Amulek

If it were something that really mattered to me, I would vote with my feet and take my tuition dollars to a university which better aligned with my ideals. If that cost is too high, well, then, on the bright side, I guess you just learned the monetary value of your principles.

I know the Big 12 cited its sportsmanship standards in fining Colorado after the BYU game, and technically they’re within their rights to do so. That said, I personally have a hard time with punishing people for speech - even when it’s offensive or directed at us as Latter-day Saints. For me, I’d have been perfectly content if no penalty had been issued in this case.

Loved President Nelson. At 101, what a legacy he has left.

My understanding is that most interpretations (see, e.g., Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, Bruce R. McConkie, etc.) take the position that the City of Enoch returns at the time of the Second Coming. It reunites with the earthly Zion (the New Jerusalem in America). So the embracing and reunion in verse 63 is understood to occur at Christ’s coming, when heaven and earth join, and the Millennium begins. No idea. This enters speculative territory since the scriptures are silent on what happens on other inhabited worlds. As is also recorded in Moses, "only an account of this earth give I unto you." We simply don’t know if other worlds have Zions or New Jerusalems (I would probably guess 'yes' to the former; not as positive about the latter). It is possible that God follows parallel patterns on other worlds, but we are told only about this planet’s history and future so there's no way to know (at least, not at this time).

Okay, let’s assume ad arguendo you’re right - that Mormons simply can’t help themselves from "flipping out" whenever somebody leaves. If that’s true, then why would you want the Church to start purging inactives from the rolls? Is it really about ‘cleaner PR?' Or is it more about offloading the drama onto the Church, so you can then turn around and complain about yet another thing whenever they do the cutting and families react badly?

When I was on my mission, we participated in a pilot program that involved having the missionaries visit inactive members and invite them to come meet with the bishop to start the process of either (1) renewing their temple recommend; or (2) having their name removed from the records of the church. I was actually kind of surprised at how many people did not want to have their names removed. They weren't interested in participating at all, but they firmly did not want to be out of the church either. Nowadays, it's even easier - a couple of clicks, a sprinkling of auto-fill, and you can be out without any fuss. Still, a signification number of people chose to just never bother with it. Maybe they are indifferent, but unless we have some kind of constructive knowledge that says they want out, I don't see the need in proactively trying to remove them (potentially against their will).

Were you ever an Eagle Scout? If so, then you are recognized as a lifelong member of BSA, regardless of participation. I bet the same holds true for whatever university alumni association you are part of too - once graduated, you typically remain an alumnus/alumna forever. And let's not forget about civic and political organizations. If you ever registered with a political party, you get to remain registered with them for years even if you never vote. Now, obviously I don't know every org you may have ever been a part of, but these are a few that I suspect are pretty likely candidates that would be exceptions to your assertion. Of course, none of that really matters because religious organizations are fundamentally different from secular organizations in ways that make roll-keeping more about identity than about transactions or participation. Churches don’t view membership the way Netflix does, as a subscription you cancel for lack of payment. It’s more akin to family or heritage, something you remain part of unless you actively choose to leave.

If that question is supposed to be standard, then every bishop and priesthood leader I’ve ever had must have been heretics - because not a single one of them has ever asked me that. I'm not denying your experience - just pointing out that it isn't universal. I get the impression that such used to be more common in the Mormon Corridor though, especially back in the 90's / early 'oughts, but the guidance today is more centered on gospel principles (e.g., avoid arousal of lustful thoughts / feelings) and doesn't focus on specific behaviors.

[...] I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that if the Church actually followed your advice and purged the rolls of all known inactives, and that led to your family “shunning and othering” you and yours, you’d be right back here complaining about the Church anyway. Sounds less like you want a solution and more like you just want something to complain about. You’re giving way too much credit to the idea that ex-ing people would solve the PR problem. The reason these stories get traction isn’t because some journalist dug through church records and confirmed membership status - it’s because it’s scandalous whenever someone associated with Mormonism does something heinous. If the perpetrators weren’t officially members, the story would (as we saw in this very case) just be reworded as “raised Mormon,” “former Mormon," "[fill-in-the-relationship status] to prominent Mormon," etc. Purging the rolls wouldn’t make the headlines disappear; at best it just changes the headlines a little, and not in a way that would keep us out of them. I suspect that most of the orgs you’ve been part of were either clubs or businesses. The Church is neither. It’s a family, and you don’t get “purged” from a family just because you stopped showing up to dinner. At least, I'm pretty sure that's not how the story of the prodigal son ended...

