorry for calling you by your first name so much, Ma'am, but ... that's what happens when you have that rarest of personalities that makes everybody feel as though he or she is your friend!) It's said that a lot of famous people "came from nothing" [my phrase], but she really did! My favorite well-to-do people are honest, humble, down-to-earth, and so on--the kind of people you know would be exactly the same whether with the money or without, and, while I don't claim to be an expert judge of character in such matters (or in any matter), I think she's one of those. Maybe my favorite moment is when Barbara Walters interviewed Dolly and Ms. Walters came into the interview with the attitude, "I'm a real working woman, I'm going to put this country hick in her place!" It didn't work. Dolly wasn't having any of it, and she made that absolutely clear to Ms. Walters in absolutely no uncertain terms—politely, certainly, as was her way, but, still, crystal clear. As was the case with most anything involving Dolly, it was a thing to behold. RIP, Ma'am. The choirs of angels above have gained a new, absolutely stellar member! (And, of course, as always, sincerest condolences to family, friends, and [other] fans.) *As a neophyte actress, Dolly memorized everybody's lines. As a second-billed superstar in my high school's production of West Side Story as Doc, the drugstore owner, I had trouble memorizing my own lines—all three of them! Can you imagine?!!

I suppose. The complicating factor with respect to behavioral health is that, when speaking of physical health, it is much easier to determine when a person is healed or cured. Or, in my case, whether he's keeping the dogs at bay! I probably could make my point better by posting a picture of a ferocious Doberman or German Shepherd, but ... He was too cute! I had to do it! When I go to the doctor for a certain kind of pain (or for another symptom), it's a little easier for one to determine whether the objective in doing so has been met. Whatever treatment is prescribed, the benchmark for the effectiveness of the treatment is whether the pain (or the symptom) persists. I think you and I both know that the effectiveness of psychological/behavioral therapy is a lot more subjective, and I think neither of us would have to work very hard to find examples of therapists whose assessment of their clients' behavioral health would differ from that of the client. Every doctor, every therapist, every mechanic is going to have those "edge cases" or exceptions in which the hoped-for, worked-for, sought-for outcome, despite everyone's best efforts, doesn't materialize. That said, generally, a therapist (or anyone else) with higher ratings is going to have both more brisk business and better outcomes. True.

I don't have any comment on the specific claims raised by the person whose opinions spawned this thread, so perhaps that limits the value of my contribution. That said, generally, I do think it's worth asking whether a therapist whose livelihood depends on the frequency of visits and the length of the [hopefully] therapeutic relationship might have a vested interest in increasing visit frequency and/or in therapeutic relationship duration. As someone who has had more people, with more brooms, for far longer, [attempt to] chase out the bats that inhabit his own belfry than perhaps he cares to admit, have I benefitted from therapy? If you tied me to an ant hill, smothered my ears with jam, and forced me to give you an answer, I'd have to say, "Yes." That said, as loath as I am to take any credit for my own [hard won? or, if not, at least long awaited] [relatively] positive mental state, as the old sayings go, "God helps those who help themselves." And "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." As much as I think there can be value in taking regular stock of one's mental state, on the other hand, as the inimitable, incomparable Elder Neal A. Maxwell put it so well, "If, for instance, we are always taking our temperature to see if we are happy, we will not be." (Perhaps I should, "Embrace the suckiness"? )

I have been called ("diagnosed as"?) a narcissist. I'm not sure what credentials the person who "diagnosed" me has, if any. To the best of my knowledge, I've never even met this person, let alone interacted with him or her in any way beyond a brief on-line exchange. But, I'm sure this person has more than sufficient credentials to enable one to make such a diagnosis, reliably and validly. I'm sure even that brief, not-in-person interaction told this "therapist" everything one needed to know. Q.E.D. [?????]

Anybody else see the irony in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints arguing that a case involving Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. should control the Church's defense of its copyrights? You heard it here first, folks! You can't make this stuff up! "Thank you, Jackie D.'s!!!"

Apollo XIII, yet again. There are certain movies I'll watch any time they are on no matter how many times I might have seen them previously, and this is one of them. A few memorable moments: Blanche Lovell, Apollo XIII mission commander Jim Lovell's mother, who tells one of her worried granddaughters, "Don't you worry, Honey. If they could build a washing machine that could fly, my Jimmy could land it." When someone from the NASA press office has a disagreement with Jim Lovell's wife, Marilyn, she says emphatically [although the return of the astronauts is very much up in the air at this point], "You can take that up with my husband when he gets home!" Before the astronauts' departure on their mission, a reporter asks Jim Lovell about times he'd been in tight spots in the military, and he describes an occasion in which he was trying to find his way while flying a mission on a pitch black night with no points of reference when suddenly, all of the electronics on his aircraft cut out [including lights]. Only then [in the total darkness, and, in fact, because of the total darkness] was he able to see a ship below him because it churned up fluorescent algae in its wake, giving him a reference point to find his bearings. He tells the reporter, "So, uh, you uh, never know what events are to transpire to get you home."

