First, you found a way to potentially make the show profitable, so you decided to sign a contract detailing how the profits and ownership of the show would be split between you. I helped you sign a contract giving you a 50/50 split.

Then, on the next week's show, Geoff was arguing that he should have more than 50% and was trying to convince Al that Al should get less. Al was telling Geoff that he was being completely ridiculous.

End of dream.

Just a follow up about the donation to the University of Utah. Geoff put the question forward about if it was tithing money the was using would they need to clear it by the general church body before doing so. That answer can be found in Doctrine Covenants 120. The only people that have to sign off on the use of tithing funds is the Council on Disposition of the Tithes which includes the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, and the Presiding Bishopric. If they all support it the check is delivered.

I would agree, however, that this $4 million is probably outside the tithing funds. Similar to City Creek project. In reference to why they would pick THIS public institution over others is because it is in Salt Lake. Similar to the City Creek project they have to continue investing in the headquartered city because it reflects so much on the church.

One last thought/question….as you guys travel around on do your show in person will you have a studio audience? Might be a nice touch.

Thank you, Guest!

-Geoff

But I do think that we will continue to be a bit more inclusive and a bit less harsh towards those who are on different paths.

Thanks for your comment!

-Geoff

While the Church as always viewed homosexual acts as sinful, it wasn't that long ago that merely being gay was seen as sinful. Surveying the church literature over the past few decades proves this fairly well. While I am not sure where the Church will ultimately end up on this issue, you can't say that its position never changes.

But really, Guys, I'm staying up late to address the issue of Mormonism and Feminism per this show and comments on Episode #106.

People! Mormonism is the most feminist "franchised" Christian church on the planet. We believe in a female deity that is equal to our male deity. So, what about The Priesthood? Remember that it is a power and not a group of men, unless you are Catholic.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there is a difference between holding keys of the priesthood and exercising keys of the priesthood. It is a grossly overlooked fact that there are circumstances under which women formally exercise The Priesthood – temple workers, for instance. In the first Relief Society, as organized by Joseph Smith, women routinely blessed other women, esp. before childbirth.

(Sidebar: A specific race was not a prerequisite to receiving The Priesthood from J.S. either. I find it interesting that there is no extant revelation after that saying, "Only give The Priesthood to certain races." I think, “innocently”, man did that on his own.) (And because I don’t know if The Priesthood should be capitalized or not I’m going to continue to do it to be consistent. Please don’t hate on me, Geoff, if this is incorrect.)

Back to feminism. Sometimes The Priesthood and Patriarchical Order are spoken of as if they are the same thing. They are not. Obviously there is overlap. However, it seems to me Patriarchical Order makes its debut in Moses 4 as a consequence of The Fall. If that is the case, I would interpret Patriarchal Order to be a construct of mortality like blood and death. (wink) This is speculation that cannot be confirmed or denied because there is no revelation on women’s roles in “the church” in the eternities. Maybe women ARE proverbial EQP.

We DO know that gender is an eternal principal. And that families are eternal. But we don’t know how those roles play out in an exalted state. We know on Earth a father’s primary role is to “provide the necessities of life” (Family: A Proclamation to the World) “by the sweat of thy face” (Moses 4:25 – a consequence of the fall.) And that a mother’s primary role is nurturing children. Both partners help each other as “equal partners.” What about immortal states?

Seems all we’ve been told is that Heavenly Father’s work is to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” That sounds a whole lot like “nurturing children.” If men and women are equal partners on earth I think it is safe to extrapolate they are equal partners when exalted. I imagine Deity being one in purpose and power.

Agreed on the awesomeness…Elder Hallstrom's talk may have been my favorite from the entire conference. And, as Geoff said, I have felt for a long time that the wording "church is true" is ridiculous. Just like "Joseph Smith is true." No sense! And I'm true too…and my neighbor's dog is true… Anyway, you both said it all beautifully; the church, while led by inspired individuals, is simply the vehicle which should bring us to the Gospel of Christ. And while the Church should be a way in which the Gospel manifests itself (and thus people develop testimonies of the Church being a good thing), it is not, itself, the Gospel. It is a method of conversion.

