smac97

I would be curious about this. It seems incongruent with a few generalized observations: Oh boy, here we go. I have, in recent months, been attempting to deploy the principles of a book, "Habits of a Peacemaker: 10 Habits to Change Our Potentially Toxic Conversations Into Healthy Dialogues" by Steven T. Collis. Habit One is "Intellectual Humility and Reframing" From a summary: I am reminding myself that I know only a fraction of what there is to know on this topic (hence my request for the study Bluebell referenced). The issues here, what to do with Latter-day Saints who have a past history of serious misconduct, and the prevalence of men "struggl{ing} to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes or misconduct," is, I think, a complex and difficult topic. Both issues require meaningful data/sources. Both issues deserve attention and efforts toward resolution (or at least mitigation). I am not an expert on this topic. My personal experience with these matters has been largely anecdotal. So I'm not trying to "bulldoze" anyone. Just learn. I would find any abuse of women abhorrent. I have women friends!!!!! Given our long history of not getting along, I can understand your skepticism and snark. However, I was speaking of men who are not abusers, and who are not interested in ignoring or justifying abuse, and who can relate to victims of abuse. I have a friend who served as a bishop, and he had to deal with a situation where the father of a family had abused one of his daughters. My friend knew the entire family, but he did not make any excuses for the abuse, nor did he overlook it. Instead, he looked to the welfare of the family (after the father was out of the house), arranged for therapy and financial assistance, worked with ward leaders to make sure there was no gossip about the matter (the father was arrested, so the matter had a public record of sorts), convened a membership council as to the father, conferred with the stake president and the hotline, and otherwise followed the policies and procedures outlined in the Handbook. In other words, the Church's "system" worked as best it could under the circumstances. I think men can and do find abuse abhorrent. Some few within that category are predatory, and may therefore feign abhorrence to hide who they are. I am not sure what you are saying here. I find abuse abhorrent. Well, that's an interesting perspective. What do you think a sincere man could do to demonstrate his abhorrence of abuse? I agree with you. But again, I was responding to a generalization about men, that is, that men "struggle to believe it when another man is accused of sexual crimes" and "don't relate to the victim at all so they subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective." My point is that plenty of men don't struggle to believe that abuse happens, and do relate to victims, and don't "defend abusers." Abused people do not automatically develop empathy for people who are abused. I agree. But some (many?) do. I acknowledge that some victims of abuse themselves become victimizers. Some do not, and instead find abuse abhorrent and stop the cycle. No, it is just reflexively taking the man’s side cloaked in imagined fears and conspiracy mongering and misogyny about all those lying women. Again, I was responding to a generalized statement that men "subconsciously distance themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman." I think a lot of men "distance themselves" because there is seemingly no "right" way to respond to abuse. Our conversation here is perhaps demonstrative of that. If a man says he finds abuse abhorrent, he risks exposure to insinuations and accusations of false dealing and insincerity: "I would find any abuse of women abhorrent. I have women friends!!!!!" "You can care about women and still defend abusers." "You can tell how insincere it is by the fact that they feel they have to present proof that they know women." "No, it is just reflexively taking the man’s side cloaked in imagined fears and conspiracy mongering and misogyny about all those lying women." These seem to come pretty close to false accusations. I have said nothing to justify or excuse abuse, or to feign condemnation of abuse, or to defend abusers. This seems like a "heads I lose, tails I lose" circumstance. No matter what is said, an accusation can be extracted from it. Are there men, then, who "subconsciously distance themselves from the {} child or the woman" because their words can be twisted into accusations (such as "misogyny about all those lying women")? I think so. Do some of these men, then, elect to remain quiet rather than face unpleasant and accusatory commentary, such as what you have said here? I think so. Can this silence be construed in some quarters as them "{not} relat{ing} to the victim," or "distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective"? I think so. I am coming away from this discussion with a reduced willingness to address these issues. And everyone stood up and clapped. I’ll take “Things That Didn’t Happen” for $100 Alex. Perhaps some context may help here. The above statement from the young woman was not unprompted. We had been discussing an experience she had had in which she had felt unsafe in a store parking lot at night. She said a man had walked by her and made her felt nervous. I said that this was an understandable response, as situational awareness is an important thing. I then told her an experience I had had, which have previously described here: Some years ago I was teaching at a local university. I usually started my day very early, at 6:00 a.m. I had to park my car and walk a fair distance through several inter-connected buildings to get to my office. One such morning I found myself walking toward my office about 50 feet behind a young woman. At that time of day there was nobody else around. I shortly realized that I was making her nervous. I had not said or done anything, and I had not closed the gap between us, but she looked back at me a few times in quick succession, and she looked nervous. So I called to her and said "Hey, my name is Spencer Macdonald. I teach here and am headed to my office in ___________ building. It looks like we are headed in the same direction. I can see that I am making you nervous. I am sorry about that. I will stop for a few minutes and let you get to wherever you are going. Sound good?" She smiled, nodded and said "Yes, thanks," and continued on her way. She gave off a "sigh of relief" vibe in doing so. I waited about five minutes and then continued toward my office. In retrospect, I suppose I did the right thing. I gave her my name (and that I teach, and that I was headed to my office) because the lawyer in me thought that this would give her some measure of security. I stopped and gave her several minutes to get to her destination. I could see that this happenstance, of her being all alone early in the morning with a stranger walking (50 feet) behind her, was putting her on edge. I had not planned any of this, and I certainly was no threat to her, but she did not know that. So I felt it best to, as you put it, "give her a choice." I don't blame the young woman for feeling a bit nervous, even though she was in no actual danger from me. The confluence of events (early morning, nobody around, a stranger walking behind her) was what it was. I mitigated the situation by communicating with her and then giving her a few minutes to get to her destination. Problem solved. It was then that the young woman nodded and said that she and the "generation" of young women around her view all men as "potential rapists." I then responded as noted above. The conversation continued on a bit about differentiating "men" based on a "situational awareness" context. I said something like this: "Going back to my experience with the college student, what if I had been walking behind her several hours later in the day, when there are dozens/hundreds of people around? Would she have had the same reaction to my presence?" She said "No, because you would not be a potential threat to her because other people are around." We then had a discussion about generalizations about men, namely, that thinking of all men everywhere as always being "potential rapists" is probably not really happening, but that particularized circumstances, such as a woman being alone in a secluded public space and being approached by an unknown male, can justify a woman in making an in-the-moment adverse inference about the man's intentions. So it seems that I was misunderstanding her generalization, or she was generalizing it a bit much, or a bit of both. Either way, the conversation ended being helpful in me better understanding her perspective. Thanks, -Smac

