Amulek

As with any sort of gift giving, the amount you spend is generally a function of your relationship to the recipient and your financial situation. According to Western Union, "Our research shows that close relatives often give between $50 and $200, while friends or distant relatives typically give $15 to $50. Acquaintances or coworkers might gift $10 to $30."

If somebody is insulted by a gift of $25 from a person they have never met in their entire life, I think that says more about them (and the way they were raised) than it does about the person who gave it.

This sounds like a very distorted corporate culture, because no where else in the real world are cruise tickets and thousand dollar cash gifts commonly given to co-worker's children. Here is a breakdown of national averages and expert recommendations: The Knot (2024) reports that the average wedding gift spend per guest was $150: For close friends, family, or wedding party members, the average was about $160 For colleagues and coworkers look for presents that fall between $50 and $100 Pearl by David’s Bridal (2025) suggests a range of $100–$150, with guidelines based on closeness: Coworkers/distant acquaintances: $50–$75 Friends/extended family: $100–$125 Close friends or relatives: $150–$200+ Brides.com aligns with this, recommending: Coworkers/distant relatives: $50–$70 Friends: $75–$100 Close family, best friends, or wedding party: $100–$150+ Vogue echoes similar tiers: $50–$75 for coworkers/distant relatives $75–$100 for friends $100–$150+ for close friends/family or wedding party I've been to a lot of weddings over the years - most of them for non-members - and I think these breakdowns look about right. If your office has an expectation that everyone gives extravagant gifts, then I'm glad your friend clued you in about that in advance because expecting $200 min is far outside the norm.

You didn't have to say it outright - the condescension did the talking for you. In the first comment you made in this thread, you shared how your fellow Mormon friend advised you "not to be stingy when it came to wedding gifts for co-workers or their kids" and that you should "be generous, not Mormon!" [emphasis in original] You went on to relate how he said "$25 bucks is an insult" and that "Mormons are cheap," before you proceeded to say, "He wasn't wrong." Now, maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but (to me, at least) it really sounds like you are agreeing with the guy you just said you were agreeing with.

I know lots of people, both members and non-members, who tithe to their church and have zero disposable income left over each month; they are living paycheck to paycheck. If I knew that was someone's situation, I hope I would have enough grace left in me to not give them too much crap over not spending "enough" money on a gift for every co-worker/acquaintance's kid that happens to get married. YMMV.

I do think a lot of this is really just how we were raised. My wife and I attended a Muslim wedding for the first time here in the last year or so, and we were surprised when we discovered that ours was the only physical gift on the receiving table. Everybody else - and I literally do mean everybody else - simply gave money; apparently, that's just the norm in their culture. While I do enjoy giving personalized gifts, I've always considered money to be giving people the gift of choice, and I think it's a perfectly acceptable option. You are free to spend it on anything you like - dinner, shoes, an extra payment on your credit card balance - whatever makes you happy. I can probably count on one hand the number of gifts I remember being given from specific individuals at our wedding (e.g., the Kitchen Aid from my mom, the hand-stitched quilt from my grandmother-in-law). But pretty much everything else is a blur. And while I don't remember who all gave us cash either, I do know we used it to buy most of the furniture in our first apartment - some of which we still have to this day.

My mother always believed that giving money was too impersonal, as it lacks the thoughtfulness she believed ought to be associated with gift-giving. She was of the opinion that a gift should reflect (1) knowledge of the recipient's tastes, needs, or interests; and (2) the time and effort spent selecting (or making) something meaningful. In such a worldview, giving cash feels like bypassing this effort entirely and can be interpreted as, "I didn't really bother to think much about you or what you would really like." She also would emphasize the sentimental value of a gift rather than its practical utility. The idea here is that a good gift creates a lasting memory or emotional connection. The giver's personality and care are considered part of the gift. Money lacks this kind of personal signature by nature and thus ought to be avoided. That being said, I've always personally thought that cash makes for a great gift, and, honestly, it's what I prefer to receive myself. Don't get me wrong, I very much love giving thoughtful gifts. And I freely admit that I get a certain amount of utility from the process of reflecting on those I know and coming up with creative ways to deliver something special to make them happy (it's a fun exercise). However, I also recognize that not everyone grew up thinking about gift-giving the way I was raised, and if a gift is really supposed to be for someone else, then what they think matters. What my wife and I tend to do now is look for something on their registry we believe they will legitimately enjoy or get some serious use out of. If we can't find something that really speaks to us, then we just pick something that we really enjoy (or have found to be useful), like a good pair of kitchen shears, and then we just add a wad of cash to go along with it. We've given lots of things-you-wouldn't-normally-think-of as the "little gift" - a bottle of Goo Gone, LED light bulbs, an actually sharp (but inexpensive) chef's knife, etc., and I've been surprised at how many times those little (but useful) things have been commented on, sometimes years later.