I just may do the tie tracker every conference from now on….

How has the post-MoBach world been for you, Roxanne? Still wooing men over jazz?

-Geoff

Good times.

-Geoff

If kids are actually having sexual intercourse on the dance floor (Which I assure you they aren't. I imagine they are just dancing provocatively), then get involved with the school, the principle, the board, and others. Teachers chaperon high school dances for a reason, and if they are failing in their charge, hold them accountable. Isn't it our job to fight to turn evil into good, rather than just walking away from it and creating our own isolated society?

-Geoff

Get on the MLH train with the rest of Mormondom!

Can't argue with the option of the other priest should be doing the sac. prayer checking.

I've seen women in secretarial capacities, but perhaps this was under the umbrella of the Exec Sec. I think I had a bishop who once split the duties into a "Ward secretary" and a "Bishop's secretary."

I agree that the currently employed sacrament method is efficacious, but why not let the other priests blessing do their duty and watchdog the prayer? The reason for having at least two priests isn't just to divvy up the passing out of trays to deacons. It is like any other companionship – to watch out for each other and the work.

Thanks for your comments!

Agree on the sacrament blesser comment also.

Also love the show. Maybe I should've just copied/pasted the previous comment

First…according to the handbook the Ward Executive Secretary is required to be a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend….therefore a man.

Second…in regard to the sacrament "blesser" looking at the bishop after the sacrament prayer. It isn't required by the handbook but it sure makes the bishop's job of directing the administration of the ordinance a lot easier. If there is a "mess up" in the ordinance a quick shake of the head sure diminishes the embarrassment of the priest compared to standing up and walking over to the table and telling him to start over.

With that said, I love the show. Look forward to it every week.

(Pun intended.)

-Geoff

At a School of the Prophets meeting on 31 January 1868 where Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball were present, Daniel Wells was recorded as saying "… a woman should not go [to the temple] for a week after her menses were upon her; a man should not have intercourse with his wife for several days"

Two sources for this are listed on page 29 of "Development of LDS Temple Worship: 1846 to 2000" by Devery S. Anderson and published by Signature Books.

Not cool by modern standards. That Old Testament stuff is for the birds.

The average amount of blood lost during menstruation: 35mL – just over one ounce. This is spread out over 3-6 days. Google says there are 5-600 drops in an ounce. On average, this means that while menstruating, a woman will lose about 4-5 drops of blood per hour.

So… if a baptism session lasts about 4 or 5 minutes/proxy, there is a 1/12 chance that ONE drop of blood would be issued by a woman during that time.

But even those drops won't hit the font water – there is a $13billion+ industry build on barrier technologies (tampons, cups) that avoid letting menstrual blood exit our bodies in any uncontrolled fashion – we're spending 1/6 of our days menstruating – we're really good at managing our flows. Especially when we know we'll be wearing white. (You may be happy to know that many temples require menstruating women to use a tampon during the ordinance.)

On top of that, the water is chlorinated. So if by some tragedy a drop of blood is issued mid-baptisms, it'll be devoured by chemicals.

Honestly guys, you should be like me, and be MUCH more concerned about young mens' skidmarks grubbing up the water than the seriously tiny chance that a drop of menstrual blood escapes.

Signed,

Geoff

Moving Full Steam Ahead on the Brigham City Utah Temple
Tuesday, March 6, 2012

"The team of dedicated workers at the Brigham City Utah Temple has placed the building ahead of schedule with completion anticipated this summer. Speculation of the open house and dedication dates could end as early as next month when the official announcement is expected to be made."

It's okay, Al. You still crack me up.