So you won’t resign because it’s inconvenient and/or might cause some awkward family conversations, but you’ll gripe that the Church won’t do it for you. That's like refusing to break up with someone and then being mad about them still calling you their boyfriend. Oh, and spare me the hand-wringing about proxy ordinances after you’re gone - if you don’t believe, why care?

Isn't that a two-way street? I mean, if you wanted us to stop counting you as a member, maybe you would put forth the (minimal) effort to have your name removed from the records of the church. But if you don't care either, that is fine.

You’re basically arguing that the Church should kick people out who stop showing up, stop paying, or embarrass the faith. Okay, but that’s not how covenants, agency, or accountability work. Membership isn’t a fan club where the admins prune inactive users - it’s a covenant people. If someone wants out, they can ask. Until then, their standing in the church is between them and God, not you.

@Navidad, I appreciate you sharing your experiences. I don’t doubt that those words were said to you, and I can understand how painful or dismissive they must have sounded. At the same time, I think some of the tension comes from a deeper difference in theology. In LDS belief, God organizes His work through an institutional church with priesthood authority, ordinances, and covenants. For someone who doesn’t see church in that way, statements about “authority” or “valid baptism” can understandably feel like invalidations of their faith, when in fact they’re really expressions of how we understand our own framework. That doesn’t excuse insensitivity, of course - people should always be careful about how they communicate across belief lines. But I also wouldn’t assume that such statements always come out of nowhere. Often they emerge when someone asks why Latter-day Saints believe what they do, or when differences in authority and ordinances become the focus of the conversation. In those contexts, the answers can sound harsher than they are meant. For me, I try to share in terms of what’s brought me peace and direction. At the same time, I wouldn’t be in this church if I didn’t believe it offered something unique and essential. That doesn’t mean I think other faiths are worthless - far from it - just that I’ve found something here I feel is worth inviting others to consider too.

For me, I’ve come to think of it less as “what I believe is what you should believe” and more along the lines of “this is what I believe, and here’s why it matters to me.” The church definitely encourages us to share, but I don’t think that has to mean pushing. When something has brought me peace, hope, or joy, it feels natural to want to talk about it - just like I would talk about anything else that’s been a blessing in my life. Honestly, it’s the same impulse that makes me want to tell everyone about that new authentic Italian restaurant I ran across the other day that makes its noodles from scratch daily. To me, that’s just part of being a good friend. I’ve noticed that leaders in recent years put more emphasis on inviting and testifying rather than pressuring. An invitation can be freely accepted or declined, but the act of sharing still communicates care. So, I see proselytizing less as “this is what you must do” and more as “this has blessed me so much that I want you to know it exists - if you ever want it for yourself.”

You can hear the current mayor's explanation for why he voted against the proposal here (note: if I messed up the link, it's at the 5:07:04 mark). For those who don't want to listen, my rough transcript of his comments are as follows: I was involved in the mediated agreement back in November. When we had that mediated agreement, one of the provisions of the agreement was that we would go back to the town and have a public hearing, which we did. In that public hearing we heard citizen after citizen, resident after resident say they did not like the height of the building. It was my hope, and I think it was the mayors hope too, that the LDS church hearing that you know – and I hear so many times from Melissa McNeely that we want to be good neighbors – that we thought after hearing these pleas after saying that and reading it this in the newspaper that they would on their own accord lower the the the size of the steeple and they did not. And again, I just keep thinking of this being good neighbors. And I'm not going to tell the story about me growing up in Oak Park. But the one thing I will say about it is we lived in a non-Jewish neighborhood. And we out of respect, we may have had the right to do it, but we didn't do any we didn't do any activities on Saturday this Sabbath because my dad said, "Be a good neighbor." Um, this council as a team is wiser than one person. And I disagree with my council members on this, the way I'm going to vote, but I support the process and I can tell you they did not do this um this vote out of fear. They did it out of concern for the best interest of the town. But with that, I'm voting against the ordinance. Basically, he's saying (without technically saying) that his original vote to approve the mediated version of the temple was really a conditional vote based on public reception of the mediated agreement. I suppose that's how he justifies not having entered into mediation in bad faith, but it feels more like political cover than genuine principle. If mediation only “counts” until the crowd reacts, then what exactly is the point of the process? It starts to look less like leadership and more like hedging bets. And frankly, the “good neighbor” framing only highlights the contradiction. On one hand, he invokes personal anecdotes about respect and compromise, but on the other, he punts on making a clear decision when it actually matters. It’s as if the responsibility to compromise should rest entirely with the other side while the council reserves the right to walk away whenever the optics get tough. If that’s how agreements are going to be treated, then mediation becomes less about resolving disputes and more about staging another round of politics.

