bluebell

I’m looking for the quote where the church claims that the mall was indirectly funded through tithing.

Can you provide the quote? Sincere question because I’d like to see it. Not a gotcha

But it seems like the issue there is that many people still don’t believe tithing funds were used. So even there, the issue isn’t whether or not Hinckley lied but what constitutes “tithing”.

True. And most don’t go on to take calculus and physics because it’s not relevant to their future plans. But then these same people (with a basic understanding of math, science, and engineering) sometimes think they know better than actual mathematician and physicists.

I know this discussion has gone on for a while and I’m sure I’m missing some nuance, but I thought that the ninth circuit court judges did find that no reasonable juror could conclude that the church misrepresented the source of funds for the city Creek project?

Some said the money used for the mall was tithing and others said that it wasn't, right? So the conflict was not really about how the money was used but centered on what money was used. As in, was it tithing or wasn't it. That does seem like a definition issue because in order to decide if tithing money was used or not, it seems like you would first need to define what tithing money was exactly.

I read a quote the other day that said "Anything is a conspiracy theory if you are stupid", which isn't a very product way to put it but it gets right to the meat of the problem. If you don't actually know what you are talking about, or don't have the knowledge and understanding you need for the topic, then you will never have the information or ability you need to personally vet it. "This doesn't make sense to me" is not the standard that we should be using to find facts in a world where calculus and physics are necessary to understand a whole lot about our technology and the natural world. Most of us are just not smart enough to be able to use the science and the math to prove these things are true and so we have to rely on other people. The problem is when we rely on other people that also aren't smart enough to figure this stuff out but are too dumb to realize it.

I have a coworker that trotted that one out a while back. If you watch the entire video he later acknowledges that we went to the moon. Here's a transcript of the second part of the video but you can watch it if you google it. He's talking about why we never went back after Apollo 17: "Money. It's a good thing. If you want to buy new things, new rockets, instead of keep doing the same thing over and over, then it's going to cost more money. And other things need more money too. So having achieved what the president wanted us to do... and then what thousands, millions of people in America, and millions of people around the world ... You know when we toured around the world after we came back [from the moon] the most fascinating observation was signs that said "WE did it." Not just us. But we, the world. They felt like they were part of what we were able to do. And that made us feel very good." He was really old when he gave this interview and that's most of the problem. He rambles and isn't very clear. But many other times throughout his life he is very clear.

Is it because of that one video where he stumbles over his words and people edit it to make it look like he said we didn't go to the moon?

I thought he was saying the opposite. That he's speaking about obvious males that are trans women using women's private spaces. But I could be misunderstanding the statement.

I think there is some truth to what you’re saying. We also are no longer a society that labels groups and organizations like we used to, so any group name that harkens back to that era will sound odd to us I think. It’s kind of an antiquated idea in general.

Most of them actually die from radiation poisoning, though they don't know that's what they died of. Rocky was protected because of where he was located on the ship. His race, the Eridians, understand the engineering of space travel but not the science because they work under newtonian physics and not relativistic physics. (Just for reference since you've not read the book nor see the movie, they live in a world where the atmosphere is incredibly pressurized, made of ammonia, and extremely extremely hot. They use echolocation instead of sight to "observe" the world around them. Their oceans are boiling. They were not space faring until they had to be to solve the problem of their sun dying from the astrophage) Here is an explanation from Physicist Dr. Becky Smethurst about Rocky and his problem of relativity:

My 11 year old daughter's first reaction was that the sound like book titles in a YA series.

It's been so long since I read the book that I don't remember that much but I think rocky not knowing about relativity had something to do with his species not being able to perceive light and so having no concept of the "speed of light" or really any physics that require visual observations as part of the science.

It's against board rules and the penalty for breaking that rule could be being banned.

That's a lot of dairy at once, it can't be good for you just on that front, let alone all the sugar!