I would like to better understand this. What is it that you think the Church can/ought/must do to properly "deal with perps" that it (or, more precisely, its bishops) are not currently doing? Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate on this? What is it that "priesthood leader{s}" are not doing that you think they should be doing (or vice versa)? I am interested in better understanding your perspective on this. Could you explain what "hide their past" means in relation to priesthood leaders? I served as my ward's bishop some years ago. In that capacity, I regularly received information that was intended to be held in confidence. Broadly, the Church expects bishops to keep such confidences (legal obligations may require deviation from this), and I did that. Do you think this was an incorrect course of action for me? Trust must be earned, yes. And sometimes even then an individual member will almost certainly face constraints on his activity in the Church based on bad behavior. Yes, someone who has abused children has likely permanently lost any privilege of serving in a calling in which he interacts with kids. Thanks, -Smac

I would be interested in seeing that study, if you have access to it. I would be curious about this. It seems incongruent with a few generalized observations: First, plenty of men have loved ones who are or could be subject to abuse, and hence would find any abuse abhorrent, and hence they can and do "relate to the victim." Second, plenty of men have themselves been victims of abuse, and so not only "relate to" victims, but have experienced abuse themselves. Third, I think some (many?) men are scared of being falsely accused of misconduct of this sort. This has perhaps been augmented by the past many years of the "Believe All Women" and "MeToo" regimes, which have effectively inverted the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption, at least as to men as a category. Perhaps some men are therefore reluctant to reflexively and uncritically accept every published allegation of misconduct, and this reluctance is then construed by some as "subconsciously distanc{ing} themselves from the (almost always) child or the woman and look at it from the perpetrator's perspective." A while back a young woman of my acquaintance rather matter-of-factly stated that it is entirely normal in her "generation" of young women to view all men - all men - as "potential rapists," and that she shares this sentiment. She was surprised that I was surprised at this statement. In fact, I think she was a little offended that I was surprised. I asked her "What would you say to a friend if she told you that she views all black men as 'potential rapists?'" She responded along the lines of "Well, that would be terrible and racist." I asked her why, since some black men do commit rape, and she responded: "Yes, but you can't blame all black men just because some few of them do something wrong." I then told her that I agreed with her on that point, but I then asked why it does not apply to her "all men are 'potential rapists'" statement. She could not formulate a response. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? I would like to better understand how this shakes out in the real world. What is it that women - as a category - can do regarding evaluating claims of sexual misconduct that men - as a category - cannot do (or do as well)? Also, how would a bishop utilize "the women around {him}" to assess allegations of misconduct reported to him? Thanks, -Smac

I agree that some members appear to misapprehend just what the Church can do in circumstances such as these. D&C 134:10 merits some attention: I am not sure if the complainant in this case had expectations beyond the above. From the story: Lots of alleged misconduct going on here, but a LEO threatening to use the State's law enforcement apparatus in this way seems troubling. Looks like we agree on this point: Thanks, -Smac

You raise some good points here. Not only is this stuff an "ideology," it is often geared toward activism in that ideology. These folks are often not content to just be bystanders and commentate/observe. They are there to change things. The challenge with activism of this sort is threefold: First: Money. Ideologically-driven activism must still be monetized to perpetuate itself. Monetizing activism can warp perspectives and motives and behaviors because the pursuit of money clouds pursuit of the original intended purpose of the ideological activism, or even supplants it. Second: Perverse Incentives. Money tends to corrupt ideological activism. Consider, for example, the "homeless" industry in California. Activists are incentivized to not solve the problem they profess to be working to address. If they solve the problem, they lose their job and/or raison d'être. So there arise perverse incentives to make "homelessness" into an intractable and neverending issue to be managed, not resolved. Same goes for racism (witness the recent disclosures about what SPLC has been doing) and a variety of other activist ideologies (or is it ideological activism?). Third: Mission Creep. What happens if and when the thing that a person/group is against dissipates and largely resolves (again, the SPLC)? Or what happens when the thing about which the person/group is "pro" actually materializes (like the discovery of the polio vaccine and the March of Dimes)? Activists don't fold up their tents and go home. They pivot to some other cause. This article was, to me, quite illuminating: The March of Dimes Syndrome The better things get, the more desperately activists struggle to stay in business. Would be interested in anyone's thoughts on this stuff. Thanks, -Smac