-Geoff

Anyway, I am thoroughly enjoying the show and make a point to download the podcast each week. Also, I finally caught up on all of the back episodes that I had missed before discovering the show. Well that's not entirely true. I still haven't listened to the lost 116 episodes or whatever that aren't in iTunes. I'll have to dig those up on here one day.

Thanks!

And noted!

Your assumption on the third paragraph is correct. I was alluding to the idea that breaking the certain aspects of the honor code ( like curfew), which you signed, is dishonest and requires repentance, however it is minor, like going 5 mile over the speed limit. You don't give a second thought about it, and according to Gospel Doctrine, the light of Christ remits that type of innocent error.

As far as the dress and grooming standards and other non damning aspects of the honor code are just things your signed up for. People make a big deal about it, because it's the only part they really can make a big deal about. The Mormon culture is Sex-o-phobic. Any lesson on sexuality in a mormon setting is almost heresy. This phobia has lead to many problems that the honor code has been set up to stop. They do what they can with enforcement, albeit, very overzealously.

We are a completely new and different generation. While the rules and laws do not change, the method of teaching and counciling must. The archaic display or enforcement of the honorcode/ dress and grooming standards really doesn't work. The spirit behind it needs to be re enforced.

If so, will next week's podcast feature a tearful retraction?

Other news articles reported this:
“We sincerely regret that the actions of an individual member of the church led to the inappropriate submission of these names,” Michael Purdy, a spokesman for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a statement issued Monday. “We consider this a serious breach of our protocol and we have suspended indefinitely this person’s ability to access our genealogy records.”

That's what access privileges means.

For the record, I love that men and women both have the opportunity to parent children equally. What a privilege! I also think that holding the priesthood is a privilege, and that bearing children is a privilege.

But to suggest that physiological gestation and childbirth is somehow a priesthood equivalent is both bizarre and unfounded. Again, it is something over which women have no control (I don't choose to have a uterus, or that children can be conceived in it as a result of intercourse). Whereas the priesthood is a conscious, opt-in step that is representative of pure intent, spiritual preparedness, willingness to serve and a desire to show love to the Lord and serve one's fellow man.

Your reasoning ignores adoptive mothers, infertile women, single-and-chaste women, reluctant teen mothers, post-menopausal women, women with impotent husbands, atheists, women who have had hysterectomies, abortion-as-birth-control users, – - and I'm sure a lot of other women for whom bearing children is either not possible, or not representative their of intent to progress spiritually and/or serve others/God.

A lot of the rhetoric I mentioned above similar to the rhetoric used against suffragists. And I'm not even saying anyone should be agitating for a change in this matter. I'm just saying that this kind of reasoning is a patronizing and fallacious attempt somehow justify that men have the priesthood and women don't.

In the end, it's like this because the Lord has revealed to His prophets that it ought to be like this. And we accept it on those grounds, not by retrofitting a physiological gender difference (one which for most of Christian history has been seen as a punishment for Eve eating the fruit at that!) as an explanation.

Just wanted to clarify that even though Roe v. Wade (abortion) was an issue, I think that the church officially tacked right when it came out in strong opposition over the Equal Rights Amendment. That was a hugely divisive issue that many democrats supported (equality for women) but church members, especially women, were asked by the First Presidency to actively campaign against because of fear that it would erode traditional gender roles. Also, i think that President Benson (Republican and sectary of agriculture under Eisenhower) helped move church members right politically as well. It was under him that the really anti-communism, Birch society element became popular (along with the only protests FOR the Vietnam War). That super strong anti-communist and socialist sentiment still lingers, especially in Southern Utah (that's why Obama as a 'socialist' is such an insult and scary thing). I ran into a girl who was avidly reading a book by Skousen because she'd found a youtube video of President Benson recommending it over the pulpit (it's been removed from the official records). Needless to say, she was of the camp that you can't be a good mormon and democrat. That's all.