I don't know if it's possible to give the groups names and not have it feel kitschy at first. Beehives, Miamaids, and Laurels were so ingrained in the culture that no one thought twice but if we were hit with those names today everyone would think it was extremely weird. I did appreciate Pres. Freeman's explanation of where the names came from: I'm betting that the names get shortened to Builders, Messengers, and Gatherers when people are referring to them, and I think it's going to take a few years before the labels don't feel awkward. But hopefully less awkward that talking about the Deacons and the 11-13 year olds or the Priests and the 15-18 year olds.

Yay! I hated how they didn't have official names and were just called their age group.

Agreed. Even if he was indifferent to it specifically, (something not supported by the evidence in my opinion), He would never be indifferent to its impact on His children.

I think you answered your question. God governs the end of mortal life (and the beginning of mortal life), probably because the misuse of either can bring about so much unnecessary suffering.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has filed a trademark and copyright complaint involving Open Stories Foundation and its “Mormon Stories” podcast. The issue is not the podcast’s viewpoint. It is the use of Church-protected names, images, and design elements in ways that are causing confusion about whether the content is official or affiliated with the Church. What happened? In November 2025, the Church contacted Open Stories Foundation privately about concerns with its branding. The goal was to resolve the matter privately and amicably. The Church then engaged in good-faith mediation and proposed several options to reduce confusion while minimizing disruption. When those efforts did not result in resolution, the Church filed a complaint in federal court to protect its intellectual property. Why does this matter? The Church holds registered trademarks and copyrights so people can clearly identify what is and is not official Church communication. Names, logos, and visual design elements help people know when content represents the Church. This case concerns branding choices that incorporate Church-protected names and design elements in ways that may lead people to believe the podcast is produced by or affiliated with the Church when it is not. Why was mediation unsuccessful? The primary issue is ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is affiliated with the Church. To address that, the Church proposed a simple solution: a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is a common and straightforward way to help audiences understand the source of content. That step was not adopted. As a result, the likelihood of confusion remains, and the Church moved forward to protect its trademarks. Is the Church trying to silence criticism? No. People are free to express support for or criticism of the Church and its teachings. This case does not concern the content of the podcast. It concerns preventing confusion about source and affiliation. Does the Church enforce trademarks consistently? Yes. The Church reviews hundreds of potential trademark issues each year, including matters involving Church members and supportive creators. The first step is almost always private outreach. Most situations are resolved amicably. The same standards apply here. Why now? Public questions and ongoing confusion about whether “Mormon Stories” is official Church content made it necessary to act. What about the term “Mormon”? The Church holds trademarks covering certain uses of the term “Mormon,” including in connection with educational services. Not every use of the word requires permission. But when it is used as part of organizational branding in ways that create confusion about affiliation, the Church has a responsibility to address it. The Church’s goal is simple: ensure people can clearly distinguish official Church materials from independent commentary.

It appears they are fine with other people using the term, such as Mormon Stories, as long as there is a disclaimer making sure that people know that it has no connection to the church. I wouldn't be surprised if Dehlin refused to do the disclaimer because he knew that people already biased against the church would jump all over the idea of Goliath trying to sue poor little David over the use of a name. Plus, I'm assuming that for Dehlin, even negative attention will benefit him and bring him in new followers and their monetary contributions. Even if he ultimately settles he's probably hoping to laugh all the way to the bank with this one.

That's really cool

I would assume that Nehor recognizes that others have deeply examined the evidence and come to different conclusions. There is room for us to be true to what we believe without impugning what other people believe to be true. That doesn't mean that we each have our own truth, but more like we can recognize that we are each doing the best with what we have experienced and internalized and it can be reasonable for different people to come to different conclusions (even if some of us are ultimately wrong, it doesn't mean it was unreasonable for us to believe as we did). I don't think he's saying that anyone who believes differently than he does is denying reality (but maybe he is and I'm denying it )

I’m ok with that.