Last week the Town Council voted to approve the final plat: https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-votes-finalize-lds-temple-lawsuit-stall-construction/287-7627e8a0-cc7f-4c44-ab18-3720bb59eeff Now, approving the final plat is mostly just a formality. In fact, the town's statutes state that unless there is a material defect, the plans are automatically approved after 30 days following their submission, even if no vote is held. The planning and zoning board voted unanimously to accept the place, and the Town Council did the same. However, as indicated in the article, the (new) mayor included the following as a prelude to his proposal to accept the plat: The Fairview Temple should be a symbol of love and community, a place where neighbors come together in mutual respect. Instead, the Fairview Temple has become a symbol of division, bullying, and a refusal to be good neighbors…When the conditional use permit was approved, the council inadvertently left out the removal of two parking lot lights on the north side of the property. These lights shined directly into the homes of families living on Forest Oaks. The town reached out and asked the LDS Church if they would, out of the kindness and consideration for the people living next door, their neighbors, take the poles down. The church answered no. With the approved CUP, the LDS Church has every legal right to keep those lights, just as they have every legal right to build a 120-foot steeple. But having the legal right doesn't make it the right thing to do. A true neighbor doesn't ask, ‘What can I get away with?’ A true neighbor asks, ‘How can I live in harmony with the people around me?’ That’s what makes this process for me so disappointing. Unfortunately, the mayor’s comments mischaracterize both the process and the facts regarding the Fairview Temple’s lighting. The town council did not “inadvertently” leave out this issue; the council explicitly reviewed the lighting plan as part of the conditional use permit process, and the two lights in question were discussed during the meeting. For safety reasons, the Church (understandably) wants to have visibility its parking lot during operational hours. The Church accommodated the town's request that all parking fixtures be shielded to prevent glare, and they happily agreed to use only color temperatures specified by the town's lighting ordinances. In complying with these requests, the Church anticipates producing zero foot-candles of light on adjacent properties. And let's not forget that (1) the Church already exceeds the minimum setback requirements from the homes in question to begin with, and (2) these properties will be further shielded by foliage which currently exists and which the Church will be adding as part of its landscape design plans. The claim that the lights "shine directly into the homes of families" is factually incorrect, and the mayor's effort to portray the Church's adherence to an approved, code-compliant plan as "bullying" or a refusal to be a good neighbor is not only unfair - it undermines the integrity of the council's own process. Rights and relationships are not mutually exclusive. But moving the goalposts after the council already approved a code-compliant plan - and then claiming you “forgot” to include a condition that was specifically discussed on the record - isn’t fairness, it’s politics.

The button to edit the cover photos appears to have been disabled by the admins. At least, I don't have access to it in my account. It's permission based though, so conceivably it could be enabled for people in other groups. If you want yours removed, I would suggest sending a message to the mods and see if they can have an admin reset your cover photo back to one of the default options.

If you haven't already read or viewed it, I would recommend checking out Blake Ostler's 2007 FAIR Conference talk: Spiritual Experiences as the Basis for Belief and Commitment. It's a bit lengthy, but quite good.

I think so. Imagine someone who prays and studies the scriptures asking sincerely, "God, please help me know if Jesus Christ lives." They approach the endeavor with a heart open to belief and look for experiences, feelings, or insights that confirm that truth. They may notice small promptings, moments of peace, or clarity during study and prayer. Each of these experiences strengthens their faith which makes them more likely to notice further confirmations. Their seeking, done in faith, helps invite God's response and allows them to receive it. Now, imagine if someone approaches the same question thinking, "I bet this is all made up - show my why it's false." This person's mind and heart are tuned to notice contradictions, unanswered questions, or inconsistencies. They may find arguments, historical complexities, or emotional discomforts that reinforce skepticism. Because they are actively seeking doubt, the process tends to produce the outcome they are focused on. The difference here isn't necessarily in God withholding or granting truth differently; it's in what your heart is oriented toward. I believe that's partly why Jesus warns against doubting in ways that turn the heart away - the seeking itself has consequences. I believe that is entirely consistent within the LDS paradigm - the intent of your heart and your exercise of faith are crucial in how revelation and spiritual experiences are received.