2. This notion of – It's not even that big of deal, ladies – in fact, sometime I wish I didn't even HAVE this burden/added responsibility of the priesthood!
– Do you encourage new converts to avoid ordination to the priesthood? Do you tell 11-year old boys that they should dread the impending duties of priesthood ordination? No – we are excited for both groups because of the spiritual progress and opportunities that accompany ordination. Upon having children, I would be excited for my own son to have these opportunities. I think we shouldn't minimize them. But there contradiction of building the priesthood up to potential holders, and downplaying it to women. Either it desirable, an honor, and an opportunity – - or it's not. So let's not minimize the blessings of holding the priesthood in order to appease women who, apparently…

3. … Are "going to find something to be offended about" anyway…
– So we've moved to belittling the priesthood to dismissing concerns of the women who might have an issue with this? Like Geoff mentioned, the only real reason we can see for this policy is that it has been revealed to the prophets that this is the way it is. It's uneven, yes, but we trust this system is divinely inspired. To suggest that those women who feel that uneven-ness are just "finding SOMETHING to be offended about" downplays the fact that we are dedicated, active contributing members of an organization and gospel that we have limited ability to contribute to – and that this limitation is not surmountable through personal worthiness or willingness to serve. And yet we still believe, we still participate (at a much higher rate than priesthood-eligible men, I might add) and we still serve diligently in the capacities we're assigned to. Please don't tell us that we're just looking for a reason to be offended. We're giving our lives to this gospel/church. That doesn't mean that we have to turn a blind eye to it's less understandable, and less even parts, or just get over the resulting feelings.

4. I bet even the general officers don't care that they don't have the priesthood, or aren't called general authorities.

– Seriously?!

– Yeesh. You guys are killing me today.

Thanks for listening. We used to keep a page on the site that listed the music used in every episode, but I got too lazy to keep it up, so I yanked it. In moments like this, I wish it were there!

The song is "Cometas por el cielo" by the Spanish/Basque band La Oreja de Van Gogh.

-Geoff

I was wondering what the name of the song that is at the end of the episode is? Thanks

The author in question is McKay Coppins, with whom we have a love/hate relationship that stems back from the beginning of our show.

So many exclamation points!

You did him a good turn. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is actually a whole different church than The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Those Big D guys are Strangites: Followers of James Jesse Strang, who led a large group of Saints to Wisconsin and Michigan while Brigham Young led most of the rest to Utah. Thanks for keeping things straight!

How'd you find the show? Just trying to do some free market research.

Thanks for listening. Apologies to your employer!

I just don't agree with your concerns–nearly every person in any ward (family, YSA, mid-singles, etc.) feels like they don't belong for some reason. I know people who don't feel like they fit in because they have an autistic child, are wiccan, had a stroke, suffer with depression, have social anxieties, are single, have a less-active spouse, and so forth. I don't think that being single sets you apart from anyone else in the church. Your concerns about being marginalized because you are single just don't ring true to me.

I am also single, and feel like I have seen it all. I went to BYU and attended several student wards, I was a member of a YSA ward in my hometown, I attended student wards at other universities, and now I attend a family ward. I don't feel like any of my wards failed me, I realize that my testimony and activity level depend solely upon me–it doesn't matter how hard anyone tries to activate another, it really is up to each individual. I am currently serving as the Relief Society president in my family ward (that's right, a single, never-married 36 year-old), and I constantly struggle to help others become more active in the ward and church–no matter how hard I try, it is up to others to take those steps toward activity.

I apologize for calling you retarded–I am working on my temper as we speak.

P.S. I have never been set up with anyone by my married friends at church. There is a dearth of single men in the church–didn't you guys talk about that a couple of weeks ago?

No, we are saying that family wards that have YSA programs in them en lieu of a singles ward have a responsibility for those YSA, though the YSA in family wards are often overlooked and underutilized. We're not saying that wards have a responsibility for those whose records aren't even in the ward. That would be retarded.

