webbles

Just saw this news - https://www.deseret.com/faith/2026/02/23/fairview-texas-temple-begins-construction-grounbreaking/. The temple is officially under construction. I guess all the lawsuits have been resolved.

That's not the rule. I think it was clearer in the pre-1990 endowment when it explicitly stated that the Law of Chastity was that women should only have sex with their husbands and that men should only have sex with their wives (I have a printed copy made by the Tanners that I inherited from my grandfather). The 1990 change made it sound more like "no sex without marriage", but the current law of chastity in the temple is closer to what it was in pre-1990 since it also refers to opposite-gendered marriages.

So you just don't think they will ever pick a black or brown? I guess I'm trying to understand what you would think if an apostle was black or brown. Say the next apostle picked is Elder Edward Dube (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/edward-dube?lang=eng). How would that affect your view of the leaders?

If the next apostle does happen to be brown or black, how would you explain that based on your belief of how they act? Would this be a token apostle? Or have they changed their minds? Or what? Just curious because you seem to be fairly adamant that the current leadership doesn't like the idea of black or brown apostles. Also, how do you deal with the idea of 70s who are black and brown? Or that there is a Presidency of the Seventy who is black?

It has nothing to do whether the church is willing or not. That is just bad reporting. The church could have been willing, but the perpetrator can prevent it. If the perpetrator allowed it, then I doubt the bishop would be needed to testify since that means the perpetrator is already willing to confess. And what law would Rytting be violating? Most privilege is only around court room testimony. Outside of that, the privilege usually isn't valid. Let's use the clergy/penitent privilege as an example. Say a bishop hears a confession from a perpetrator. He is not legally required to tell the officials in most of the states. He is required, by the church's handbook, to keep it confidential. And the perpetrator has clergy/penitent privilege to prevent the bishop from testifying. Even with all of that, the bishop is legally allowed to go to the police and tell them what he learned. The church might discipline him for going against the handbook, but that isn't a legal issue. And the clergy/penitent privilege can't stop the bishop from going to the police. But, if the police can not find any other evidence and all they have is the testimony of the bishop, then they have no case. Because if they charge the perpetrator with a crime, all of the bishop's testimony MUST be ignored. They can't use it as evidence. They can't have him sit in the witness stand. The bishop can't do anything. Because the perpetrator has the clergy/penitent privilege and can prevent the bishop from saying anything about what was confessed. This is the situation in pretty much every state (even the states that make bishops be mandatory reporters without any loopholes). If the police do find evidence (say they talk to the victim who is willing to testify, or the talk to another witness, or they find a recording, etc), then the police can charge the perpetrator. Even if the source of the original information is from the bishop. Now, the guy could sue the bishop for going to the police. But in most (and maybe all) states, reporting child abuse is usually given immunity from those type of suits. There was a case in Oregon where a wife of a perpetrator sued the church for turning in her husband to the police. It was dismissed after several months https://www.statesmanjournal.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/08/turner-woman-mormon-lds-church-child-sex-abuse-lawsuit-oregon/2832368001/ and https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16799523/johnson-v-corporation-of-the-president-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of/

That is advocating killing the white man. It isn't advocating killing the child or the black woman.

This made me curious about Elder Soares ancestry since there are a lot of German Brazilians who were baptized in the early days of the church in Brazil. I found both his parents in family search and traced his geneology. He is definitely not German. His father's family has lived in Brazil since pretty much its discovery by Portugal. He even has Native American ancestry because of some really old ancestors who had Native American wives. His mother's parents are immigrants from Portugal and Spain. He is definitely Brazilian, Portuguese, and Spanish, with a very small dash of Native American.

Sorry, I meant to reply to this and it looks like I deleted it from my other comment. This doesn't show Van Komen saying that the helpline doesn't keep notes. This shows that Family Service employees don't keep notes. But, again, Family Service != helpline. The helpline is a 1-800 number that goes to both Family Service employees and attorneys. Where does Van Komen say that the helpline (aka the 1-800 number, aka all the people who accept those calls) don't keep notes? Please stop equating the helpline to Family Services. They are not the same thing.