I just watched the video. He apparently takes exception to this portion of the Church's statement: He states: "This claim that 'a simple solution' was proposed: 'a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with' the Church. What I want to address is what some of the things that they actually asked for in mediation or before mediation." Goes on to provide a list according to his recollection: Remove the name "Mormon" from his organization's name, Internet domains and social media handles. (This was apparently a pre-mediation request.) Agree to not use "Mormon" in future Internet projects. (This was a mediation request.) Agree to "renounce" any rights to trademarks for "Mormon Stories," "Mormon Stories Podcasts," and to "never file for trademarks" (involving "Mormon"?). (This was a mediation request.) Agree to not challenge the Church's trademarks. (This was a mediation request.) Agree that the Church owns "all the rights to the word 'Mormon.'" (This was mediation request.) Agree to remove certain color schemes and "rays" from the MS logos. (This was a mediation request.) Agree to change the name to "Ex-Mormon Stories Podcast With Dr. John Dehlin" or "Post-Mormon Stories Podcast With Dr. John Dehlin." Same font size for all words. (This was a mediation request.) Having recited the foregoing, he goes on to state: "When they write in their press release that the solution that they requested was 'simple,' 'a brief disclaimer,' they are grossly, in my opinion, misstating and understating what their actual asks of us were." I think Dr. Dehlin is not sufficiently taking into consideration a few things. The reference to the "simple solution" in the Church's statement appears to pertain to one particular issue, namely: "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." (Emphasis added.) The Church apparently has a number of legal "issues" with Dr. Dehlin, with this being the "primary" one. Dr. Dehlin, however, countered by itemizing other legal issues that the Church has and sought to resolve in mediation, including use of the word "Mormon" and associated trademark issues, elements of their logos, and so on. Further, he seems to be overlooking this earlier portion of the Church's statement: The Church here references "several options" which it presented prior to filing suit, likely in an attempt to resolve most or all of the disputed issues, rather than just the "primary" one ("ongoing confusion about whether 'Mormon Stories' is affiliated with the Church"), for which the Church apparently did propose a "simple solution," namely, "a brief disclaimer that the podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." What are your thoughts here? Am I misreading the situation? Is it possible that Dr. Dehlin is conflating things that might be better of being addressed separately? It seems that the "litany of demands" were intended to address all disputed issues between the parties, whereas the "simple solution" referenced in the Church's news release pertained to just one of them. I can understand your suspicion as to the Church's statements in the 1830s-1840s regarding polygamy. While there were extenuating circumstances in play, it's hard to justify some/most of the "obfuscation" you are alluding to here. That said, I think the Church has, for many decades now, been considerably more clear and forthright in its statements. While the Church does not disclose as much as its critics would like, I think its public statements are generally accurate. That's an interesting thought. Do you think the Church would actually pursue such an action? Or about about the "Book of Mormon" musical? From a legal standpoint, I see substantial differences between Dehlin's use of "Mormon" and these other uses. Dehlin's use appears to be creating actual "ongoing confusion about whether 'Mormon Stories' is affiliated with the Church," whereas the musical is clearly a parody, and SLOMW is reality TV show using "Mormon" descriptively for a lifestyle/cultural phenomenon. Trademark law is much weaker against descriptive or generic uses in entertainment. The Church can (and does) enforce trademarks against organizations that appear to mimic official branding in ways that cause confusion. But they generally avoid high-profile entertainment properties where parody, free speech, and lack of actual confusion provide strong defenses. The Dehlin case is, I think, more winnable for them because of the specific branding similarities and the religious/educational category overlap. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on these matters. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, the optics are very bad, even if the misconduct has not been definitively established. He may demur. Such things may be better addressed privately. And that's difficult where he is running for public office. From Section 32.6.1 of the Handbook: So perhaps this is something of a judgment call. That said, I just read the azcentral.com story. Quite damning and troubling. The gist is that the local leaders dragged their feet, so the complainant went to the Area Seventy, Elder Tilleman, who took action but did not disclose the results to the complainant. I am sorry to hear this happened. Some years ago our ward's bishop noticed a new face in the congregation. The man introduced himself and said he had lost his membership due to sexual abuse of children. The bishop said he could come to church services, but he would need to be accompanied by another ward member. The bishop had a ward member, a former police officer, greet him at the door and accompany him while he was in the building. The man only came to services only a few times. The bishop took appropriate precautions, and I think he did a good job in addressing the circumstances. Sometimes bishops are not as attuned to their duties and the need to protect the ward members and the reputation of the Church. They can generally do so by following the policies in the Handbook. In the Mark Lamb matter, it appears that this either did not happen, or else the local leaders slow-walked things for months. That must have been a terrible feeling for the complainant. The news item I just now read says she left the Church over this. That's a very understandable response. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, that can be frustrating. No worries. Perhaps another time. Thanks, -Smac

I appreciate you taking time to comment. Could you elaborate and clarify what you found offensive, or potentially offensive, about my generalized statement? My comment presupposes that the Church and the Restored Gospel are what they claim to be. If so, what was restored through Joseph Smith starting in 1820 should not, in my view, be retroactively nullified or negated by misconduct of Latter-day Saints in 2026. Is this what you find offensive? Thanks, -Smac

Are you also directing this at the women victimized? No. I don't think she is on this board. I was not directing this comment at any particular person, and was instead referring to Latter-day Saints generally, and those on this board in particular (since they are the only ones who will actually read my comment). I have seen many instances of friends and loved ones who have left the Church because of perceived or actual moral/behavioral failings of other Latter-day Saints, particularly leaders. For example, I have a good friend who left the Church because Pres. Nelson encouraged Latter-day Saints to receive the Covid vaccine. I have another friend who left because she lived in a neighborhood in Utah County that had a lot of "conservatives" in it, and she did not feel "safe" because she is "liberal" (she acknowledged nobody had actually said or done anything threatening to her). I have read a number of "Why I Left" narratives that center on a Latter-day Saint committing some sort of abuse or other serious wrong. “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121). This is what I had in mind when I said that individualized misconduct by a Latter-day Saint "does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith." I hope I did not give offense. Thanks, -Smac

I just saw some news items and social media content about allegations of serious misconduct (sexual, misuse of law enforcement authority/influence, etc.) by Mark Lamb, the former Sheriff of Pinal County, AZ. A fair amount of documentary evidence is on display (text messages, photos, etc.). Many of the particulars are, at present, sort of difficult to pin down because there is a fairly strong political aspect to this (Mr. Lamb is apparently running for political office), and because the story seems to be pretty new and scattered across fragmented social media posts which generally lack context and explanation. Most of the investigative reporting is by Arizona Republic reporters and is behind a paywall. However, they have posted two YouTube videos summarizing their report: Arizona Republic reporters detail their investigation into Mark Lamb How the LDS Church examined claims of Mark Lamb's sexual impropriety The second link above briefly touches on how local and regional leaders in the Church responded when presented with substantial and seemingly credible information. Essentially, the bishop and stake president are alleged to have dragged their feet in addressing the allegations, so the complainant went to an Area Seventy, Elder Karl Tilleman, who apparently took the allegations seriously and acted in response thereto, but did not disclose the particulars of the response to the complainant. The allegations of feet-dragging by local leaders are troubling, particularly given the seriousness of the alleged misconduct. Bishops and stake presidents really need to follow the instructions in the Handbook. To their credit, both the complainant and the reporters appear to generally frame the alleged misconduct as a gross violation of both personal trust (the complainant's) and the teachings of the Church. Too often these stories are framed so as to paint religious adherents as cumulatively hypocritical, when instead the misconduct of the sorts alleged above are violations of the doctrines and teachings of the Church, not manifestations of them. A few additional thoughts: 1. It is quite unpleasant to bring this topic up, but I think we as Latter-day Saints need to be generally aware of things like this. We have had ample discussions in the past about misconduct by Latter-day Saints (Tim Ballard, Joseph Bishop, Philander Knox Smartt III) and former Latter-day Saints (Tom Kimball, John Dehlin). There are sometimes "gossip"-esque and/or sensationalistic elements to these stories, so measured discussion can help clarify what is going on, and how we should respond to such things. Moreover, for me, there is value in evaluating these troubling stories in ways that allow me to process the initial and reflexive emotional reactions and examine these events relative to the Gospel, the institutional Church, how local and general authorities address them, and so on. 2. I think the intersection of A) membership in the Church, B) serious sexual misconduct, C) hypocrisy and D) public awareness of A-C can create some very bad results for the Church and the Latter-day Saints. I have previously called this the "Corianton Effect" in a somewhat similar context: Report on Catholic Abuse = Cynicism Spreading? An excerpt: I think part of the enormity of Corianton's misconduct was the effect he had on the Zoramites. The Zoramites saw the hypocrisy of someone representing and bringing a message from God. The Zoramites rejected the message because of Corianton's hypocrisy. Corianton, through his hypocrisy, underminedThe Zoramites' faith, or their ability to have faith. The message presented by Corianton was true and good, but Corianton nevertheless tainted that message in the eyes of the Zoramites. For the sake of convenience, let's call this the "Corianton Effect." Corianton, fortunately, apparently repented (Alma called Corianton again to the work (see Alma 42:31; also 49:30)). But the lesson for us remains as to the dangers and caustic effects of hypocrisy. We as Latter-day Saints must be vigilant against both misconduct in the first place and hypocrisy in the second. I say this mostly for and to myself. 3. Some years ago a friend of mine, a fellow attorney practicing law in Utah County (including a fair amount of criminal defense and family law), made an observation that has stuck with me. He said something along the lines of "If everyone in the world were to obey, even on purely secular grounds, the precepts in the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom, huge portions of criminality and family/social disfunction would disappear." I think he had a point. 4. If the allegations are substantively true, then the complainant and others have been injured. I hope they get the help they need and deserve. 5. The misconduct of some Latter-day Saints, particularly those who have made covenants and know better, will always be troubling, both for their own sake and for the impact such misconduct has on others. However, such misconduct should not derail our faith in the Restored Gospel. That this or that prominent Latter-day Saint has apparently done some very bad things in and prior to 2026 does not retroactively negate the reality of what was restored through Joseph Smith. Joseph's theophanies and the resulting revealing of important truths about Jesus Christ, the Plan of Salvation, the restoration of the Priesthood, the translation of The Book of Mormon, the organization of the Church, etc. If these things happen - and I strongly believe they did - then we as Latter-day Saints must stay the course and continue the Lord's work, while at the same time coping with and addressing the ugly consequences of sin. Thanks, -Smac

