webbles

In the Handbook, the full paragraph says: I wonder if that bolded part will be argued about in the trial. The church allows breaking of the confidentiality if "there is not time to seek guidance" but otherwise keeps it confidential. And in this specific case, all of the known facts show that the bishop did not believe that there was imminent danger and had plenty of time to "seek guidance".

The Arizona Appeals court finally released a Memorandum Decision (so it doesn't create legal precedence). You can read it at https://www.appeals2.az.gov/Decisions/CV20230293Memo.pdf They reversed the trial court. They "conclude that genuine issues of material fact exist as to the Church Defendants’ duty to report under § 13-3620(A)". The other part of the appeal (around whether or not the late testimony from the Does should be accepted) was denied. In the decision, they said that the meeting between the bishop, the abuser, and his wife could be construed as a waiver of privilege. The bishop had already heard the confession and he had invited the wife to hear the confession from her husband. The appeals court sees that as a non-confessional situation. The abuser isn't confessing to the bishop, instead he is confessing to his wife. The bishop is just overhearing it. And that makes it non-privileged. The appeals court also sees the excommunication court as a waiver as well because everyone attending the court were not clergy. I was under the impression that the abuser didn't confess of child abuse in the excommunication court but this might not be proven because it was considered privilege and so no one could say yes or no to the question. The appeals court also questions whether or not the bishop is even allowed to withhold reporting in the first place. The specific law has been understood to only cover communication "anchored in the ecclesiastical rules, customs and laws of the applicable religious group" and since the Handbook allows the bishop to break confidentiality to "prevent life-threatening harm or serious injury" (32.4.4), then the communication isn't actually privileged. I'm not surprised by the first argument (meeting between bishop, husband, and wife). I had initially felt that was a waiver of the privilege. The second argument is a little iffy for me. I know in Washington, there was a similar case and it ruled that all participants in an excommunication trial and classified as clergy and I think that is more correct. The third argument is shocking. That would basically mean that any confession to a bishop dealing with child abuse is not privileged. So now we go back to the trial court and do more discovery over whether or not the privilege was waived or not. I suspect another appeal at some point.

I don't know about botany, but a bachelor's degree in Computer Science from MIT or Stanford is much better than the same degree from most other schools. The teachers and labs are better quality. I didn't go to those schools but I can tell when comparing new graduates and how much they know. Are there graduates from those schools who aren't great? Yes. Are there graduates from other schools that are better? Yes. But in aggregate, graduates from those schools are just better. Talking about botany, I believe a degree dealing with apples from Washington State would be better than one from Yale. That's because Washington State has much better teachers and labs for apples (the Cosmic Crisp and many of the newer varieties of apples come from Washington State). So it isn't just being an "Ivy League" school that is what is important. It is what the school has access to.

Project 2025 is even less than a UN plan. It was just a Heritage Foundation plan. But people who agreed with it were able to get into power and are now implementing parts of it. The UN plan could be done similarly. I agree that the UN can't dictate it. Same as how the Heritage Foundation can't dictate Project 2025. But people who agree with the plan can get into power and then dictate it.

Kind of similar to Project 2025. Except Project 2025 actually got some people in power who can make parts of it happen. If the idealists behind 2030 ever did get power, they would definitely put it into motion.

For the 10 Commandments, I have to ask, which set? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Commandments_text_and_numbering has a decent rundown of the different traditions and their numbering. I believe we (Latter-Day Saints) generally follow the LXX counting in that list. But I suspect the Catholic and Lutheran would be more common for the US. Also, the initial impetus to remove the 10 Commandments was from Stone V. Graham in 1980. It was dealing with a Tennessee law that required all schools to have the 10 Commandments. I disagree with that type of law. I'm fine with allowing the 10 Commandments to be in schools, but not to require it. But if a school does have the 10 Commandments, then it should either strip out the religious related laws (no graven image, etc) or include similar things from other religious traditions.

I decided to ask ChatGPT everything you've said and see if it agrees with your logic. It didn't. I had to keep giving it more and more of your quotes (plus other quotes that I found that you are probably using as your sources) and it still wouldn't accept your logic. I could not convince it that D&C 64 says that all non-tithe payers will burn. I could not convince it that modern prophets teach that all non-tithe payers will burn. I asked it to take the most literal interpretation possible and it still wouldn't. I'd recommend you work on your logical argument. It has too many holes in it. It also found your robber gun argument as really poor.

