Amulek

My understanding is that the university reserves the right to investigate reported or suspected Honor Code violations at its discretion, regardless of when the alleged misconduct took place. I don't see anything in their policy (see, e.g., here) which would preclude them from initiating an investigation so long as there is "sufficient, reasonable, and credible information that an Honor Code violation has occurred."

When my wife and I moved into our current home, roughly 15 years ago, our house was the de facto meet-up place for all of the kids in the neighborhood. In fact, I remember my wife telling me to go and tell them not to hang on our tree, but I refused to go out and tell them to get off my yard. Anyway, fast forward to today, and I rarely see any kids hanging out together in the neighborhood - regardless of the time of day or year; it's just not something that happens as much as it used to. I think a big part of it is technology driven. When I was a kid (Gen X here), hanging out with the kids in your neighborhood was pretty much your only option for socialization. I mean, sure, you could use a land line to call and talk to a friend on the other side of town, but you probably only had one phone line in your house, and you weren't going to be allowed to monopolize that. Compare that with today where elementary schoolers have all got cell phones and access their IRL friends plus anyone who shares their same interests. My tween-age son is perfectly happy to go outside and meet up with his friends for a Pokemon Go raid, but he's equally happy to fire up Discord and hop on the Minecraft server that he and his orchestra friends are on. It's different from what I grew up with, but I don't know that it's worse. All of the people he's growing up with - the people he's going to be interacting with in life - are all going through the same sorts of things, so he'll be well positioned to operate in that environment.

I assume this is in regard to the civil suit recently filed against Jake Retzlaff. In Utah, for civil cases involving allegations of sexual assault the standard of proof is the "preponderance of the evidence." This means the plaintiff must demonstrate that it is more likely than not - essentially, a greater than 50% likelihood - that the defendant committed the alleged misconduct. This is a lower threshold compared to criminal cases, which require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt." A criminal conviction is not a prerequisite for pursuing a civil lawsuit. In fact, even if a defendant is acquitted in criminal court (or never charged), a victim can seek damages through a civil action. There have been several high-profile cases where civil suits have been successful even after criminal charges were dropped or resulted in acquittal (e.g., O.J. Simpson, Robert Blake, Michael Jackson, etc.). There isn't enough information available at this stage for me to come to anything close to a conclusion about anything other than my strong suspicion that, at minimum, Mr. Retzlaff will be in trouble with the Honor Code office and BYU will be looking for a new starting QB this summer.

That is correct. If you want the mobile version and the person who interviewed you originally is no longer in the position (e.g., moved, calling change, etc.) then you have to start over. It seems weird to me that it has to be the exact same person with no exception, even for the Bishop. I guess I just view changing from paper to mobile as being the equivalent of re-printing an existing recommend (which anybody can do) - not issuing a completely new, separate recommend (which seems to be how the Church is viewing it, at least for now).

This went live in our area earlier this week. One of the quirks we've encountered off the bat is that, at least currently, only the priesthood leader who performed the initial interview is capable of changing it from paper to digital. So, for example, if the 1st Counselor did the interview for a current recommend, he's the only one who can process the change to digital. Nobody else can do it - not even the Bishop, which seems weird to me.

Fairview residents have now filed an appeal challenging the Town Council's recent approval of a permit to build the temple. You should be able to read all of the details here: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fairview-residents-challenge-council-s-approval-of-lds-temple-permit/ar-AA1FdN03 I haven't read the actual appeal, but the crux of their argument (according to the article) is that it takes a three-fourths majority to change a zoning rule* when it has been protested in writing by property owners of at least 20% of the land w/in 200 feet of the proposed site. The city and the residents disagree about how to go about calculating the 20% figure. If the residents' math is correct - a question that is not really clear, and which they are asking the town to take to the state attorney general - then that would meant it ought to have taken six votes in order to grant the permit as opposed to the five (of seven) it actually received. I really don't think these folks have thought this all the way through. Given the voluminous amount of prejudicial commentary from town leaders that accompanied the most recent vote, the last thing they are going to want is for this thing not to be over. Because if this continues on, the chances of it ending up in court increases dramatically, and if this ends up in federal court these guys are going to get roasted. *Edit to add: I'm not really sure what zoning rule they think has been changed. There was (and is) no rule about church height in the Town of Fairview. I think they are conflating prior precedent with an actual rule, but legally those aren't the same thing.