Saw this yesterday. Thank you for sharing. A Grok summary (of the video's transcript) : So much to study these days... Thanks, -Smac

Hi my friend: Your response is complete and overwhelming. Thanks so very much for all the work and truth you put into it. The most interesting to me was the section I copied. Without commenting on any of the points, while reading them, I found myself wondering if Christ is going to ask us about our beliefs on any one of those seven questions from His judgment seat? I sort of doubt it. I am not really a doctrinaire purist. I think Joseph Smith got it right: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121.) So what do we do with these fundamental principles? Seems like He wants us to act in accordance with them, that is, keep the commandments given to us through prophets and apostles, and through the Light of Christ: Matthew 7:21: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 19:16–17: "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? … If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Hebrews 5:9: “[Christ] became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.”Philippians 2:12: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” John 14:15, 21: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” Revelation 22:14: “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life.” In my young married days I seriously considered naming one of my sons "Emeth," in honor of a character from C.S. Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle." I summarized this to you back in 2020: It's a matter of parameters, I suppose. The Church is actually fairly universalist, since virtually everyone will be "saved" in a kingdom of glory. And such salvation is not limited to just those who join in the Church in this life. I am reminded here of the story of Emeth from The Last Battle the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series by C.S. Lewis. Emeth is a Calormene character was raised to follow Tash, the antithesis of Aslan, and did so with an emphatic devotion and loyalty. Nevertheless, Emeth manages to travel to Aslan's paradisaical country after the destruction of Narnia, and is welcomed by Aslan. Aslan's words to Emeth, in which he ratifies the good deeds the latter did even under the name of Tash, are as follows: "I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash {the false God}... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me {Christ} that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him." The implication is that people who reflect a righteous heart are to some degree justified, regardless of misbelief. This is a cornerstone of Christian theology: one party cites the Christian paradigm that faith in Christ alone saves, and the other wants to account for the fate of those born and raised into another faith. There has been extensive commentary on the question. In a letter from 1952, Lewis summarized and explained his position: "I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ." I think C.S. Lewis was essentially correct in his soteriology, a view which I think is widely shared amongst the Latter-day Saints. While the saving ordinances for the "Emeths" of this world will be necessary (just as they are necessary for those who are raised with an actual knowledge of and testimony of Christ), the countless numbers of God's children who have lived and died on this earth without having had a chance to hear about and accept Jesus Christ as their Savior will nevertheless have the same access to the Restored Gospel and the salvation that comes through it as is available to those of us to are given a chance to hear and accept the Gospel. In short, if a person is good and decent, he should keep moving forward in what he understands as the best way to serve God and his fellow brothers and sisters. The Lord will sort things out in the end. You responded: I value your input, and find that our differences of belief regarding ordinances will, in the end, matter that much. Again: "The Lord will sort things out in the end." I have had some experiences in the last several years which have caused me to consider my inadequacies and failures. I have become more and more grateful for Jesus Christ, who will help and save me despite these things. My job, then, is to obey Him to the best of my ability. Thanks, -Smac

In the sense of not wanting to exclude anyone, yes, I agree. But we don’t take them as they are, they must convert to who we are…though I see the conversion as pretty broad. I think Jesus calls us all to repent, to change ourselves "as {we} are" so as to more fully obey Him and keep His commandments. And would it be fair to say that pretty much all of Christendom has some sort of exclusionary / boundary maintenance provision? Are those who reject Jesus Christ "Christian," or are they excluded therefrom? What are your thoughts about strict five-point Calvinists? My understanding is that for them, before the foundation of the world, God sovereignly chose some people for salvation (the elect) purely by His will, not based on any foreseen faith, works, or merit on their part. The rest of humanity (the reprobate) are passed over (or in stricter versions, actively ordained) for damnation. This decision is unconditional and based entirely on God's hidden will — nothing the individual does or believes can change their eternal destiny. Yes. Part of His efforts being organizing His church on the earth, vesting servants with priesthood authority, and commanding them to go and proclaim faith and repentance, exhorting everyone to come unto Christ. He wants us to change, and not just stay as we are. Thanks, -Smac