Then use a better term. The Book of Mormon never once says "Christian Nationalism" nor even "Nationalism". So it isn't a Book of Mormon term. Modern prophets don't appear to have ever used that term. The term has a lot of bad connotations and is extremely off putting. There has to be a much better term that actually fits what is being said.

You should talk to your bishop and ask that it is discussed. Maybe he'll do it or not. But the church, as an organization, is not the one that is hiding it. Elder Snow admitted that they did a soft rollout to try and contain any bad press. That was back in 2014. To say that the soft rollout in 2014 is an attempt to hide them in 2025 sounds silly to me. The church published them, they are easily found. They are definitely valid material to talk about in church lessons where they fit the lesson. I, personally, didn't enjoy the lessons on them in the classes I attended because a 50 minute lesson can not do a deep dive into the topic. I much rather prefer really learning about the stuff vs just getting a high level picture. For me, the articles were a bit of a non-issue because they weren't anything new besides having an easily accessible church approved place that I could point to if needed (I've never needed to do that so they really didn't do anything for me).

I've been to firesides that discussed these topics. I've been to fifth Sunday meetings that discussed this. I've been to Sunday School classes that brought up the essays. I've read plenty of books published by the church and distributed by church owned organizations that talk about these. Maybe your ward and stake is scared to discuss these things, but the church, as a whole, is not. And if you want them to be discussed in your church meetings, talk to your bishop, elder's quorum president, or sunday school president.

You said: That seems to indicate that the members in your family who consumed the material are no longer believers but just playing along because of fear. I also don't believe the church is opposed to people learning about information. Are there some leaders who are? Yes. But not all. So it depends on when and where you are. At sometimes in the past, it wasn't a problem. At other times it was. A lot of times, you can find a reason why the church went defensive. During the Tanner's hey day, the church was pretty defensive and I, personally, feel that was just a reaction to them (and other outside scholars). But you can find inside scholars who got access to a lot of stuff that they wouldn't have let the Tanner's see (for example, the early First Vision document).

I've seen you mention that the scripture is clear on who will burn several times but you seem to be misreading the scripture. It is clear on who will NOT be burned ("he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming"). It is not clear on who WILL be burned. It doesn't say that those who do not pay WILL be burned. I believe someone already mentioned that there are other scriptures that say that many non-tithe payers will not be burned. So not-paying tithing is not an automatic burn card.

EQ has always been that way for me. There's really old jokes about how EQ is like that. I believe High Priests is where crazy discussions used to happen but I guess merging High Priests with Elders has tamped down the enthusiasm for crazy discussions.

I find it interesting that you find the exposure to info as being detrimental. To each their own, but I have always loved learning about it. I learned about the seer stone when I was in high school and absolutely loved it. I learned about Joseph's polygamy in elementary school and loved it. I've always known about weird polygamy situations (my personal ancestry has probably the only church approved pioneer sperm donation). It has always fascinated me and I've enjoyed reading everything I can about it. Yet, none of it has caused me to have a faith crisis with the church. I understand that people do have faith crisis because of it but I'd rather have the information easier to find vs having to dig through libraries. Though, I still sometimes have to dig through libraries because the internet is still missing so much about church history.

Probably depends on the bishop or stake pres. I have a dead relative that was in a study group that ended up deciding that they needed to practice the Law of Consecration in a more correct manner. It was a small branch in the west of Utah and the study group ended up including the branch president and a few other leaders in the area. As they tried to implement the Law of Consecration (without guidance from stake leaders or higher), they came to the conclusion that wives also need to be consecrated to the entire branch. So they began to basically practice wife swapping. It wasn't really polygamy as the wives were shared amongst the members of the study group. It wasn't until an apostle was notified of it that things were shut down. I also have another relative who led several study groups and they did discuss some of the more exotic information (I received a ton of really cool books from him that are definitely not correlated). I don't know of any consequences he had. He continued to do these study groups up until a few years before his death. The groups discussed wide range of material, including plenty of uncorrelated data.

Most recent I know of is in 2002. Elder Holland was the area president in Chile and Elder Oaks was area president in Philippines. They resided there. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/05/news-of-the-church/two-apostles-will-serve-overseas?lang=eng talks about those assignments and other similar assignments. It is definitely rare.