Actually, it's a fairly nice little town - precisely the kind of place where the Church would want to build a temple. Plus, the proposed site is on the same street as one of our favorite breakfast places: Fairview Farmers. Be sure to try the croissant beignets... I understand the sentiment. And while I would have no issue with the Church developing some sort of low-income housing initiative, I don't think that would be the best use of the Church's property here.

An opinion piece authored by the new Mayor of Fairview was published in the Dallas Morning News last week. You can read it here: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2025/07/17/fairview-mayor-a-call-for-compromise-with-lds-church-reflecting-shared-values/ A couple of quotes, followed by my thoughts, in red: To its credit, the church did participate in a mediation process with the town. We appreciate that step. Mediation is never easy, and entering it shows a willingness to listen. However, it did not result in an agreement that ended our community’s concerns. And today, litigation continues — an outcome that I believe neither side truly wants. To be fair, litigation only continues today because the Town Council members who unanimously agreed to the proposal developed during mediation failed to vote as they said they would. While a supermajority of the Town Council held their noses and voted for the proposal, two council members - including the incoming Mayor - voted against it. The litigation in question hinges on an interpretation of a Texas statute which basically says that when enough of the surrounding property owners object, it takes a 75% majority from the governing body to override the objection. As previously discussed, there is a question about the threshold requirement about what counts as 'enough surrounding property owners' in this case, but that wouldn't matter if even just one of the two council members had voted in favor of the proposal as they had previously committed to. Had they simply kept to their word that would have made it 6 out of 7 or 7 out of 7, well exceeding the 75% threshold requirement and making this a completely done deal. A group of Fairview residents, known as Fairview United, is challenging the town council’s April 30, 2025, approval of a conditional use permit for the construction of the temple. The lawsuit, filed in Collin County District Court, seeks to reverse or nullify the council’s decision, asserting that proper procedures were not followed. There is presently no timeline outlining how the litigation will move forward. I haven't heard any updates on this either. I don't see it listed on the Collin County court docket yet, so it may be a while before there's any movement. Specifically, I urge the church to consider a further compromise on the height of the temple’s proposed spire. Doing so would demonstrate that this building is more than just an architectural statement — it reflects faith lived out in action. It would send a message that the church values harmony over division and dialogue over litigation. So far as I can tell, the only compromise I have seen from the Town of Fairview came during the previous mediation agreement. Why is it then that the Church is the only one expected to compromise further now?

Current scores on RT are: 83% (critics) / 93% (audiences), so most people like it. But I agree, the original Superman set the bar which future remakes and reboots have yet to surpass - despite the advances in special effects and the willingness to throw truckloads of money around. I remember this one scene from the original film where Clark is at Lois' apartment for a date and there's a moment where he's contemplating revealing himself to her. While she's in the other room he takes off his glasses and then you see Christopher Reeve just physically transform into a whole other character right before your eyes - only to then, almost immediately, second-guess himself and transform back into Clark Kent, all within a matter of seconds. Now that's acting!

Oh yeah, this is like the third reboot. The first was Bryan Singer's Superman Returns (2006), featuring Brandon Routh as Superman. Then it was rebooted again in 2013 with Zach Snyder's Man of Steel, staring Henry Cavill. When the so called Snyder-verse finally fizzled out, DC tapped James Gunn (who previously directed the Guardians of the Galaxy films in the MCU) to unify / relaunch their properties over the next 10 years. Assuming they continue to make money, we'll be seeing more DC in the future. They've already wrapped filming on Supergirl, who makes a very brief cameo in the Superman film. So I guess we'll see how things go.

Speaking of Nathan Fillion, I took my son to see the latest Superman reboot this weekend (where Nathan Fillion appears as a Green Lantern). My son liked the film quite a bit. I enjoyed as well, but I feel like there was too much Superman and not enough Clark. I also think like they leaned on Krypto (the dog) a bit too much for comedic relief. Don't get me wrong, the idea of a super powered dog is pretty funny, but you don't want to overdo it. Some of James Gunn's humor is a bit sophomoric as well, which is occasionally a little distracting for me, but I know everyone has different tastes when it comes to humor, so I can roll with it. All in all, I thought it was a good movie - just not as great as I was hoping it would be.