Authority truly is a key concept in what Latter-day Saints call the "Restored Gospel." The Apostasy occurred, we believe, and the Restoration was needed because priesthood authority was lost. The Bible did not disappear, nor did the billions of Christians who have lived during the last 2,000 years. Faith and prayer, and to some extent light and knowledge and revelation, have never fully abated. But priesthood authority did. And with it ended prophetic authority and revelation, sacred ordinances, temple worship, and the visible hierarchy and cohesion necessary to keep the Church together. That's what the Latter-day Saints believe, anyway. Acceptance of that is a sort of "cart before the horse" thing. If Joseph Smith really was a prophet, and if he really did experience the things he said he did (including, most notably, the First Vision and other theophanies and the Book of Mormon), then priesthood authority is a necessary component of that paradigm. I infer that you feel the Church is a "fence group." I think the Church's extensive missionary effort sort of undermines that characterization. Also, I think the purpose of the Church's "policies, doctrine, and guidelines" do have a "boundary maintenance" element to them, but that is not their overarching purpose. The Church has regular meetings (including Sacrament Meeting, at which the Sacrament is administered on a weekly basis), curriculum, ministering elders and sisters, local and regional and church-wide events and activities, temples, service projects and humanitarian efforts, educational endeavors, and so on. I have been in my ward for 20+ years. I get to drink from that well at least weekly. That's an understandable perspective. I have a lot in common with Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, and other Christian groups. But that kinship is limited. We have no shortage of people from these groups willing to exclude us from the ambit of Christendom, and to explain why. Boundary maintenance is a necessary component of any faith group. Huh. In recent years the Church has gone to some length to be more candid about the temples. This published-to-the-world article about the Endowment, for example. This one about temple garments. Adam-ondo-Ahman. Baptism for the Dead. Gospel Topics essays. the Joseph Smith Papers Project. And many more. Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all are freely available to the world online. And these resources: Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting) Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants) Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants") Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers") Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes) First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision) Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church) Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items) Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.) Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally) Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world) At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women") The First Fifty Years of Relief Society Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society") The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents") Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world) Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry) The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.) Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.") Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.") Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum) Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources) Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.") Church Historic Sites Never in the history of the Church has it been more forthcoming about its history and doctrine. The Church could be more forthcoming in many ways, but it's not a deal-killer for me. As to some issues, one person's "secret" is another person's "sensitive information for which there is no duty to disclose." If we did not have known mechanisms for oversight, and/or if the Brethren were "living large," and/or if there were evidence if substantial mismanagement, corruption, etc., I would have more concern. But we do have oversight mechanisms, and the Brethren are not living large, and we do not have evidence of mismanagement or corruption. The people who have access to and control over the Church's finances have put in place numerous safeguards, oversights, checks and balances, etc. so as to reduce the risk of misuse of such funds. We have the Council on the Disposition of Tithes, the Budget Committee, the Appropriations Committee, the Church Budget Office, the Church Audit Committee, and more. We get annual reports from the Audit Committee. Moreover, we see the beautiful temples, the tens of thousands of missionaries, the thousands of church buildings, the Church's humanitarian and philanthropic efforts, the canneries and storehouses, Welfare Square, Humanitarian Square, and so on. I repose a lot of trust and confidence in the leaders of the Church. I think they are working hard to do the right things in leading the Church through difficult times and circumstances, and they are mostly doing a very good job. Where their decisions are iffy, most of those are judgment calls. And where their decisions are just wrong or bad (a fairly rare occurrence, I think), I want to give them a good measure of grace and abstention from judgment or public reprimand. Christians outside of the Latter-day Saint paradigm also do the "onlying" and "othering" things. To each other. To us. To non-Christians. The Latter-day Saints have exclusivistic truth claims, true. But they also have about 84,000 missionaries inviting the "others" to come join us in embracing those truth claims. The vast majority don't, but we can still be neighbors and work and serve each other and others. I think there are plenty of Non-Latter-day Saints who have a greater portion of the Spirit in their lives than do some Latter-day saints. The "gift" is very important, and is tied to priesthood authority and other exclusivistic truth claims. But even then... That's a pretty expansive message. Not just other Christians, but non-Christians have also received a portion of the Spirit. The Latter-day Saint paradigm does not match up with the heaven/hell bifurcation. Plus we have missionary work in the Spirit World and during the Millennium. Plenty of time to sort these things out. Thank you for sharing these kind words. For me, there are some either/or statements I must answer: 1. Either God exists, or not. I believe the former. 2. Either God has certain attributes and perfections, or not. I believe the former. 3. Either God has a parent/child relationship with us, or not. I believe the former. 4. Either God has a Plan for his children, centered on Christ as the Savior and Redeemer of the world, or He does not. I believe the former. 5. Either Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ communicate this Plan and other forms of guidance to us through prophets and apostles, or They do not. I believe the former. 6. Either Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ restored certain things, including priesthood authority and the Book of Mormon, through Joseph Smith, or They did not. I believe the former. 7. Either the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, or it is not. I believe the former. The lot of the Latter-day Saints is, or should be, a series of choices based on evidence and on the Spirit. I believe a person can gain a testimony of the foregoing matters by reading, pondering and praying about the Book of Mormon. If it is what it claims to be --> Joseph was a prophet who restored some important, even vital, things which the Lord wants us to have and utilize in our lives. YMMV. Many good people have not arrived at this conclusion. We each of us must travel the path we deem best. Thanks, -Smac

A Grok summary: I will listen to it. Thank you for sharing the link. Back in 2013 I started a thread relating to this topic: What Is The Scriptural Basis For Limiting The Priesthood To Males? This was prior to then-Elder Oaks' important GC talk: The Keys and Authority of the Priesthood Thanks, -Smac

Just saw this and found it interesting: A Grok summary: I like the video. I would like to see a video exploring the sex-based restriction on priesthood ordination. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, the original "Muslims-only" version was almost certainly illegal (or at minimum unconstitutional) under U.S. and Texas law. Public Facility + Government Actor: Epic Waters is a city-owned waterpark funded by taxpayer dollars (including a dedicated sales tax). When a government entity rents out a public facility, it is still bound by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and federal civil rights laws (Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in public accommodations). Religious Discrimination: Explicitly advertising and enforcing a "Muslims Only" policy constitutes religious discrimination. Government cannot: Exclude people from a public facility based on religion. Allow a private group to use government property to engage in religious discrimination on the government's behalf. This is analogous to a city-owned pool hosting a "Christians Only," "Jews Only," or "Whites Only" event — all of which would be blatantly unconstitutional. In contrast, a corporation renting the park and restricting it to its own invitees is, I think, generally fine. The problem arises when the event is promoted in a way that uses the public facility to send a message of religious exclusion (or racial exclusion) to the broader public. That crosses from protected private association into unconstitutional discrimination on government property. Governor Abbott’s Position: Gov. Abbott called the event “religious discrimination” and “unconstitutional,” threatening to pull $530,000 in state grants unless the city canceled it. I think he was legally on solid ground. The event was eventually changed to “All are welcome” (with a modest dress code) and later fully canceled due to, it seems, public pressure, bad optics, the change being pretextual, etc. Key Distinction: Private vs. Public A truly private event at a privately owned venue (e.g., renting a private hall or a church) could legally restrict attendance to Muslims (freedom of association + Free Exercise Clause). However, the venue would likely face bad optics for this. Once an event involves a government-owned facility and public advertising, the rules change dramatically. The state cannot facilitate religious exclusion. Legal Precedent Supreme Court cases like Gilmore v. City of Montgomery (1974) and others prohibit governments from leasing public facilities in ways that enable discrimination. Government cannot use “private” groups as a subterfuge to accomplish what it could not do directly. The original "Muslims-only" advertising and policy for a publicly owned waterpark was illegal religious discrimination. The organizers and city tried to walk it back by changing the language and calling it a “private party,” but because the venue is taxpayer-funded and open to the public, that defense doesn’t fully hold up. This is a pretty good example of why public facilities must remain open to all citizens regardless of religion. Private religious gatherings are fine, but not when they use government property to exclude others based on faith. I also wonder if this event drew public attention/ire due to recent news items about "Epic City." From Wikipedia: "The developers stated they ... would conduct 'thorough individualized assessments of prospective buyers' to ensure alignment with community goals of 'safety and security.'" "The developers modified language on their website after questions from media, removing text that had indicated sales would be limited to 'persons we believe will contribute to the overall makeup of our community.'" "EPIC City's legal attorney, Dan Cogdell, stated, 'We were never going to invoke Sharia law... We were never going to have Muslim-only ownership.'" I think the first two points have created sentiments of suspicion regarding the developers' intentions. The behavior of Jake Lang surely is an ugly and unfortunate thing. Thanks, -Smac

