Scott Lloyd

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

. I haven’t listen to Tucker Carlson a day in my life. I hear things about him on occasion and have always steered clear because he seems like a huge idiot. I don’t personally know any conservatives who listen to him either, though I’m sure they must be out there or he wouldn’t have the platform that he does.

You can now say that you know at least one conservative who listens to him. I was never a subscriber to his cable program, but I’ve been a frequent viewer of selections from it on YouTube. I say that unashamedly. 
 

And no, contrary to what you’ve been led to believe (apparently through hearsay), he’s not an idiot. 

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I stand by my belief and prediction that the LDS Faith will eventually recognize, allow, and authorize martial temple sealings between committed same-gender couples after newer, future leadership replaces many/most of the current quorum.

After all, this is not the first time in which former prophets have affirmed “this [thing] will never change,” only to see changes to said thing in subsequent generations.  In fact, it's happened quite a few times over multiple aspects of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints since it's inception.

But you keep doing you, Pres. Oaks and Scott Lloyd! 👍

It’s not just President Oaks and me. The Church News piece indicated he was speaking for the First Presidency. I know from experience the Church News would not have written that in the article unless they were so instructed. 
 

So “you do you,” Daniel2. I’ll cast my lot with the prophets. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I stand by my belief that the Church will not do this, that there has never been any indication that such a change will happen, that there have been ample statements that the doctrines on this point are set, that same-sex relationships and behavior simply do not jibe with either the temporal or eternal elements of the Plan of Salvation, and that notions to the contrary are purely wishful thinking.

And I stand with you. Eloquently stated. 

On 2/12/2023 at 7:25 PM, Peacefully said:

Should our laws be based on both Jewish and Christian values or am I misunderstanding? Also, which Christian values? My upbringing was in Church of Christ which in some ways is much stricter than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I’m not sure you would want our laws based on the beliefs of the C ofC. I think we need to define which Judeo-Christian values we are talking about. 

I didn’t invent the term Judeo-Christian values/ethics. It has been widely used in public discourse for the better part of a century. I use the term in its normative sense to mean the morals and values shared by the two world faiths, Judaism and Christianity. 
 

Rather than go into it at length, I’ll cite this Wikipedia entry:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian_ethics

47 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

None of those values are distinctly Christian except (to a limited degree) the one about loving your neighbor.

They don’t have to be “distinctly” Christian to be Christian. 

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

We have to have Judeo-Christian values first in order to marginalize them.

Define “we”.

On 2/10/2023 at 9:59 AM, smac97 said:

• U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
• If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.

I firmly and unabashedly hold to those beliefs. If that alone constitutes being a “Christian nationalist,” you can add my name to the roster. 
 

I believe we should join with good people everywhere in resisting any movement to marginalize Judeo-Christian values in our society. 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

An update on the Church's position re: the Respect for Marriage Act: Why Latter-day Saints leaders supported the Respect for Marriage Act; President Oaks clarifies the Church’s position

Huh.  I guess the prior statement ("Diverse beliefs about the role of gender in marriage are held by reasonable and sincere people based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises. Therefore, Congress affirms that such people and their diverse beliefs are due proper respect.") was not sufficient.

He may have a point here.

The original statement from the Church on the RMA focused on "diverse beliefs," whereas the foregoing focuses on and emphasizes the "religious liberty" aspect of the RMA.

Here Pres. Oaks returns to the theme of consideration for other people's rights.  Good on him!

Kudos to Pres. Oaks!

Thanks,

-Smac

I saw this Church News article just before I noticed your post citing it.

I believe there has been widespread misunderstanding about the Church leaders’ support of the Respect for Marriage Act — among our own people as well as among outsiders. In my view, this statement of clarification by President Oaks was sorely needed. I earnestly welcome it. 
 

Not long ago, there was a post on this board that included the Church leaders’ support for the Act on a list of examples of how the Church is changing. I responded at the time — and still feel — that the Church statement was, if anything, a doubling down on and a reaffirmation of the Church’s doctrinal view of marriage being between a man and a woman. I pointed out in my response that the Church’s expression of support focused on amendments to the legislation that sustain and protect religious freedom. I made essentially the same points then that President Oaks is making now in this statement of clarification. 
 