Seriously. The smartphone in your pocket today is millions of times more powerful than the computers used during the Apollo moon landings, and far more capable than the entire MIT computing network of that era.

I get the weekly letters from some of the missionaries who are serving from our ward, and one of them wrote how he spent an hour or two yesterday helping this blind lady set up her new Meta Glasses. She can now ask her portable AI assistant what she is 'looking at.' So cool. Earlier today I dropped a photograph of an itinerary for a one day excursion at one of the stops on my vacation next week and asked it to organize everything by time and let me know if there are any hidden gems we're missing out on. It instantly spit out an hour-by-hour updated schedule with alternative destinations and ideas for most of the things on our list. It then asked if I wanted it in a convenient, mobile format. Advancements in AI are only going to get better (I hope).

Not a Three Nephite story, but I do know a guy who ran into a man in SLC who was part of a group which identified themselves as The 4th Nephite. They were essentially a group of affluent members who pooled their resources together and would then go around performing random acts of kindness. In his case, they ended up purchasing him a good winter coat and a new laptop to use for college. This would have been in the early 2000's, so it was a pretty generous gift, especially for a starving college student. He was profoundly grateful, and it made a pretty big impact on his life. Or even Jonathon Smith (a.k.a., Michael Landon).

They could call it the Templecarrier. I'm thinking it would be some kind of ginormous watercraft that could go from port to port, sort of like a cruise ship. I would be willing to be an ordinance worker there. They could even have a baptistry that is always below sea level. For a land-based model, I'm thinking you would call it MannaFest Destiny, which I like much better than my first idea: the TabernaKool. I should probably stop now...

That popped up for me yesterday as well. There was a special town council meeting that took place at the end of the month last month, which maybe lasted all of 20 minutes in aggregate (not counting the executive session), where the town moved to engage legal counsel to help out with the situation with the Board of Adjustment, which was the first line of attack they took prior to filing this suit against the city. Here's my transcription of the motion which you can listen to here, starting at the 15 minute mark: The Town Council has a serious concern that the town’s Board of Adjustment may lack authority or jurisdiction to hear the pending appeal over the issues concerning the Town Council’s vote on the LDS CUP zoning ordinance and move that the Council take steps to engage special legal council to represent and advise the Board of Adjustment. The motion was passed unanimously. You can listen to the entire meeting if you want. There are only three people who make public comment - all of whom are from the green shirted Pharisee camp. I probably said this before, but I find it more than a bit ironic that those who contributed monies to the Town's zoning defense fund - both local and outside parties alike - will likely see those funds used to against themselves as they are the ones who are now seeking to pursue litigation over the Town Council's zoning decisions. It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out. When it comes to administrative law, courts tend to be pretty deferential to administrative determinations so long as there isn't any sort of obvious wrongdoing or clear legal error. If calculating the percentage of dissenting property owners along a town border really is an item of first impression - meaning, there isn't clear precedent that it ought to only include property within the municipality - then that likely weights in the Town's favor. I continue to think that Fairview United's decision to pursue litigation is ill-advised. Even if they end up winning and the Town Council's vote gets overruled on a procedural technicality, that will only give the Church standing and more ammo to use in its own future litigation. I don't know why these folks are fighting so hard for what seems to me will, at best, be a Pyrrhic victory. I'm honestly not seeing the up-side for them here.