Context does matter. And from what I have read, I think some of the kids here are being whiny babies about the whole thing and blowing it way out of proportion. If their parents had been been inundating them with LDS paraphernalia, day in and day out, that would be one thing, but that isn't the case. This was a one time deal, and it included a message that was overwhelmingly supportive and loving, along with the kind of warm, noncommittal, open-hearted invitation that I think someone ought to be able to tolerate without flipping out. Going back to your football analogy - which, as a non-sports lover, I can definitely identify with - what if the football-loving friend in your story wasn’t just any fan, but, say, Tom Brady? And instead of a generic jersey, he gave you one that he personally signed - not because he expected you to become a football fan, but because it was a heartfelt gesture from someone for whom football is a deep part of who they are? Even if you don’t care for football, you should be able to recognize that the gift isn’t really about the sport - it’s about connection. It’s them saying, “This is something important to me, and I want to share part of myself with you.” To me, that’s the spirit of the kind of gesture we’re talking about here. It's not about coercion or pressure; it's just a personal and meaningful expression of love, even if it doesn’t perfectly align with the recipient’s interests or personal beliefs.

I think this sounds pretty good. However, you are going to want to replace all of the em dashes with regular hyphens. This many em dashes in this short of a piece screams ChatGPT to me, and the last thing you want is for your kids think you asked an LLM to come up with an apology for you. That won't help them believe you are being sincere. I would also remove the text in the first paragraph which reads "[...] - the decorated Book of Mormon." They know which gift you are talking about; you don't need to name it specifically. Its presence sets off my AI sensors as well, so probably dump that as well to be safe.

Maybe he should be - but I doubt she hasn't had any say in the responsibilities she has taken on. Now, maybe she feels compelled to do so much because of her own values and expectations, but I believe individuals have to find their own boundaries within any system - be that work, church, etc. Failure to do so will result in burnout.

I see where you are coming from, and I kind of agree. However, I’m not sure I’d go so far as to call it manipulative. If a gift is an expression of someone’s talent or has personal meaning, even if it carries a religious tone, it can come more from a place of connection than control. Sometimes it's just a way of saying, "You're still important to me, and this is part of who I am." I think intent matters a lot, and labeling it manipulative might overlook the nuance or sincerity behind the gesture.

I have personally received plenty of gifts that were either unwanted or un/under-appreciated (e.g., lottery scratch-offs, bottles of alcohol (in varying degrees of quality), a DVD of Battlefield Earth, etc.). Somehow, I was able to accept all of those gifts without assuming sinister motives on the part of the gift givers. Is it nice when somebody knows you well enough to give a gift you really love - of course it is. But sometimes people give gifts that are meaningful to them. That's just how people are. If you get something you don't care for, then feel free to return, re-gift, recycle, or do whatever you want with it, and then move on with your life. The world won't end.

That's how it is in Texas, and I haven't seen any signs that the Church is interested in fighting it, so I assume they'll do the same thing in Washington. Personally, I don't really care for the wishy-washy approach the Church has taken on this. I feel like they should take a principled stand one way or the other: either decide that (1) the welfare of children supersedes the the sanctity of the confessional and have all bishops behave as mandatory reporters always, or (2) stand with the Catholics and say that confessional is sacrosanct. And then use the Church's resources to support those who follow through on that moral position - regardless of what the law may be.

How much of what they are saying comes from what we are doing and saying, and how much is their own perceptions or interpretations based on their situation. Hard to say. I have seen what I consider to be microaggressions before, but I have also seen what I have come to refer to as macro-sensitivities as well. The two axioms I try to live by on this front are: (1) Try not to offend; and (2) Try not to take offense. If your children know you are genuinely not trying to offend them, intentionally or otherwise, that will hopefully give them the space they need to begin not seeing every little thing as being a dig against them. How can we be better as parents in making them feel loved (other than never talking about our faith)? This is a tough one. I think the best way to approach it is to work on making sure they understand you love them. Period. Not "I love you (despite your bad choices)," which is the unstated premise that sometimes gets read into that sentiment. Is it wrong that we ask them not to drink in our home - we don't care or comment if they drink at restaurants or at home when we are present? (The girls said they are upset they can't have a glass of wine at Thanksgiving dinner etc.) I would ask them if they would like a slice of cheese to go with that whine. Or maybe just hand them my phone to dial whine-1-1 for a waambulance. For a more mature approach, I would just try to acknowledge their feelings and say something like, "Look, we understand this feels frustrating for you, especially when it’s just a single glass at a holiday meal. We’re not trying to judge or control your life - you are all grow-up adults, who we love - this is just something that matters to us in our home." Any idea why it's the girls who are upset with us, while the boys seem less so? Your sons may be more able to compartmentalize your beliefs from their relationship with you (e.g., “Dad is religious, I’m not, and that’s fine"), whereas your daughters may feel more emotionally entangled in whether or not they feel fully seen or accepted the way they are. And they may sense a stronger hope or expectation (even if unstated) that they ought to come back to Church. Also, and I believe somebody else may have said something along these lines already, but girls and women are often socialized from a young age to be more emotionally attuned - both to themselves and to others - so they may be picking up on tone, subtext, or perceived pressure in a way your boys are not. And this emotional attunement also means they may carry emotional memory more deeply - feeling past hurts or discomfort even if they can’t pinpoint specific events.

