bluebell

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.

I don't know how he is when speaking personally to someone, but when Pres. Oaks is speaking in his calling he does have a reputation for being very business-like, precise, and without much emotion. He reminds me of Smac in his speaking style and I'm assuming it has something to do with being trained as a lawyer. For some members that will be his strength and for others it will be his weakness. I'm not comparing the 12 to Jesus because there is no comparison, but Christianity has a history of 'speaking cagily' sometimes. Christ did it on purpose and for a reason but I think with our leaders most of the time it's because they are flawed humans talking to millions of people with very different baggage, experiences, and levels of spiritual maturity. It's a recipe for misunderstanding in a religion that believes in teaching correct principles and then letting the members govern themselves in all but the most serious of things. When we are guided by the spirit and staying close to Christ I think we do ok, even when we get it wrong sometimes. I think that's why God is ok with us with all of us very messed up people out here trying to do His work. If we are distant from the spirit then yeah, it sucks. (I sometimes wish they were more strident in their teachings and forceful in declaring truth as well. But in the moments that they are, those always seem to be the times when the members freak out the most because they don't like what they are saying. I don't know if we really want them to be more vocal in general as much as we want them to be more vocal when they agree with us).

I see what you mean. I do agree that it would be very easy for him to always explain exceptions, and I would guess that many many teachers and authorities have done that in the past (explain an exception, such as the exception between killing and murder). In fact, I know they have in regards to killing and murder because the church has put out stuff specifically geared towards soldiers and this exact issue. It's also a subject extensively covered in the Book of Mormon too. ** But this experience that Elder Oak shares speaks to the bigger picture in my opinion, which is that when someone is really worried or struggling with a teaching in the church, people explaining why they don't need to be (or trying to explain what was 'actually' meant) hardly ever helps. Almost always (we've had probably hundreds of experiences on this message board alone illustrating this) it doesn't make the person feel any better and they continue to see it the way they first perceived it, not the way it is clarified or later explained. In those instances, it really is only the spirit that can help someone get the understanding and the closure that they need to move forward. Elder Oaks, in my opinion, isn't sidestepping the issue or ignoring the pain that can exists in these circumstances, he's providing the solution. We can't go to him or anyone else to feel good about our standing with God when we are really struggling with the morality of something we have done. We need to go to God personally. General authorities, good teachers, and caring parents can help (and they can help a lot) but in the end, if we are worried about what God thinks about us then God is where we need to go to get that closure. I obviously see this differently than you do because as a specially appointed messenger of the Lord, I feel like he was doing exactly what he should be doing. Teaching people the general principles and doctrines and then pointing people towards a personal relationship with Christ. The members are reflecting what they've been taught by church leaders, and by their parents and grandparents and well meaning people at church, and their political ideology, and their own personal understanding of what all the teachings mean.... I think that members reflect what they think is right and also don't like the idea of exceptions for other people because that doesn't seem fair. So we balk at the idea of "gospel rule and gospel exception". There's risk in it that some people find unnecessary, especially in a room of prophets and apostles. But I do think it's important to note that exception is not the same thing as ambiguity. Elder Oaks is not talking about ambiguity. **(I think Elder Oaks did explain the exception to the man: "The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. I'm assuming he went into more detail than just that small statement when speaking with the man personally).

This discussion reminds me of one of (then) Elder Oak's famous quotes from a talk he gave in 2005: "If you feel you are a special case, so that the strong counsel I have given doesn’t apply to you, please don’t write me a letter. Why would I make this request? I have learned that the kind of direct counsel I have given results in a large number of letters from members who feel they are an exception, and they want me to confirm that the things I have said just don’t apply to them in their special circumstance. I will explain why I can’t offer much comfort in response to that kind of letter by telling you an experience I had with another person who was troubled by a general rule. I gave a talk in which I mentioned the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13). Afterward a man came up to me in tears saying that what I had said showed there was no hope for him. “What do you mean?” I asked him. He explained that he had been a machine gunner during the Korean War. During a frontal assault, his machine gun mowed down scores of enemy infantry. Their bodies were piled so high in front of his gun that he and his men had to push them away in order to maintain their field of fire. He had killed a hundred, he said, and now he must be going to hell because I had spoken of the Lord’s commandment “Thou shalt not kill.” The explanation I gave that man is the same explanation I give to you if you feel you are an exception to what I have said. As a General Authority, I have the responsibility to preach general principles. When I do, I don’t try to define all the exceptions. There are exceptions to some rules. For example, we believe the commandment is not violated by killing pursuant to a lawful order in an armed conflict. But don’t ask me to give an opinion on your exception. I only teach the general rules. Whether an exception applies to you is your responsibility. You must work that out individually between you and the Lord."