He wasn't going to share notes. He was going to see if her father had confessed previously. He is helping a victim, which sounds like a great idea. It sounds like there wasn't enough evidence to be able to take the guy to court (and no, the bishop could not testify, anything he said would be thrown out of court). The pbs article is really bad reporting and since we don't have the tapes, we don't know for sure what was proposed. But what would be the purpose of seeing if her dad had confessed to someone else? How would that help Chelsea or the court case, especially when she already knew that he had confessed to others? Maybe Rytting was proposing to help see if there was something else that could actually be used in court. If there was something in the notes that could point to evidence outside of the confession, then it could be helpful.

That's my understanding as well. Yes, the Family Services does not keep any helpline notes. But that doesn't mean there are no helpline notes. The two are not the same: "Family Service notes" != "helpline notes". The Family Service notes are a part of the helpline notes. The attorneys also have helpline notes. Why do you think calling the attorney notes "helpline notes" amateurish? That's what I would call them. That's apparently what he calls them as well. Why would you not think he would call them that in the court of law? They are privileged records, but they are also helpline records. What would you call the notes of the attorney who answered the helpline? They don't keep records at Family Services. We know they keep records with the attorneys. And it makes sense to not keep records at the Family Services. It would be poor form for them to be keeping records. Why should they keep notes of people they don't have a relationship with? I would suspect that is probably a HIPAA violation of some sort. And why do they need to keep a record of who answers the calls? I agree that people are having issues with it, but I believe it is mostly caused by really bad reporting. Take your initial abc news article. It was poorly done. It used the wrong names, said the wrong things. Poor reporting has been very unhelpful. Van Komen has only said that the Family Service keeps no records and if that had been properly reported by news articles, there would be a lot less confusion. The Family Service destroys every single record for when they work on the helpline because they don't have a relationship with those involved. Their records aren't privileged so it could be used in courts. Say you go to the bishop and talk about a marital issue and how you need counseling. The bishop calls the helpline to find a good counselor for you. You start to go to that counselor and don't tell you spouse. Your spouse discovers you going to a counselor and for some reason decides to divorce you. If the helpline counselor had kept notes, the spouse could bring that into the divorce proceedings. I wouldn't want that to happen. They aren't destroying notes to harm children. It is to protect people. If abuse happens, it seems they send it directly to attorneys because the attorneys can take notes and have them legally privileged. That can then be used to actually help the children. The helpline has actually been used to turn in abusers. I don't see why an attorney would not call it helpline notes. But let's say they aren't. Why wouldn't Rytting call it that when talking to a non-attorney? And clergy/penitent privilege only deals with what is allowed in court. And it also has nothing to do with the helpline. That is covered under attorney/client privilege, which also really only deals with what is allowed in court. But let's say it does matter here. Who the client is for the helpline? The church. So Rytting, in his job for the church, is a client of the attorneys and definitely can use those records to help others.

The problem is that you keep saying that the helpline doesn't take notes. I've shown multiple times that it does keep notes. Van Komen never, ever says that the helpline doesn't keep notes. If you believe Van Komen does say that, find it for me, please. This is what Van Komen does say (all from the Bisbee deposition): First, just to clarify that we are talking about the helpline/hotline: So, Van Komen is talking about the helpline and hotline. Specifically the 1-800 number. Now, to discuss who answers it. This is several question/answers: In these question/answers, he states that both attorneys and Family Service employees answer the phones. Sometimes the attorneys answer first, sometimes the Family Service employees answer first. The helpline IS NOT the Family Service. It goes to both attorneys and Family Service employees. So notes written by both groups are, by definition, helpline notes. If an attorney answers the phone and takes notes, he is taking notes about the helpline. Additionally, Van Komen even mentions notes by the attorneys: Right there, Van Komen is explicitly stating that the Family Services employees who answer the helpline do not keep notes but the attorneys who answer the phone do. So, what am I missing? Why are the attorney notes not helpline notes even though they are answering the helpline and taking notes while listening to the helpline. Why are you insisting the helpline notes are destroyed when it is only the Family Service notes of the helpline that are destroyed.

Where in the deposition do you believe his "I don't know" is actually lying? I've read it a few times and I seem to be missing this part that you are talking about.