One thing that ought to draw our attention is the reaffirmation that the Church’s doctrinal position on marriage “has not changed” and, as stated at the time of the legislation’s enactment, “will not change.” This is very important in view of the continuing baseless and untenable expectation by some that the Church will one day abandon the Lord’s doctrine pertaining to marriage being between a man and a woman. 

18 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I know the Captain Moroni one was part of the January 6 fiasco. (bottom of page 7 - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379/gov.uscourts.dcd.233379.1.1_2.pdf )

Not what I had in mind. 
 

I thought it was something similar to the Teichert case with a family member making a claim against the Church for money owed. But I can’t find anything on it at the moment. 

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My wife works for the church and deals with copyright issues from time to time.  Not on the legal end, but in ensuring that the proper permissions have been obtained for using images.  The church has some fairly exacting processes in place for making sure that everything is done properly.  It surprises me that the church would use images without the permission of the copyright holder.  I'm very interested in hearing the churches response and learning if there is more to the story.

Didn’t the Church go through something similar to this a while back with regard to the Arnold Friberg Book of Mormon paintings?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the Daily Universe:

This is not the first time Tim Teichert has sued the Church.  See here: Minerva Teichert's Grandson's Lawsuit Against the Church

This other suit, originally filed in state court and later removed (transferred to) federal court in Wyoming, appears to be inactive, as there have been no filings since January 2022.

Interesting, though unfortunate, stuff.

I will be interested to see what happens with these.  Certainly the Church and BYU must be held to the same normative standards of the law as any other party.  And though unlikely, it's not inconceivable that BYU has erred in terms of ownership, copyright, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

How sure are we that the plaintiff does represent Teichert’s estate and to what extent, legally or otherwise? There must be dozens of Teichert progeny by now. Are they all onboard with what this grandson is doing?

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Considering buckeye’s post, in conjunction with all the other people I know in wards across the country that do them, I am surprised you’ve not run in to them before. 

I never said I had not run into them before. Please see my reply to Buckeye’s post. 

On 2/7/2023 at 9:22 PM, Buckeye said:

Every ward I’ve lived in since leaving byu has had annual ward goals - Chicago, Ohio, Colorado. My wards growing up probably did too I just never paid attention.  Usually the goals track the church missions (now four-fold but previously three). I’d guess 25% of the years the bishopric has printed the goals and handed out copies to members, typically around ward conference. Usually the metrics are not tracked well except maybe baptisms. 

I’m totally fine with goal setting (I’ve said as much here) and I have no doubt it is common in local Church units. 
 

I do, however, see a distinction between said goal setting and what I take to be the gist of what is contemplated in the OP, that is, formulating an overarching “mission statement” or “vision” for the individual Church unit. We already have that in the form of the Church’s list of four divinely appointed responsibilities. If a unit’s mission statement would align with or merely be a re-wording of that list, why not let the list itself be the mission statement on which the goals are based?

It seems to me a separate mission statement by a unit would at best be extraneous and at worst be prone to crowding out or shunting off to the side the Church’s outline of divinely appointed responsibilities in favor of what the unit deems to be its own focus. 

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Every stake i’ve been in has required each ward in the stake to present goals for that ward at the beginning of the new year.

And I’ve spoken with enough members in other places to know that it’s not unusual (but maybe it’s not church-wide).

But most wards never actually share their goals with anyone else outside of ward council, so most of the time most members of the ward don’t even know the ward or organizational goals exist.

*But to Bring this all back to your original post, the ward and organizational goals are always developed around the fourfold mission of the church, in my experience.  That much is a given. 

Thanks. 
 

So not a Church-wide thing then. And where it does happen, it tends to be an in-house initiative among the ward council.
 

I was feeling rather flat footed when you asked me what our ward was doing about “yearly required goals” as though it were a ubiquitous institutional mandate. I was afraid I’d missed something obvious. 

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

How does your ward approach the yearly required goals?

It strikes me that pretty much everything done in our ward is more or less consistent with one or more of the four divinely appointed objectives. I’m content with that. 
 

I’m unclear, though, on what you mean by “yearly required goals.” I don’t think I’ve seen anything of that nature with a Church-wide scope. 