My comment about dishonesty pertained to a bishop not disclosing or referencing his then-in-place ecclesiastical position when writing the letter. If the bishop is being asked to write a letter requesting lenience because of his ecclesiastical position, then I think it is unseemly, and perhaps dishonest, for the bishop to not disclose that to the judge. I suppose that depends on the circumstances. Can you see, for example, how a bishop using his ecclesiastical position to bolster his request for lenience by be a problem? The Church does not want that to happen. Some victims may strongly resent a bishop "taking sides" in a civil or criminal dispute. Perhaps. But then we're still left with the violation of the Church's policy and the potential adverse impact on or reaction from the victim. I'm not sure. Today we have news that a Utah Supreme Court judge is resigning because there is a risk of the appearance of impropriety (and perhaps actual impropriety): Utah Supreme Court justice resigns amid misconduct investigation There's quite a back story to this, so whether or not she actually did something wrong is still unclear to me. However, even if she did nothing wrong, the risks associated with just the appearance of impropriety were, it seems, sufficient to require her to resign. "Ensuring it upholds the highest standards of accountability and earns the confidence of the people of Utah." Should we similarly hold bishops to a separate and higher "standard of accountability" while they are visibly functioning in that capacity? "When you {accept a calling as a bishop}, you get held to a higher standard. Period." Is that a correct and reasonable statement in your view? Note how Judge Hagen denied wrongdoing but recused herself anyway. I think that is because it was not enough for her to avoid actual impropriety, she also had to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Perhaps bishops should similarly "recuse" themselves from writing letters that might constitute actual impropriety or even the appearance of it. What are your thoughts about that? "Todd Weiler, R-Woods Cross, has since come out to say Hagen and Reymann’s relationship was a well known fact in Utah’s legal community, and one that Hagen did not try to hide at multiple social gatherings." Hmm. The "appearance of impropriety" is in play here. I'm not sure if there is an expectation of 24/7 bishopness. But maybe the "risk of the appearance of impropriety" is itself enough to warrant bishops totally abstaining from writing such letters while serving in that calling, even if he withholds references in the letter to his calling. The risk of implicating the Church is still there. The risk of victims misunderstanding things is still there. I think the bishop overtly and publicly taking sides either way can create problems, hence the value of the policy instructing bishops to seek guidance on this issue form the Church. While serving as my ward's bishop I encountered a very difficult circumstance, a genuine dilemma. I called the Church's legal counsel and the helped me navigate the issue well. I, an attorney myself with many years of experience, was grateful for this guidance. I think the policy is a sound one. Do you agree? Thanks, -Smac

Seems like more emphasis, and perhaps more cautionary exhortations and actual consequences for recalcitrant behavior, could also help. Serving as a bishop is tough job, and a very important one. I took my five year stint quite seriously. Having previously served in the military, and having spent many years as an attorney and a member of the bar, I had ample experience in subordinating my personal preferences in favor of fulfilling my duty to obey the law, and lawful orders, and maintain my fiduciary responsibilities. Thanks, -Smac

Yep. Particularly if the bishop is being asked to submit a letter because of his calling. Not disclosing or referencing it as the basis for the intended purpose (requesting leniency based on the bishop being a "character reference" of sorts) would seem to be dishonest. But disclosing it contravenes the Church's (prudent) policy. So regarding my last question, I lean towards a generalized "No, a bishop whose relationship with the defendant arises by way of the ecclesiastical relationship should not write a letter in any capacity." I can see how this could work in limited circumstances. I have lived in my ward for 20+ years, so I could be a good character reference for neighbors I have known a long time. But if I were, while serving as bishop, to write a letter in my "personal capacity" and make no reference to my calling, and if the defendant's victim heard about the letter, would the potential for damage still be there? Might the victim not parse out the "I wrote the letter in my personal capacity, not as the bishop" distinction? Once he is no longer the bishop, the representative capacity ceases, so writing a letter is fine. Yes, I agree with you there. I think whoever asked at KM probably did not think through the ramifications when presenting the request. Thanks, -Smac