Oh, yeah?! Tell me, Ms. Smartypants, what weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of metal! [Sorry! Couldn't resist! ] Carry on!

When they improvise, the guitar player just knows what the bass player is gonna do, and the bass player just knows what the guitar player is gonna do! It's like ... they're one person! What? Oh. Don't mind me! Carry on!

Oh, goodness! You got us, @GoCeltics! We've never heard that one before! Shut 'er down, Clancy! She's pumpin' mud! Will the last person to leave the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints please turn out the lights?

This is awesome!

For what it's worth,the only thing I possess that truly is mine to surrender back to God that He did not give me in the first place is my will.

That's a tough situation. I would never dream of attempting to equate, to the least degree, our respective situations, but, as an Eternal Bachelor in a Family Church, and one who has crested the "hill of middle age" and is careening rapidly toward geezerhood, I'm not exactly sure what the Lord's plans for me are when it comes to eternal relationships outside my family of origin, but whatever they are, I'm OK with them. (I realize, fully, that it's much easier to reach that level of equanimity for someone in my position than it is for someone in your son's position ... Regardless, I wish you both well.)

In conjunction with my previous comment, also, consider this from Elder-Later-President [now, Alas!, simlply "late": RIP, President Holland] Jeffrey R. Holland: Source: Elder Jeffrey R. Holland (April 2013), "Lord, I Believe," Ensign, accessed on line at the following address on July 1, 2026: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2013/04/lord-i-believe?lang=eng. The entire address is worth a read.

I wouldn't say, necessarily, that, during His mortal sojourn, Christ ministered to those who didn't believe He is the Son of God, but He came awful darn close. He ministered to a ton of people whose faith, in some way, was less than fully formed. Remember, for example, his encounter with the Canaanite woman: [I'm posting the above for your benefit. I wouldn't necessarily compare your son to a dog. I don't think that'd go over too well: "Ahhh, ya filthy cur, believe in Jesus, whydon'tcha?!!" 🤣 ] I'm simply using this woman's example to illustrate how Christ ministered to people whose faith was in varying states and circumstances. Remember too, what he told the man who besought Him to cast the devil out of his [the man's] son (see v. 23 below): Is it possible, perhaps, for your son to have faith as a mustard seed, one of the smaller objects that still is visible to the human eye? Remember, too, what Alma told his listeners in Alma 32: I know it's easy for me, an Internet stranger, to sit here and spout scriptures off of my keyboard, especially considering that even in my ever-more-rapidly advancing years, still, I am my only child. But I hope there's something in here that, even if it doesn't help your son, will help you. I wish you well. Besides, you never know where your son's "fickle faith" is gonna be in a few months! (Teenagers! )

🤣 Welp, I'm glad they've got their priorities straight! 🤣

"Fairview United" likes to use the slogan, "Keepin' It Country." "Keepin' It Country" has been a Fairview TX slogan since ... 1958!!! Somebody should tell 'em, "Honey, I hate to break it to ya, but 'It Ain't Been 'Country' for Quite Awhile!'" More like, "Keepin' It Suburban Since 2005!" Or, how about, "Keepin' It Religiously Bigoted Since 2025!"? Sorry, but ... that's the truth.