Over the weekend I took my son to catch the re-released / remastered 50th anniversary showing of Jaws in theaters. The showing was formatted with stellar 3D VFX which really helped to improve the immersive experience; it felt like watching a whole new movie. My son, who had yet to see the film, really enjoyed it as well. He was a little surprised at how graphic the final eating sequence was and wondered - if that was allowed back in the olden days, why couldn't they throw something like that in to any of the dinosaur movies that have come out in recent years. Good question. I too would be willing to exchange a few jump-scares for a few more people being eaten, but I'm okay with keeping things kid friendly enough to maintain PG-13 ratings.

Watched the latest movie over the weekend. It's not horrible, but it isn't great either; definitely not a must-see installment for the franchise. Honestly, I thought the best shot in the whole film was the outro to credits scene where Johnny makes an appearance and brings a final bit of comedic relief: Daniel: Hey, Johnny, you gotta try this pizza from New York. It's the best I've ever had. Johnny: Why would you ship pizza from New York? Everybody knows the best pizza's in Encino. Daniel: No, there's no comparison. I'm telling ya. Johnny: Wait, dude, that's it. Daniel: What? Johnny: Our new business idea. Daniel: What are you talking about? Johnny: We open our own pizza place. We call it Miyagi-Dough. Daniel: Uh, no, no, no, no, no. Johnny: No, get it? Like Miyagi-Do, but dough, like pizza dough. Daniel: Y-Yeah, yeah, I get it. It's disrespectful. Johnny: To pizza? Daniel: To Mr. Miyagi. Johnny: Mr. Miyagi didn't like pizza? Daniel: Johnny, you know what? I'm gonna heat the pizza. Johnny: Miyagi-Dough. Pepperoni's your best defense. Miyagi-Dough. Slice first, slice hard, no anchovies. This is a billion-dollar idea, LaRusso. Miyagi-Dough. Olives on, olives off. [...] 🤣

Update: All three judges found for the church in the ruling released Tuesday. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/08/26/church-10th-circuit-gaddy-latter-day-saints-religious-liberty-tithing-case/ https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111288755.pdf

One of my favorite exchanges is when he's telling Miguel this (made up) motivational story about a Chinaman. Miguel interrupts and says something along the lines of, "I really don't think you're supposed to call them that anymore." To which, Johnny replies, "Sorry, Chinaperson." 🤣

Chronologically (in-universe), the last film takes place a few years after the events in Cobra Kai, but I doubt you'll miss anything if you don't watch them in order. The writers / directors who worked on the film had nothing to do with the TV series, and since the movie started shooting before the show ended, I doubt it's meant to be a strict continuation.

There's a pretty steep drop-off with the third installment. It's not unwatchable, but it's not nearly as good as the previous films. And as far as the rest of the Miyagi-verse is concerned, at least theatrically, that's probably an acceptable stopping point. I didn't care for the Hillary Swank led "Next Karate Kid" and would recommend skipping it. And the 2010 reboot with Jaden Smith is absolutely atrocious; definitely take a pass on that one. I haven't seen the latest film, Karate Kid: Legends, so I can't really comment on it other than to say I know it's considered cannon. It received relatively bad reviews from critics, but audiences seemed to like it, so I'll probably end up checking it out now that it's out on streaming. The TV series is the true successor to the original trilogy, and it's possibly one of the best examples of how to do nostalgia-based film making right. The longer format allows for deeper exploration of themes and characters. Plus, all of the main actors from the films - including a few supporting actors - get a chance to reprise their original roles in ways that (mostly) work really well with the show. It's highly bingeable, and every one of the six seasons scored above 90% on Rotten Tomatoes. Oh, and since the writers knew they were writing to an end point, the series finale actually wraps everything up nicely. I wouldn't add them to my list of shows that I think really stick the landing, but they absolutely didn't blow it or leave you hanging, so I'm fine with that.