The same thing we do in other jurisdictions - follow the law of the land. For whatever reason, the Church doesn't regard priest/penitent communications to be sacrosanct the way our Catholic brethren do.

It's been a while since I've seen @Dan McClellan around here, but I catch his YouTube posts from time to time and generally find them to be pretty enjoyable. Glad to see he's having success with his most recent book. Keep it up!

Unfortunately, if I were to post a comment on YouTube, my handle might be enough to get me doxed. In fact, I haven't even said everything I could about the matter on this board for the very same reason. Generally speaking though, I don’t think it’s fair to portray the Church as a bully simply for standing up for its civil rights. And I have a bit of a gripe about the way people have been using the term "neighborly" in this discussion as well. If you declined to let the police search your home without a warrant, do you think it would it be reasonable for people to accuse you of not being neighborly? I'm sorry but no, that's just not what neighborly means.

One of the things that has really bothered me about this whole process has been the politicians' persistent mischaracterization of the law. I cannot possibly believe they do not actually understand their own zoning statutes, yet they continually accused the church of "violating the town's ordinances." I feel like that was a major driver in stoking the flames and making this whole process be much more contentious than it needed to be. They're politicians though, so I'm not sure why I would expect them to behave differently.

Just got home and saw that @helix has already scooped me! One thing that is important to clarify. When the mayor said he was angry with "you people," he clarified that he was speaking only about a couple of individuals, not the members in general. May have more to say tomorrow. Got to hit the hay for now though.

Made it in to the town council meeting. I won't be live blogging tonight though. Apparently I showed up in some of the pictures last week and I was looking down, not appearing to be engaged, so I'll just try to post the results tonight and then maybe get to the summary tomorrow - unless I get riled up and need to vent. 😉

Sorry for not posting this yesterday when I saw it, but as of April 28, the First Presidency has approved a name change for the planned McKinney temple. It will now be known as the Fairview Texas Temple: https://www.thechurchnews.com/temples/2025/04/28/first-presidency-releases-new-name-updated-rendering-mckinney-texas-temple/ Hopefully that will make things go a little smoother at the Town Council meeting tonight. I plan on stopping by after I get off work to see if I can make it into the meeting again. It's overcast but not raining, so there might be much better turnout. If that ends up being the case, I'll just go home and watch it online like everyone else. For those interested in watching, it will be live streamed at 7:00 PM Central, here.

Since the temple resides in Fairview itself, yes, you are going to have to enter the town in order to get there. The point I was trying to make is that from pretty much anywhere in the Metroplex, you are going to be following the signs to McKinney almost all the way there. When you leave the airport, you're going to be following signs to McKinney. If you're coming down from Sherman - again, you'll be following the signs to McKinney. Need to come up from Dallas to attend a family member's sealing - also, follow the signs to McKinney. In fact, now that I think about it, I don't believe there are any signs on the freeway - any freeway - saying how many miles you are away from Fairview. It's more than a one traffic light town, but it's not much more than a single exit. You're probably going to be talking about McKinney, Allen, Frisco, Plano, Richardson, etc. There is one stake in McKinney. There is one ward in Fairview, which is technically part of the Allen Texas stake. I don't know that they have finalized the areas that will be part of the McKinney Texas temple district, but you can look at the areas served by the Dallas temple here: https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/dallas-texas-temple/district/ The Fort Worth temple will pick up a big chunk of towns on the west side, and McKinney will alleviate pressure from the North / North Eastern direction.

Also, when you land at DFW and leave the north side of the airport on 121, which kind of runs diagonally (SW to NE), you can either go south to Fort Worth or north to McKinney; it's kind of the outside boundary of the Metroplex over on this side of the world.

I understand that as well. I think the Church just views it as being more helpful (communication wise) for insiders. There are about 10 congregations in McKinney; there's only one in Fairview. And technically, Fairview resides within a McKinney zip code as well - though I'm sure, at some point, that may change. I'm suspect Burleson might want to maximize the benefits to their town by having the temple named after it as well, rather than it being called the Fort Worth Temple, but pretty much everybody has a rough idea of where Fort Worth is; Burleson, not so much. To be clear, McKinney's no Fort Worth - not by any stretch of the imagination - but I think most people around here have got a better idea of where it is than Fairview.

Fairview doesn't have sewer service for that part of Stacy Road, so they want us to secure sewer rights as a condition of building. The Church has already received notice from the City of Allen saying they have the capacity to handle it without issue - they just didn't go all the way to saying they would supply service, because they are trying to stay out of Fairview's business and not commit to actually doing anything until Fairview agrees to let us build something.

When the add it as a condition, yes, that is deeply problematic. If they simply explain that it rubs people the wrong way and politely note that making a change might make it a bit easier for some of the people on the other side to embrace / go along with it, I'm 100% fine with that.