Oh, I see what you are trying to say. You think that Rytting and Van Komen are talking about the same records because they both talk about the helpline. But the helpline can call both Family Services employees and McConkie lawyers. As the privilege log for the Bisbee case shows, there are times that the call goes directly to the attorneys and doesn't go through any social worker. So, the Family Services notes are NOT the only helpline records. Van Komen is talking about the records that he knows about. He is not talking about other helpline records that might exist. Rytting isn't talking about the Family Services notes when he talks about the helpline records. Also, have you seen the call log (aka privilege log)? Here's the one from the Bisbee case - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22277029-mormon-church-help-line-call-logs/. You'll want to go to page 260/261. It has a "Description of Entry" which discusses a short item about it. So the first entry says "Initial Case Summary based on conversation between Merrill Nelson (A) and Bp. John Herrod". There's another one that says "Note discussing Merrill Nelson's (A) conversation with Bp. John Herrod." There's one that says "Summary of Merrill Nelson's (A) call with SP Kevin Goates". Notice how we have summaries and notes? We don't know whether they destroy them or not but it looks like they don't. That is the helpline records that Rytting is using.

Yes, the helpline and the hotline are the same thing. I don't see what that has to do with anything. There are 3 types of records. I don't know why you are ignoring that. There are the call logs which we absolutely do have. In that affidavit, they reference the call logs (the attorneys refer to it as the "privilege log"). So it makes no sense to say that Van Komen said there were no call logs when they talk about the call logs in the same affidavit. There are the Family Service notes. This is what Van Komen is talking about. This is what is destroyed. He solely talks about what he and his colleagues at the Family Services do. And then there are attorney records. We have no insight into them. They are protected by attorney/client privilege. In that affidavit, the plaintiff attorney tries several questions to get information about what the attorneys might have and is either rebuffed with a privilege objection or Van Komen says he doesn't know. It would appear that there are records that the attorneys keep and that is what Rytting is possibly using (though the call log seems to be enough for his comment to Chelsea). This new announcement from the church definitely looks like it is using some sort of attorney record. So it makes it more likely that those are being kept.

Van Komen is talking about the Family Services records. Those are destroyed every day. There are no records of those. But Rytting isn't using those. We know that the call logs are kept. No one has ever said those are destroyed. They have been used in multiple cases (both the West Virginia and the Bisbee case used them). We also have absolutely no idea if there are records being stored by the attorneys. It seems like there are records of those kept around but the only people with access to them are the lawyers. And Van Komen isn't a lawyer so he wouldn't know. Rytting isn't lying.

That PBS article (which is based on an earlier AP article) is incorrect in its presentation of what was testified and what was said. I've noticed this quite a bit with articles around sex abuse cases dealing with the church. You usually have to find the original article to figure out what is said and sometimes have to go to the affidavit or court record. In this case, the original article that talks about the West Virginia case and the affidavit is https://apnews.com/article/Mormon-church-sexual-abuse-investigation-e0e39cf9aa4fbe0d8c1442033b894660. It talks about the sealed records that the AP gained access to. They talk about an affidavit from Roger Van Komen (NOT Rytting) who says "Those notes are destroyed by the end of every day." Unfortunately, people have taken that to mean that all records/notes are destroyed yet we have had definitive proof that is a false idea for years. We know that the call logs are kept because they have been used in court cases. Komen is also a licensed social worker and not a lawyer so he would have no knowledge of what is happening on the lawyer side. And we know that any communication between the bishops and lawyers is considered privileged (though there have been attempts to break that privilege), per Rytting in an affidavit from the West Virginia case (also from that AP article): "The church has always regarded those communications between its lawyers and local leaders as attorney-client privileged". In the Arizona case, it is an affidavit from Komen that is being referred to. You can read the full affidavit at https://bhroberts.org/records/XYNbob-TsWxHb/roger_w_van_komen_church_helpline_employee_states_that_merrill_f_nelson_handled_the_bishop_herrod_helpline_call_in_the_bisbee_arizona_sexual_abuse_case. In there, Komen says several things: So, we have at least 3 types of records: Call logs (kept and not destroyed) Notes from social workers (destroyed at the end of the day) What ever is recorded at the lawyers office (unknown on how long these are kept) The statement of Rytting to Chelsea is almost definitely about the call logs. It might also be about the lawyer records. It isn't the notes because we know that is destroyed. Rytting isn't lying because, 1) he never stated in a sworn affidavit that the records are destroyed (that was Komen and the PBS article is mistaken), and 2) there are records that aren't destroyed. And Komen isn't lying because he is talking about the notes from the social workers which are destroyed every day. The PBS article is also mistaken in thinking it is the church's fault that the bishop couldn't testify in Chelsea's case. He legally would not be allowed to testify. Idaho law prevents it, see https://isc.idaho.gov/ire505. Specifically, "A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent another from disclosing a confidential communication by the person to a clergyman in the clergyman's professional character as spiritual adviser. " That means that the confessor can prevent the bishop from testifying. The bishop could get on the stand and everything he says would be thrown out of court. This is something that articles sometimes really mess up. They blame the church over something that is not the church's fault.