First, from the Church Handbook: This policy is a prudent, protective safeguard that reflects both good legal judgment and wise pastoral practice. Here’s why it is reasonable and necessary: 1. Local Leaders Are Not Lawyers Most bishops, stake presidents, and other Church leaders are volunteers with no legal training. When they speak or write to lawyers, courts, prosecutors, or parole boards — even with the best of intentions — their words can easily be taken out of context, twisted, or used as evidence in ways they never anticipated. Requiring consultation with Church legal counsel ensures that any involvement is handled by professionals who understand the legal risks and can provide clear guidance. 2. Protects Victims and Their Families The handbook explicitly notes that “such sharing can be especially harmful to victims and their families.” Church leaders often hear highly sensitive, confidential information in interviews. If that information is shared in a legal proceeding (even innocently), it can retraumatize victims, breach trust, or interfere with ongoing investigations or prosecutions. The policy prioritizes the well-being of the vulnerable over any desire to “help” in court. 3. Prevents the Church from Being Dragged Into Litigation When a Church leader voluntarily inserts himself into a civil or criminal case (by testifying, writing letters, or providing documents), it can create the appearance that the Church is taking sides or has official involvement. This can expose the Church to: Subpoenas and discovery demands Claims of vicarious liability Public relations damage Unnecessary entanglement in secular legal disputes The policy keeps the Church from being “inappropriately implicated in legal matters.” 4. Maintains Clear Boundaries Between Ecclesiastical and Civil Roles The Church is not a court of law. Its leaders’ primary role is spiritual and pastoral. This rule helps preserve that distinction and prevents leaders from being pulled into adversarial legal processes where their statements could later be used against the Church, the member, or the victim. 5. Simple, Consistent, and Easy to Follow The rule is straightforward: When in doubt, call Church legal counsel first. It applies whether the leader is volunteering information or being asked/ordered to provide it. This single, bright-line policy reduces confusion and protects both the leader and the institution from well-meaning but legally dangerous actions. In short: The policy is not about hiding information or being uncooperative. It is about ensuring that any involvement in legal proceedings is thoughtful, legally sound, and does not cause unintended harm to victims, members, or the Church itself. It is a classic example of institutional wisdom that protects everyone involved. Today in the Salt Lake Tribune: When Latter-day Saint bishops write letters for criminal defendants, some Utah County prosecutors alert the church’s law firm This is a difficult topic. Imagine that a large and well-known nonprofit group specializing in humanitarian aid has a director of operations in a state who, specifically referencing his position with the nonprofit group, writes letters on behalf of criminal defendants asking the judge for leniency in sentencing. Further imagine that the person being sentenced has been convicted of a serious crime against a minor. Further imagine that the minor's family has previously supported this nonprofit group, but now finds out that its state director is intervening in the criminal matter in which their child is the victim, and the intervention is on behalf of the now-convicted defendant. Would the nonprofit group be justified in enacting policies prohibiting its employees from involving themselves in such legal proceedings in relation to their position with the nonprofit group? Now, let's further imagine that the prosecutor, having learned of the director's letter asking for leniency (in which, again, the director is specifically writing in his capacity as the nonprofit group's state director), contacts the nonprofit group and asks if the nonprofit group is aware of what the state director is doing. Is that an appropriate or inappropriate thing for the prosecutor to do? It seems like the latter. This prosecutorial practice is what Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray is now “considering how best to address.” It raises legitimate concerns: Prosecutors (as officers of the court) were helping one party (the Church) retract information that the defense wanted the judge to see. A legal ethics expert quoted in the article (see below) calls this “wholly inappropriate” and compares it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify. Importantly, this prosecutorial notification practice is not required or authorized by the handbook. The handbook only tells Church leaders to consult legal counsel before they get involved. It does not instruct the Church to set up an informal surveillance system inside prosecutors’ offices. Here's a link to the story about the BYU dean: A BYU dean wrote in support of a man charged with child sex abuse crimes. It’s not an isolated case. From this article: The bishops and the BYU dean who wrote these letters were doing precisely what the handbook forbids: voluntarily inserting themselves into criminal proceedings by sending character letters to judges without first checking with Church legal. The policy does not prohibit the letters outright — it requires prior consultation so the Church can evaluate the risks. I wonder whether these bishops (and the BYU dean) are doing this A) in knowing contravention of the Church's policy quoted above, or B) in ignorance of the policy. If the former, then I think these bishops should be strongly reprimanded. If the latter, then the Church needs to do much better in training bishops, perhaps including follow-up trainings to address common breaches of the Church's policies by bishops. Back to the original article: "The practice began after lawyers with Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to flag such letters, the office said." Wow. To sum up: KM's "request" created an informal, one-way information pipeline from the prosecutor’s office to the Church’s legal team. Key problems with this practice: It gives the appearance of collusion or favoritism. Prosecutors are supposed to be neutral officers of the court. Helping one party (the Church) suppress or retract information that the defense wants the judge to see at sentencing looks like the government is tilting the scales in favor of the Church. It interferes with the sentencing process. Utah County Attorney Jeff Gray himself acknowledged that this “raises concerns about a defendant’s ability to present information to the sentencing court.” Character letters from community leaders are generally considered legitimate mitigation evidence. Having the prosecution quietly help remove them undermines the defendant’s right to present relevant information. Legal ethics concerns. The Fordham University legal ethics professor quoted in the article called the practice “wholly inappropriate,” comparing it to a defense lawyer improperly inducing a witness not to testify. Prosecutors inducing or facilitating the withdrawal of evidence that could benefit the defense is ethically dubious, even if no “official policy” existed. The Church initiated the request. The article makes clear that Kirton McConkie asked prosecutors to start flagging these letters. From the Church’s perspective, this was perhaps seen as a reasonable risk-management step to enforce its handbook policy quickly. But it also created the very entanglement the handbook policy is designed to avoid. I bet there have been some discussions between the Church and the KM lawyers about this. Here's my preliminary assessment of what should happen, "Best Practices"-wise: 1. Utah County Attorney’s Office – Immediate Action Required I think the County Attorney should formally end the informal notification practice immediately and put it in writing. Issue a clear internal directive to all prosecutors and staff: Do not notify Kirton McConkie, Church legal, or any other outside party when a bishop or Church leader submits a character letter. Treat such letters the same as any other mitigation evidence: evaluate them on their merits and let the judge decide. This restores neutrality and eliminates the appearance that the government is helping one religious institution suppress evidence in criminal cases. This is not only the ethical thing to do — it is the legally safer course. As the County Attorney has already acknowledged, the practice raised legitimate concerns about defendants’ rights to present relevant information at sentencing. 2. The Church – Shift to Internal Accountability The Church has every right to maintain and enforce Handbook § 38.8.24.1. However, I think that asking state prosecutors to functionally act as a sort of enforcement arm of the Church for this policy was a serious misstep. I think this is a better way for the Church to go: Strengthen training and accountability for bishops and stake presidents. Make the policy crystal clear in training materials, emphasize the reasons (protecting victims, avoiding misinterpretation, preventing entanglement), and treat repeated violations as a serious leadership failure. When a bishop writes a letter in violation of the policy, the Church should handle it internally — contact the bishop directly, require retraction if appropriate, and address any pattern of non-compliance through ecclesiastical channels. I also think violation of this policy should be construed as a serious breach of the bishop's duties to the Church, perhaps even warranting being released from the calling (same goes for the BYU dean and his job). Stop asking prosecutors (or any other government officials) to flag or notify them about these letters. That request created the very appearance of improper coordination the handbook policy is meant to avoid. The Church’s current approach (contacting the bishop once they learn of the letter) is fine when they discover it legitimately. The problem was the proactive “tip line” arrangement with prosecutors. Why This Combined Solution Works Restores proper separation: Prosecutors stay neutral; the Church enforces its own rules through its own channels. Protects victims: The handbook policy’s core purpose (avoiding damaging or misinterpreted Church involvement in criminal cases) is preserved without compromising the criminal justice process. Respects everyone’s rights: Defendants can still present mitigation evidence; the Church can still maintain its internal standards; victims are shielded from unintended Church statements in court. Reduces future scandals: Ending the informal pipeline removes the fuel for stories like this one. Bottom Line The Church has the right to its policy, but asking state actors to help enforce it was inappropriate and ultimately counterproductive. The County Attorney should shut down the notification practice, and the Church should double down on training its leaders rather than outsourcing enforcement to government officials. Thoughts? Some questions to get the ball rolling: 1. Do you agree or disagree with the Church's policy and its rationale? 2. Do you agree or disagree that Kirton McConkie should not have "asked prosecutors to flag such letters"? 3. Do you agree or disagree that the prosecutor's office should should formally end the informal notification practice? 4. Do you agree or disagree that the Church should take the steps in the bulleted list above (under "Shift to Internal Accountability")? 5. Do you think a bishop should be able to write a letter to a judge (such as those noted in the article) as long as he makes no reference to his ecclesiastical calling? Thanks, -Smac