Before launching into my take on MLMs, I am not in any multi-level marketing groups or businesses and probably won’t be, but not because I feel they are inherently immoral or unethical, but because, after having participated in a couple, they are simply not my cup of tea. (more on this shortly)

There is no inherent conflict between MLMs and Church doctrine. If there is a problem with MLMs, it’s only in that, as a business model, it’s overly prone to abuse, especially thanks to far too few people in this country ever having to actually managed a business.

At it’s core, the “multi-level marketing” plan is just that, a marketing plan. It’s no different than (say) a podcast embarking on a campaign to raise their listener base or seek sponsors or audience contribution to achieve or maintain solvency as a business. Like any marketing plan to build a successful business, MLMs have the same basic techniques and goals as any other marketing plan; spread the word about a product or service, generate interest in said product or service, create a sales “surface” between the distribution system and the customer that is as permeable as possible for easy and efficient money and product/service transfer, and a means of creating profit from the income.

I’ve participated on some level with MLMs in nearly every capacity. I’ve been an “Independent Business Owner” in Amway, was a client for Pre-Paid Legal, functioned briefly as a Consultant for Tupperware, and was on-staff for Juvio (a call center tech support company). One thing I have learned is that my personality type doesn’t work well in any of these aspects, but I recognize all the aspects of a successful business in all of them. (And having worked for Apple, I know how a successful business operates from first hand experience)

Of these, the one real example of where the “sleaze level” edged into uncomfortable territory was Juvio, due to the “upline” of the MLM group encouraging their members to spam lists of email addresses that could be bought from services that compile such information. No matter how many times the tech support group (the arm of the company I worked for) would talk to the MLM group about how this was a bad business practice that was on its way to becoming illegal (this was before it was made flat out illegal) it was a short term success that brought fast money, so they couldn’t be dissuaded.

In all other cases, the problems have all boiled down to “bad faith actors” in the various MLM groups that each company used to promote their product. This happens in every industry, unfortunately, and these bad faith actors are the primary reason most people are scared off from doing investing.

A note on pyramid/ponzi schemes and MLMs: There are two chief differences between illegal schemes and MLM plans, growth-ability and product.

In a pyramid or ponzi scheme it has a very rigid structure that, by it’s design, will eventually fail because there is no way for the system to grow or allow individuals to grow beyond their “slot” or “block.” All money flows up no matter what the level you’re on, and there’s no separation of the structure and the money flow. There’s also no actual product/service exchanged for the money that changes hands, so the ONLY return you could possibly get for your investment is to dupe others into joining and repeating the cycle.

MLMs by definition have a product/service that is sold. The money flow is separated BY DESIGN from the marketing structure. (The money is paid to the company that produces the product, the product is delivered to the customer, a share of the money goes to the marketing team. Again, note the similarity to a more “traditional” business model.) Individuals can break out of their current marketing structure simply by hitting more of the success metrics than those “above” them in the structure. Those success metrics are different based on whatever organization you’re in (Amway was based on a point system, Tupperware was based purely on product volume, etc.) but in all cases if your friend gets you signed up for the business but doesn’t hit as many success metrics as you, you can easily earn much more money than your friend.

On the Church’s stance on MLMs: The Church generally leaves people to the dealings of their own business, save where such dealings are obviously illegal. A pyramid/ponzi scheme would definitely violate Church standards, where a MLM would not. This is no different than, say, being a successful local bank manager is legal, but using a bank to launder money would be illegal. One thing I have noticed is the Church is very, very, VERY hesitant to involve themselves in the day-to-day dealings of member’s lives, and in the end your business dealings are not the pervue of any member of the church hierarchy save Heavenly Father himself.

The best stance to take on any of these types of businesses is this:

1.) Is what they are promoting legal, moral, and ethical?
2.) If I were to join the business today and go in for a Temple Recommend interview tomorrow, would I be able to go into the temple with a clean conscience the day after?
3.) Can I explain what the business is about in three minutes or less?
4.) Does it feel “right” to me? (a.k.a. – Does it feel OK by the Spirit?)