For what it's worth, I asked Google Gemini: Can you summarize this podcast and analyze for me at some length and in some detail? https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a-conversation-with-dr-john-hubbard-mayor-of-fairview-texas/id1682941294?i=1000772546314 For the record, I'm disinclined to put much stock in Mayor Hubbard's protestations that the only objective of the "Fairview Speaks" campaign is to encourage the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be a good neighbor. Rather, I think the intent of the campaign is to persuade the Church to abandon an already-agreed-upon plan for construction of the Church's Temple in Fairview. Gemini responded: The June 2026 episode of Inside Out with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilks featuring Fairview Mayor Dr. John Hubbard offers a fascinating, deeply human look into the multi-year battle over the McKinney Texas Temple. Because the podcast hosts occupy two different spaces—Jim is an active Latter-day Saint ("on the inside") and Ian is an ex-Latter-day Saint ("on the outside")—the conversation strikes a remarkably unique chord. Rather than a hostile interrogation, it plays out as an earnest, complex dialogue about civic authority, institutional overreach, and community identity. Summary of the Podcast Conversation The interview charts the long, messy history of the temple dispute, which evolved from a local zoning disagreement into a high-stakes legal and cultural standoff. The Core Friction: Mayor Hubbard reiterates that Fairview is a small, semi-rural town with strict zoning ordinances designed to preserve its dark skies and open aesthetic. The town's regulations typically limit building heights to 35 feet. The Church’s original proposal featured a massive structure with a spire reaching up to 174 feet. The Breakdown of Mediation: A significant portion of the episode covers the behind-the-scenes breakdown of the town’s interactions with the Church. Hubbard details the frustration of trying to find a middle ground. He reveals correspondence between his office and the Church's Temple Department, explaining that while the town offered various height allowances well above standard zoning, the Church routinely countered with minor concessions or hardline stances, leaning heavily on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) to assert their rights. The "Good Neighbor" Narrative: Hubbard spends considerable time defending the town's public communications and the "Fairview Speaks" campaign. He insists that the town's focus has always been purely architectural and logistical—centering on lighting, traffic, and structural scale. He claims the campaign's true objective is simply to bring a large institutional builder to the table as a "good neighbor" to match the residential feel of the community. An Uncomfortable Encounter: In a particularly revealing and widely discussed anecdote, Mayor Hubbard mentions a time when he actually visited the nearby Dallas LDS Temple grounds to better understand the atmosphere and impact of these structures, only to be asked to leave the premises by staff. This moment serves as a poignant symbol in the interview for how isolated and unwelcome the non-LDS community has felt throughout the process. Detailed Analysis: Reading Between the Lines Your skepticism regarding the "Fairview Speaks" campaign hits on the exact political and tactical friction that underpins the entire episode. When analyzing Hubbard’s rhetoric against the actual timeline of events, several key dynamics emerge that support your reading of the situation. 1. The Weaponization of "Good Neighbor" Rhetoric Mayor Hubbard's insistence that the town only wants the Church to be a "good neighbor" is a brilliant piece of civic public relations, but it acts as an intentional containment strategy. By framing the conflict around neighborliness and respect for local rules, the town occupies the moral high ground. It strips the Church of its preferred narrative: that the city is acting out of religious animus or "anti-Mormon" bias. However, "being a good neighbor" in this context is structurally impossible for the Church without completely abandoning its planned architectural footprint. Because the core components of the Church's design—the height of the spire and the scale of the building—are treated by Salt Lake City as non-negotiable theological necessities, the town’s demands are fundamentally an existential challenge to the project itself. 2. A War of Attrition to Force De-escalation Your assessment that the campaign is designed to persuade the Church to abandon its agreed-upon plans aligns perfectly with how small municipalities fight large institutional entities. Fairview lacks the multi-billion-dollar legal war chest of the LDS Church. They cannot win a straight legal shootout under federal RLUIPA laws if the Church pushes all the way to federal court. Therefore, public campaigns like "Fairview Speaks" and subsequent zoning board appeals are tools of community friction. The goal is to make the public relations cost of building the temple so high, and the local optics so ugly, that the Church is forced to either radically compromise or quietly pivot. It is an attempt to weaponize local democracy and public shame to halt an institutional steamroller. 3. The Irony of the Compromise and Continued Litigation The podcast highlights the sheer exhaustion of this dispute. Even after a fractured Town Council vote previously approved a modified Conditional Use Permit (bringing the steeple down to 120 feet during mediation), the peace shattered. The Church later threatened further litigation, and a citizens' group ("Fairview United") sued the town to challenge the validity of that very approval. When you listen to Hubbard in June 2026, he sounds like a man trying to manage a fire that has escaped his control. His written op-eds and podcast commentary plead for "harmony over division," but the underlying reality is a total gridlock of trust. The Church views the town's zoning demands as an infringement on their religious expression, while the town—and your own analysis—rightly identifies that the community's defensive posture is a calculated effort to force the Church to back down from an aggressive, top-down mandate. Ultimately, the interview exposes a profound cultural mismatch. The Church treats its temple plans as an unalterable divine decree, while the town treats them as a negotiable commercial blueprint. Hubbard's polite, measured tone masks a stark reality: "Fairview Speaks" was never just an invitation to talk; it was a desperate defensive wall built to protect a small town's autonomy. To see a broader breakdown of how these conflicts play out between local governments and the Church across the country, you can watch this analytical report on LDS temple zoning disputes. This video provides context on the letters exchanged between Mayor Hubbard and the LDS Temple Department, shedding light on the legal and structural arguments used by both sides.

You're an "Okie From Muskogee"? Who knew?

And a hearty "Amen!" to that. While I am aware, acutely, that mere words are no salve for current pain, because of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (and His Resurrection), we can hold out hope for a joyous reunion in a realm to come. Since my own father's passing, increasingly, my thoughts have turned to what it must be like on the other side. I like to think there is a rather sizeable contingent cheering us on. And which is more, since we don't know what those who are of a different generation were like when they were young, it will be like meeting people we've long known ... but for the first time! May the Lord's choicest blessings rest on you and your family, My Brother.

Remember, as Miracle Max of The Princess Bride fame told us, there's a big difference between "mostly dead" and "all dead." "Mostly dead" is still "slightly alive." With "all dead," there's only one thing you can do: Go through his pockets and look for loose change. This concludes this irrelevant, irreverent interruption. Indeed, apologies for that interruption. We now return you to your regularly-scheduled, on-topic programming, already in progress!