I was going through a few of the court records where it talks about these calls and what records are kept. We knew before this announcement that they do keep records of who is called and when. That was used with the Bisbee case to figure out which attorney handled the call. But, it wasn't clear if these records also had social workers who were involved. This announcement looks to clear that up (which would mean that in the Bisbee case, no therapist was involved). Any records about what was discussed in calls with the attorneys has always been considered privileged so we don't know if they were destroyed, kept, etc. The only statements about destroyed records are about the social worker records. So, unless people under oath have been lying (which would be really stupid and is highly unlikely), the details are probably coming from a mixture of the call records, the attorney records and the memories of the social worker. For instance, the bullet point about the stake president would be from the call log since it just says that someone reached out to the stake president. The bullet point about self-reporting could be from the attorney records or the social worker memories. The bullet point about discussion of steps would have to come from the social worker memories (unless the attorney was on the same call and had notes).

That's an interesting rebuttal. I think it would also mean that lawsuits around abuse now know that they can try and get those records. I doubt the records with the social worker has any privileges and I'm not sure the existence of a telephone call to an attorney would be considered privileged. So we might see more of this type of information leak out, either as a response through the newsroom or as evidence in a court case.

I don't think he argued that but he did give a talk at an event in 2023 where some of the other speakers did argue that. I think this theory is fairly new in its modern form but does have some articles, youtube videos, and a few events discussing it.

He's been talking about monogamy for quite some time. So unless this is a new thing (excommunicating for advocating that Joseph never practiced polygamy), I doubt it. I'm not even sure if he is an active member at this time. I remember looking into whether he is a Snufferite at one point because many of his arguments followed Snuffer's.

Would Joseph be more of a fire and brimestone style preacher? Raising his voices at times, maybe even yelling at certain points? The speech pattern here is too smooth. I heard something similar from an AI recreated speech of Hyrum Smith (no visual, just voice) and it also bugged me because it was like he was trying to put me to sleep.

It is interesting. I don't care for seeing live actors portray the Savior because the actors don't look or sound correct to me (this includes all of the church videos which I have a hard time watching), and I kind of have the same problem here, though it is just an AI version. And it is too much uncanny valley as well. First time I started the video, I had to quickly quit it because of how jarring it was. But others probably don't have those problems.

The case against the church has been flagged as a "high profile case" in the court website so you can find all the files related to it at https://www.azcourts.gov/News-Info/CV-25-0213. That has the petition to review, the response, and all of the amici so far. An interesting thing I found as I read the petition and response, is that the plaintiffs are fine with marking one of the petitions (there are 3) as moot because the handbook that was used by the appeal court was from 2020 and the specific line the appeal court used didn't exist in the earlier handbook. Also, the church is focusing very much on Church Autonomy doctrine and says that is why the appeals court is wrong. And the plaintiffs are focusing very much on how this is a secular decision that has nothing to do with church autonomy and that the churches shouldn't hide behind the church autonomy doctrine.

More updates on this case. The 3 cases have been petitioned to the AZ Supreme Court. And the court recently decided on if the petitions will be accepted or not. The case with the bishop's doctor's office has been declined (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250144.pdf). So the appeals decision stands which ruled in favor of the bishop as a doctor. I think that means that case is finished. The case with the visiting teacher/friend (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250107.pdf) and the case with the church (https://apps.azcourts.gov/aacc/appella/ASC/CV/CV250213.PDF) have been accepted and will move to oral argument sometime after March. I'm really curious about an amicus brief filed in support of the church from a wide assortment of religions (Seventh Day, Muslim, Jewish, Swaminarayan, Episcopal, Scientology) but I haven't yet found a copy of that brief yet.

This made me curious about how many men had entered polygamy by the time the Nauvoo temple was finished. Per https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/n1/mode/2up, I counted about 150 men who were sealed to at least two living women. More than I expected, but still a small percentage.