If you can’t say “yes” to all four of these questions, then run (don’t walk) away from the offer.

(Note that this is the same way you can tell if any job, franchise, business, or investment is a good idea)

OK, so this was way longer than I’d planned, but I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for.

(Oops! Posted this on the wrong board! Correctly posting it here…)

Before launching into my take on MLMs, I am not in any multi-level marketing groups or businesses and probably won’t be, but not because I feel they are inherently immoral or unethical, but because, after having participated in a couple, they are simply not my cup of tea. (more on this shortly)

There is no inherent conflict between MLMs and Church doctrine. If there is a problem with MLMs, it’s only in that, as a business model, it’s overly prone to abuse, especially thanks to far too few people in this country ever having to actually managed a business.

At it’s core, the “multi-level marketing” plan is just that, a marketing plan. It’s no different than (say) a podcast embarking on a campaign to raise their listener base or seek sponsors or audience contribution to achieve or maintain solvency as a business. Like any marketing plan to build a successful business, MLMs have the same basic techniques and goals as any other marketing plan; spread the word about a product or service, generate interest in said product or service, create a sales “surface” between the distribution system and the customer that is as permeable as possible for easy and efficient money and product/service transfer, and a means of creating profit from the income.

I’ve participated on some level with MLMs in nearly every capacity. I’ve been an “Independent Business Owner” in Amway, was a client for Pre-Paid Legal, functioned briefly as a Consultant for Tupperware, and was on-staff for Juvio (a call center tech support company). One thing I have learned is that my personality type doesn’t work well in any of these aspects, but I recognize all the aspects of a successful business in all of them. (And having worked for Apple, I know how a successful business operates from first hand experience)

Of these, the one real example of where the “sleaze level” edged into uncomfortable territory was Juvio, due to the “upline” of the MLM group encouraging their members to spam lists of email addresses that could be bought from services that compile such information. No matter how many times the tech support group (the arm of the company I worked for) would talk to the MLM group about how this was a bad business practice that was on its way to becoming illegal (this was before it was made flat out illegal) it was a short term success that brought fast money, so they couldn’t be dissuaded.

In all other cases, the problems have all boiled down to “bad faith actors” in the various MLM groups that each company used to promote their product. This happens in every industry, unfortunately, and these bad faith actors are the primary reason most people are scared off from doing investing.

A note on pyramid/ponzi schemes and MLMs: There are two chief differences between illegal schemes and MLM plans, growth-ability and product.

In a pyramid or ponzi scheme it has a very rigid structure that, by it’s design, will eventually fail because there is no way for the system to grow or allow individuals to grow beyond their “slot” or “block.” All money flows up no matter what the level you’re on, and there’s no separation of the structure and the money flow. There’s also no actual product/service exchanged for the money that changes hands, so the ONLY return you could possibly get for your investment is to dupe others into joining and repeating the cycle.

MLMs by definition have a product/service that is sold. The money flow is separated BY DESIGN from the marketing structure. (The money is paid to the company that produces the product, the product is delivered to the customer, a share of the money goes to the marketing team. Again, note the similarity to a more “traditional” business model.) Individuals can break out of their current marketing structure simply by hitting more of the success metrics than those “above” them in the structure. Those success metrics are different based on whatever organization you’re in (Amway was based on a point system, Tupperware was based purely on product volume, etc.) but in all cases if your friend gets you signed up for the business but doesn’t hit as many success metrics as you, you can easily earn much more money than your friend.

On the Church’s stance on MLMs: The Church generally leaves people to the dealings of their own business, save where such dealings are obviously illegal. A pyramid/ponzi scheme would definitely violate Church standards, where a MLM would not. This is no different than, say, being a successful local bank manager is legal, but using a bank to launder money would be illegal. One thing I have noticed is the Church is very, very, VERY hesitant to involve themselves in the day-to-day dealings of member’s lives, and in the end your business dealings are not the pervue of any member of the church hierarchy save Heavenly Father himself.