That is terrifying that law enforcement is doing that. Wonder how many false positives it finds. Probably will send some innocent people to jail.

My understanding is that it is a floor. To itemize charitable donations, the amount must exceed .5% of AGI.

There was a discussion about this a few weeks ago but it appears to have been deleted during the spam purge. The published paper about this can be read at https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ads6284. "Clovis-first" isn't widely accepted anymore. There have been a lot of sites found that pre-date clovis. Some very early (like the white sands footprints). But the people in this "lost group" are still related to ancient native americans. They aren't a separate people. They have no descendants, but their genetics show that they branched off of the native american dna. Completely different than what the Book of Mormon posits. It is useful to show that people can become "lost" genetically. Another study that showed ancient native american dna was introduced to polynesian also showed this. They could show the native american dna in the polynesian population because of the small population size. But they can't yet find polynesian dna in the native american population because of the large population size. I'd love it if we could find skeletons from 600 BC to 600 AD in the various sites that are possibly related to the Book of Mormon and do dna work on them. I haven't see any of that yet.

In Sheri Dew's biography of Ezra Taft Benson, she writes about discussions between Benson and President McKay on whether he should accept an offer to be a presidential candidate. (page 383) So ChatGPT is a little wrong. Thurmond was definitely a vice president pick for this ticket. And Benson definitely knew about it. He just wasn't allowed to promote or hinder it, per President McKay.

Maybe he is talking about "The Devil" article from Whittaker. See page 77 at https://books.google.com/books?id=skgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA76&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

The construction work on the Salt Lake Temple have finished moving the temple to its new footings. It is now official free of the earth. Still have over a year to finish everything else. https://www.deseret.com/faith/2025/07/01/salt-lake-temple-back-on-feet-milestone-footings-seismic/

If 20k self identify, then I would assume close to 100% go to church or desire to go to church but can't go for some reason. I think it would be fairly rare to self identify as a member of the church and not desire to go to church. How many PIMOs would self-identify in a private, anonymous census? I would think they would say they aren't LDS. I would love more statistical data from the church, but it has never done that and I don't expect it to ever do that. I doubt there is any nefarious designs. I feel it is really only useful for data nerds. As an example of what we can tease out of the existing statistics, https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2025/04/2024-statisical-report.html points out that the church has a "children of record" issue. In 2024, only 91,617 were recorded which means that only 0.53% of the church membership is babies. Compared to 1982 (which was 2.5%) that is abysmal. Either lots of women stopped having kids or the women who are having kids are not recording them with the church. I suspect the later. It could be that most of the new converts are men (doubtful) or already had children (and so the kids would be converts and not children of record).

The latest census showed that the self-identified members had barely changed since the last census. See https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2022/07/self-affiliated-latter-day-saints-in.html So even though the church baptized over 200k, only 20k were retained.

There hasn't been a sudden stake and ward growth. The requirements that you mention actually make it harder for stakes and wards to be created outside of the US/Canada area. It does make it easier for stakes and wards to be created in the US/Canada but most of the growth is outside of US/Canada. You can see an analysis on what the requirement change means at https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/search/label/Standards for Creating New Units Also, the blog does deal with PIMOs. The person behind it has done surveys with members and tries to figure out what the actual membership count is for active, believing members. In some areas, it estimates the actual believing members is barely over 20%. You are correct that the church has had declining membership in areas of the world. In 2020-2021 period, 22 US states declined in membership. The fact that you see declining membership in Gilbert is already seen and accounted for by the blog. That's why I like that blog because it looks at a more holistic view. Just because the church is shrinking in Gilbert, AZ doesn't mean it is shrinking. And just because the church is growing astronomically in DR Congo (they gained 57 new congregations last year) doesn't mean the church is growing astronomically. Ever year, the blog will put out some posts around the statistical report. These are really useful in looking at the long term growth/shrinkage of the church. Here's the latest on dealing with congregations - https://ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com/2025/04/congregational-growth-by-country-in-2024.html You can see that US lost 15 congregations but, shockingly, it is less than it was loosing previously (last year it lost 21 and the year before that it lost 62). The post analyzes whether that means that the church is trying to "hide" the shrinkage but it shows that the number of members per congregation has barely changed. So, they aren't packing more people in a congregation nor are they making a lot of tiny congregations.