Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Amulek

Members
  • Posts

    3,013
  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

3,414 profile views

Amulek's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges

4.9k

Reputation

  1. I agree. However, just because the architectural design of a temple isn't the most important thing doesn't mean that it isn't an important thing.
  2. My understanding is that it has to be a supermajority of the entire council. I believe the mayor said something to that effect as well (if I remember right).
  3. Oh, I agree. But this is politics: common sense need not apply.
  4. In their town it only takes four members to constitute a quorum (one of whom can be the mayor), so they did have enough members to hold a vote - there just weren't enough members present to override the negative recommendation from the PZ board. It takes six votes to overcome a negative recommendation from zoning, but there were only five people present last night (4 council members + the mayor). So, even if they were to have held a vote, the only possible outcome would have been a no. Even if all five of them were to have voted in favor, it would have failed to pass due to not being a supermajority.
  5. So, quick recap from the meeting last night (yes, the WiFi held out!): There were two council members missing - both on previously scheduled vacations - so it would have been impossible for a positive vote to take place (not like that was in the cards). The Church's local representative asked for a continuance and, as such, he asked for supporters to abstain from making any comments. They went ahead and opened the floor for public comments. Most of it was a retread of the PZ meeting - though there were a couple of new technical objections that didn't come up before. The Kirton McConkie guys flew into town the other day and met with the local bishops / stake presidents. They also met with the city leaders yesterday during the day. The mayor suggested the meeting was productive and moved for the public meeting to be continued rather than voting then and there. The idea of continuing was not well received by the attendees. However, the mayor was very much opposed to voting right away. Apparently a denial would have put them in a highly precarious legal position. So... we'll pick back up in August. It's possible the church may make some concessions in the meantime - supposedly the lawyers may have suggested that there could be some room to move. I guess we'll see.
  6. I received similar correspondence from our stake president on Sunday. Those who support the temple were encouraged to send a short email expressing that sentiment, and we were invited to attend the meeting if circumstances allow. The invitation we received included the following: "We hope our efforts will show the council the strong community backing for the temple. [...] We kindly remind all participants to remain non-defensive and kind, regardless of others' comments. As neighbors, we can hold differing views without being disagreeable. Your peaceful participation and support are greatly appreciated and will make a meaningful impact on this process." I don't find anything objectionable about Elder Rascon's message or what were asked to do by our local leaders. I don't know why people are being so melodramatic. It's not like anybody is saying, support the temple or else!
  7. If I was in town that's where I would be tonight. Hopefully the WiFi here will be good enough for me to watch at least.
  8. Town council meets tomorrow at 7:30 PM, Central. Based on the Planning and Zoning department's recommendation to deny the permit last month, it will take a supermajority (75%) to approve the permit at this stage, which is pretty unlikely. The council consists of the mayor and six council members, so that means you would need six votes to push it through. The mayor has already stated his opposition, so it will only take one additional vote to kill it (which is pretty much guaranteed since half the council will be up for reelection next term). Assuming the permit is denied, the next step will likely be litigation. I know the Church is hoping to avoid that because it will (1) push the timeline back 6-9 months, and (2) be costly for the town (which is unlikely to prevail in federal court and will end up being forced to pay legal fees for both sides). If you are interested in watching, it will be broadcast online here. Agenda available as a PDF here.
  9. Well, if somebody turned in a tithing slip on Sunday with a check for (/looks up current cash payout) $14.5M, I suspect you would probably have a hunch. Man, would I love to be in that clerks' office! (Note: You can avoid having your local unit know how much you have donated by sending your tithing to Salt Lake directly.)
  10. When the lottery gets big enough for people at work to start mentioning it in conversations, I always offer to accept their $2 and tell them they are a loser.
  11. It flags them and the changes won't go through. At least, they didn't when we were working on our stuff this weekend (it popped up a couple of times when we were trying to get all of the new move-ins accounted for). I suppose it's possible that behavior is a bug, but it looked to be intentional.
  12. I am no respecter of dollars; or euros for that matter. Yugo's, however, might be a bridge too far.
  13. Looking forward to you circling back and sharing your ideas. One thing I forgot to mention before that we have considered on occasion, but that the system won't allow for, is to have ministers assigned to each other (i.e., Brothers A and B minister to Families X and Y; and then assign Brother X and Y minister to Families A and B; that's apparently cheating or something).
  14. To my knowledge, the Church doesn't have an official policy about refusing to accept tithing funds from gambling winnings. The only cases I know where the Church has returned tithing monies have been in situations where, after the fact, they discovered the money had been obtained illegally (e.g., via fraud). And even then, at least in the one case I remember off the top of my head, it wasn't the Church who did the sleuthing. That being said, if I were to win the lottery and the Church refused to accept my tithing, I doubt I would bother with trying to comply with the 10% threshold. Instead, I would probably just apply that money to one of the charities I would have set up for my kids to run and draw income from - and then call it a day. Here's the next question though: When you get to the end of the year and are asked to declare your tithing status, would you declare yourself as being a full tithe payer?
  15. I suppose there are books which, if referenced, would likely end up being a net negative. I mean, even if you really did find a positive, uplifting article in Playboy, you probably wouldn't want to mention that as being the source. As a general rule though, I would think the appellation to 'seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom' would cover most non-canonical references that people may want to use as part of their messages - whether that be CS Lewis, Lewis Carroll, or even Star Wars (which I've probably heard more frequently at the ward level than the other two combined).
×
×
  • Create New...