From Justice Sotomayor's unanimous (and, I think, correct) opinion in Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. v. Wisconsin Labor & Indus. Rev. Comm'n If that's too much legaleze, here's ChatGPT's summary that some may find easier to follow: This case is about how the government draws lines between what counts as "religious" activity for purposes of a tax exemption, and whether those lines unfairly favor some religious groups over others. Background: Wisconsin, like many states, has a law that exempts certain religious organizations from paying into the state’s unemployment insurance system. To qualify, a nonprofit must be: Controlled or supported by a church, and Operated primarily for religious purposes. Catholic Charities Bureau (CCB) and several of its affiliates, which provide social services like food, housing, and job support, are controlled by the Catholic Diocese of Superior. CCB argued they should qualify for the exemption. What the Wisconsin Supreme Court said: The court acknowledged that CCB is church-controlled, satisfying the first requirement. But it denied the exemption on the second point, reasoning that CCB's activities—while inspired by Catholic values—were not “primarily religious” because: They don’t evangelize or try to convert people. They serve people of all faiths, not just Catholics. They don’t distribute religious materials or explicitly promote Catholic doctrine. What the U.S. Supreme Court said: The U.S. Supreme Court rejected that reasoning. It ruled that this way of deciding what counts as “religious” improperly favors certain kinds of religious expression over others, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which requires government neutrality among religions. The Court emphasized that: Some religions express their faith through proselytizing; others, like the Catholic groups here, do so through charitable works without pushing doctrine. The state can't say one type of religious expression is more “authentically religious” than another. Basing tax exemptions on whether a group proselytizes or serves only co-religionists privileges religions that do those things and disadvantages those that don’t. Key Legal Idea: Denominational Neutrality This means the government can’t favor one religious tradition or theological approach over another. For example, a law can’t give tax breaks only to groups that hold services on Sundays or perform baptisms — those are theological choices, and the government must stay neutral on such matters. Why the Court found the law unconstitutional: The Court applied a legal test called strict scrutiny, which is used when the government may be violating fundamental rights. Under that test, the state must: Have a compelling interest, and Use narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. Wisconsin claimed it was trying to ensure workers get unemployment benefits. But: Catholic Charities runs its own benefit system, comparable to the state's. The state offered no evidence that groups like CCB put workers at greater risk of being left out. The law’s criteria excluded groups like CCB while allowing exemptions for others doing nearly identical work—just because they’re structured differently (e.g., part of a church vs. a separate nonprofit). That inconsistency undermined the idea that the law was carefully targeted. Big Picture: This ruling is not just about tax law—it’s about how the government recognizes religious expression. It says the state can’t force religious organizations to conform to one model (like evangelism or exclusivity) to be considered religious. Doing so imposes a theological judgment, which the Constitution forbids.

Sorry. MVP = Minimum Viable Product. There was some language about how a screenshot would not be accepted, so that makes me think the QR codes might be created dynamically and only good for a single use. But yes, having a picture will also help cut down on the possibility of sharing recommends. I was just thinking that, even if you left your phone at home (or in the car, like my daughter does), you could give the recommend desk your member info and they can now look you up and confirm it's really you. Also, hopefully it will get some people to actually upload their picture into Tools...finally.

Yeah, it feels very MVP to me - but maybe those were the requirements they were given. Having a picture associated with it may allow for the temple desk to look you up as well.

According to the March of Dimes, the population of children under the age of 20 in Texas in 2023 was 8,408,601. While I would love for that 79K number to be smaller, it's still just a fraction of a percent (0.94% to be precise). And I agree with what @The Nehor is saying about the likelihood of abductions - that's just not how most trafficking takes place. People aren't circling the malls in panel vans looking for unsuspecting kids / teens. It's more likely to be something like the older boyfriend who says he's in love with a girl, and they just need a little money to get out of town - away from their parents so they can finally just be together - only they don't have enough money, but he knows a friend who is willing to give them some cash if she just does this one thing, this one time...

You don't have to be the one who received the answers in order to reprint a paper recommend though. Anybody in the bishopric can reprint it - even a clerk - so I don't see why it has to be the exact same person if you want to change. I suspect it's really just a technical limitation having to do with how they have set up user permissions within the Church's online system.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

I agree. If that happens (and I actually agree the defense will likely argue something similar) then yes, there would be no reason for the court to order a DNA test. However, if he claims to have never had any sexual contact with her at all, that could change the calculus. Regardless of how that plays out, I think you're still going to end up with some kind of evidence in the public record about him having engaged in activity that could warrant investigation by the Honor Code office.* *Note: I hope it goes without saying that I care more about victims of sexual assault than I do about violations of the BYU Honor Code, but I should probably go ahead and say that explicitly just in case.

The Honor Code office? No, but the woman who filed the suit might be able to - though, technically, it would be the court doing the compelling, not her. In a civil case, a party cannot force another to submit DNA testing on their own. Instead, they must file a motion with the court and show that the DNA evidence is relevant and reasonably necessary to the case. The court then evaluates whether the request is appropriate and not unduly invasive or burdensome. Based on that evaluation the court may then compel the other party to provide a DNA sample. My understanding is that in this case, the woman who is bringing suit had a rape kit performed within a few days of the alleged assault. If there is evidence of foreign DNA, it's possible she could ask the court to compel a sample from the defendant. If she's alleging it came from Retzlaff, the court may determine the DNA is relevant. In that case, a sample from the defendant would be necessary to compare and the intrusion (cheek swab) would be pretty minimal. Therefore a judge could very well grant a motion to compel.