The best stance to take on any of these types of businesses is this:

1.) Is what they are promoting legal, moral, and ethical?

2.) If I were to join the business today and go in for a Temple Recommend interview tomorrow, would I be able to go into the temple with a clean conscience the day after?

3.) Can I explain what the business is about in three minutes or less?

4.) Does it feel “right” to me? (a.k.a. – Does it feel OK by the Spirit?)

If you can’t say “yes” to all four of these questions, then run (don’t walk) away from the offer.

(Note that this is the same way you can tell if any job, franchise, business, or investment is a good idea)

OK, so this was way longer than I’d planned, but I hope that is the kind of response you were looking for.

No thanks to Al

MLMs – let's discuss. Multiple issues here to tease apart. #1 Is it priestcraft? If getting money for exercising priesthood powers is priestcraft, what is using church membership to get money? Maybe on that spectrum, in some cases. Aren't membership directories marked "not for commercial use" in any case?

#2 How are you defining MLMs? You mentioned ponzi schemes and Nu Skin, which seem like different categories. My understanding of where the law draws the line is where the money is made. Main source of revenue comes from people joining the organization= illegal and is also known as a "pyramid scheme." I'll state the obvious: illegal things are against church policy. Revenue comes from the sale of a product = legal.

Technically speaking, MLM is part of main stream business – real estate for instance. If an agent has more clients than time they often bring on other agents to show property to people and give them a cut of the sale. BAM. MLM. Same with hair stylists, insurance agents, Avon, etc.

And let's say I start a funny tee shirt company and get my friends to wear them/sell them for a cut. Then one of my friends gets his little brother to sell them to his friends for a cut of his cut. BAM. MLM.

However, let's say a drug cartel king successfully smuggles cocaine across the border in the bellies of stuffed animals where his drug lords receive it in their respective metropolises and distribute it to the dirty drug serfs on the streets. That's probably also MLM. BAM.

To conclude, I think it's what you do with MLM that makes it good or bad, not the business structure itself. But pyramid schemes are illegal, immoral, and may be akin to priestcraft.

Also, you guys rock.

"Family" does not only mean mother, father, and 10 kids – not even for faithful Mormons.

Awesome NT shout out. I've met them, very very sweet people.

-al

Also, Modern Family is funny no matter how you cut it. Though for each of us, a filtering of media we consume is always appropriate, it is rare for us (or the church) to call out any programs in particular as 'evil'.

-Al

wooohooo!

-al

I was in Girl Scouts as a kid and I remember we always had to sing grace before eating. I have a vague memory of Girl Scouts being associated with the Catholics, but it may have just been the troop I was in. Either way, I support Girl Scouts and their wonderful, wonderful cookies.

The Slate article, for instance, is not something we wrote or endorse, but it was an article of note. To answer what we are trying to do, it's pretty simple: Discuss any Mormon-related news of the week (good or bad) of relevance. If it makes waves, for better or worse, it is worthy of discussion. We support the mission of the Church, and I think that while we don't mind a bit of self-mockery, our allegiance is pretty clear.

Regarding Modern Family, I personally take no issue with it. It is not the media's, government's, or society's job to show me what proper familial relationships should be. How many people would condemn Modern Family but have no problem with the unwed lovers all over Grey's Anatomy? We can't designate one show as more "problematic" than another just because it has a gay couple in it.

Because within the "insidious attack on the family" lays a show that in the end, also shows the importance of people coming together, loving each other, and seeking to understand one another. Did we even get that sort of approach from Seinfeld?

I'm not saying it's a perfect show, and if someone is taking his or her cues on family dynamics from an ABC sitcom, that individual likely needs to reassess a great number of things. I look to the teachings of the scriptures and the prophets for tips on how to hold up my family. Shows like Modern Family don't drag me down or particularly lift me up. They are just entertainment. And I separate entertainment from legitimate counsel.

Thanks for your comment!

-Geoff