On 2/5/2023 at 5:19 PM, Calm said:

A past ward approached our yearly mission by taking these four responsibilities and having something more specific for each one that supported them as four goals for the ward.  I thought that was a good way to do it.  

I wouldn’t have a problem with that approach per se. 

This is from the Church’s general handbook:

“The Work of Salvation and Exaltation

“We come unto Christ and assist in God’s work by:
    “Living the gospel of Jesus Christ.

    “Caring for those in need.

    “Inviting all to receive the gospel.

    “Uniting families for eternity.”

It occurs to me that, instead of composing their own “mission statements,” individual units in the Church of Jesus Christ could scarcely do better than embracing and diligently pursuing these four divinely appointed responsibilities. 
 

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed. Groups as a part of the lesson are the worst. 

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

The only thing worse is being the spokesperson for the group.

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

The whole thing just screams “time filler”.  Might as well hand out a word search.  

I sense a groundswell here. Maybe it will develop into a movement and teachers will get the message they should stop doing it. 

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

But what if we skip out when the RS teacher says they are going to be putting us “in groups”? 😅can I just go home and still go to my nieces wedding? Asking for a friend.  

I too hate the practice of dividing the class into groups. For some reason though, professional pedagogues (often including those who are appointed to general Church curriculum committees) seem to love it. 

I’m not reticent, if I have a comment to make, about voluntarily expressing it in class. I don’t respond well, though, to being pressured to take part in ad hoc small-group discussions when I don’t feel so inclined. And yes, I have on past occasions quietly slipped out of class rather than abide it. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's the part I'm struggling to address:

And here:

On the one hand, I think "a pink cake with blue frosting" that even Jack Phillips agrees is not "speech" does not immediately and apparently implicate the First Amendment.  That being the case, nondiscrimination statutes would seem to apply.

On the other hand, I think that Elton John's "Rocket Man" at a Trump rally, whether as a live performance or just playing a recording of it, might be reasonably construed as an endorsement.  If Elton John gets to pick and choose, based on the venue and circumstance, when his music used, why can't Jack Phillips have the right to pick and choose, based on the venue and circumstance, when his cakes are used?

Is "a pink cake with blue frosting," to be used in a particular type of celebration (as we saw with Scardina's cake) comparable to a recording of "Rocket Man" at a Trump rally?

I don't know.  I am soliciting input from you folks.

Thanks,

-Smac

Points well taken. But I thought George Harrison died quite a while before Trump got into politics. 

On 1/20/2023 at 8:42 PM, Pyreaux said:

An A.l. that is dependent on the internet for information is going to be no more intelligent than the ordinary people who write on the internet. It's a red flag is when anyone says, "There is no scientific evidence", it means you are getting information from an unscientific source. There is scientific evidence, whether it convincing is a different issue, most subjects have anomalies that will be considered counter evidence for other hypotheses. The evidence shows Chili was settled long before the corridor opened up for anyone to have come across the Bering Strait. Genetic studies show that one of the founding markers in Native Americans (Navajo, Yakima, Ojibwa etc.) includes X2a2 and it originates from Levant (Ancient Palestine) and not from Siberia.

And it would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for those meddling kids and their mangy dog. 

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Now or back then?

Back when?

42 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Then we get prophecy. If only English spelling was consistent .

If it’s spelled “prophesy,” it’s a verb, not a noun. And the pronunciation is different. 
 

Apostasy is derived from the Greek apostasis and the Latin apostasia. All three are spelled with s — scarcely inconsistent. 
 

Prophecy comes from the Old French proficie, both spelled with c. Again, not inconsistent. 

Apostasy

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I suspect the other 32 are as-yet-to-be-resolved demands for payment.  I suspect the Church either has insurance that covers these sorts of claims, or else is self-insured.  Either way, a demand letter from a law firm is a pretty standard precursor to actually filing a lawsuit.  If the parties can settle without any sort of litigation, so much the better.

I suspect Pfau's law firm has these 63 claims on contingency, meaning the claimants don't need to pay anything in attorney fees, and the attorneys get paid a portion (typically 33%) of any settlement amounts.  So settling before trial (or even before commencing litigation) becomes advantageous to the law firm (litigation involves more work, more risk, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

Even when a case is taken on contingency, the court costs alone can be a disincentive to pursue litigation.