Message boards can indeed become "echo chambers," and I also wonder if they end up getting political. I certainly want to have venues where expressions of faith and affirmations thereof are the order of the day. That's what Sunday meetings are for, and General Conference, and attending the temple. I think Latter-day Saints ought not to cloister themselves, but we should also maintain faith-affirming places and venues and events. Debate and critique is better left for boards such as this one. From the "Habits" book: Good stuff, this. Thanks, -Smac

Habit Two of "Habits of a Peacemaker": I note with interest the author's cautions to gather information by A) avoiding "isolation or echo chambers" B) generating knowledge "collectively through dialogue, evidence, criticism, and revision, but also C) take caution against relying on "phones/social media, outrage-based algorithms, foreign disinformation." The last bit about "outrage-based algorithms" was, to me, intriguing, as it seemed like a departure from Hollis's broad-and-generalized-principles approach. From the the book: In other words, fearful opinions, frightening news, stories of threats to you and your family—these create the same dopamine hits in our brains as much less nefarious things like “likes” to our photos. So, we return to them. We consume them more and more. In time, we come to see the world not as a complex system with equally complex problems in need of sophisticated solutions. Instead: When we share a news story that gets us enraged or engaged, we receive rewards—and dopamine hits—as our friends and others interact with the story. They make comments. They offer likes. They share it with their friends. The algorithms running our feeds offer us even more similar stories. We share those, and the cycle starts over again. ... Cable news is no different. Turn on any news network, and, within minutes, you will see an eye-catching “Breaking News!” alert. If new, important events were happening at the pace cable news channels wanted us to believe they are, the world would have ended decades ago. The reality is that those stations need to keep as many eyeballs as they can on the screens for as long as possible. Their entire business model depends on it. ... Cable news has learned that their primary tools for keeping people tuned in are breaking news and anger. The breaking news alerts are strategically timed to keep viewers tuned just at the moment they might be inclined to leave. ... Because there is so little actual news, the channels must look for other methods of filling the airtime and keeping us engaged. They have turned to anger to do this. Talking heads pick the most divisive topics of the day, then offer their opinions on those topics in a way they know will be provocative. They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes. ... Every time we pick up our phones or turn on a news station, we need to remind ourselves what those teams of psychologists and mathematicians are doing. They are not trying to pass on real information. They are not interested in our learning anything or becoming better citizens or being peacemakers. Whether we like it or not, they are trying to manipulate us, from the moment we let our eyes fall upon any screen in our lives. They are a formidable opponent in our efforts to engage in real learning. I have, for some time now, surmised that some critics of the Church are trying to manipulate their listeners to foment outrage and anger and fear. Against the Church and its leaders. Much of this is directed less to the general public and more toward the Latter-day Saints. A brief sampling of YouTube thumbnails: "They provide us either bombastic opinions with which we are already inclined to agree, or they point out to us threats from which we do not dare turn away our eyes." "{D}opamine-driven platforms..." This message board has helped me avoid "echo chambers," discern just how frequently detractors of our faith are attempting to stoke outrage and fear (as opposed to, day, presenting fair-minded and even-handed critiques of the Church and its policies and doctrines and such), and pursue what Hollis proposes is the "solution" to all this: "deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation." Some years ago, just before the Covid lockdown, I went to lunch with a friend who had moved out of my ward and, I later found out, had turned rather hostile toward the Church. It turned out to be a very long conversation, several hours, mostly him venting his spleen about how terrible the Church was. It was sort of like a "CES Letter" highlight reel. A lot of pent-up anger. A pretty substantial "The Church lied to be" vibe. Quite a few "Did you know about {insert troubling store about an institutional policy and/or a member behaving badly}"-style questions. He concluded by declaring that the only way for a person to remain in the Church is to either be profoundly ignorant (of all the terrible things about the Church) or profoundly evil (via indifference to all the terrible things about the Church). I asked him if he had ever read anything by Daniel Peterson, and he said he had never heard of him. I asked him if he had ever visited Jeff Lindsay's website, and he had never heard of Jeff either. William Hamblin? Jack Welch? John Tvedtnes? Matt Roper? John Sorenson? Richard Bushman? John Gee? He had never heard of any of these people, let alone read anything written by them. In hindsight, I think elements of "Habit Two" were very much in play. My surmise is that my friend, who is still my friend, had succumbed to "outrage-based" social media stuff. I say this because the issues he had raised were a potpourri of grievances that had no particular rhyme or reason except that they were part of carefully and deliberately curated "gish gallop"-style compilations like the CES Letter and "Why I Left" narratives and ExMo Reddit / Exmormon.org talking points. And more to the point, my friend had nothing more than a superficial grasp of these topics. He pretty clearly hadn't studied any of this with any rigor or fairmindedness, as he did not recognize any Latter-day Saint scholars who had addressed so many of this concerns, and he could not answer questions about them, and he was way too conclusory about them. And this, in turn, implicates Habit One: "Intellectual Humility and Reframing": I think my friend didn't know nearly as much as he thought he did about the Church. The Dunning-Kruger Effect. That, combined with the "outrage-based" social media content and his (apparently) corollary failure to do the things that Hollis recommends ("deliberate real learning—long-form reading, primary sources, critical thinking, inoculation against manipulation"), has had a very big impact on his life. So again, I am grateful for this board, including the critics who voice their views about the Church. I want to hear what they have to say. I want to consistently vet my knowledge and understanding and perspective and presuppositions regarding the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. As Hugh Nibley more succinctly put it: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.” Thanks, -Smac