All Activity

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Well, that's debatable. The two fellows are claiming to "identify" as women. And per standard trans orthodoxy, "woman" is an undefined or infinitely malleable term, and nobody is allowed to question anyone's declared identity anyway. Fallacy of relative privation (also called "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). Even if this were relevant, it would not really work as a basis for accusing me of hypocrisy, since I have frequently spoken at length about protecting children, including from other predatory Latter-day Saints, and I have utterly condemned any and all such abuse. I have never condoned any abuse of children, whether it be the sexualized/grooming antics involved in some drag queen story hours, drag shows, Pride parades, and on one, or whether it be a Latter-day Saint exploiting access to Latter-day Saint children. Again, I'm happy to discuss any concerns you have about bishops interviewing children, but not as a means of distracting from the topics under discussion in the last several pages of this thread. Again, you persist in attempting to distract from the topic and criticize me as a person. Classic ad hominem. I hope you can get past it. I acknowledge that the discussion of trans issues amounts to a straying a bit from the original topic of this thread, and that I introduced this straying topic into the thread. Fortunately, I contacted the person who started the thread and got his specific permission to talk about trans issues in it. He has no problem with it at all. Thanks, -Smac

We’ve had a lot of TULIP Calvinists who have posted here over the years. I’m aware of their doctrine. It doesn’t translate into a belief that a specific Calvinist church is the only true church though. Not as it’s been explained to me anyway. There is probably one out there somewhere that does believe it. Lots of independent Calvinist churches out there. Catholicism is probably the closest mainstream church to our views on one true church. The biggest difference is that they accept Protestant baptism as valid (if I understand correctly. Probably best to let one of the residents Catholics speak on that)

I had to go back and review what the topic of this thread actually is. You resurrected this thread a couple of weeks ago because a couple of conservative men decided they wanted to draw attention to a WNBA policy they don't like. The controversy is entirely hypothetical at this point: there is no identified transgender player currently seeking to enter the WNBA. Rather than let this non-issue lie, these conservatives announced that they were going to make an issue of it. And rather than ignore their stunt, you decided to resurrect this topic. I'm reminding you of the context because you said, “I think it is very much your side of the debate that is moving heaven and earth to make trans issues a source for daily discussion and debate and news.” This thread—and the news event that precipitated it—is a small example of the larger pattern. It is your side that keeps insisting that these issues become subjects of daily political discussion. I certainly don't claim that Grok's analysis of the issues I raised was perfect, nor that my prompts were. And more fundamentally, I have no idea whether you'd consider a lengthy response to all of that on-topic or another distraction. But I will reiterate my main point: if you are genuinely worried about children being sexualized and groomed, you might want to pay considerably more attention to your own house before worrying about whether some parent somewhere takes their child to a library event you don't approve of.

Excellent webbles! Thanks.

They don't say everything is unknown. There are somethings that are known per the scripture. But the parts that the scripture doesn't explain is the Mystery. So, if you try to force other Christians to define things in those mysterious parts, you are either going to get their own personal ideas or the answer "it is a mystery". Similar to asking us to explain how God came to be God. Is He the original one or does He have a Father? Was He a savior of His world like Christ or not?. These are things we don't know and only have speculation on. It also kind of defeats your statement of "God helps us understand Him by continuous revelation through living prophets". Even for us, there are limits on what has been revealed. I think the normal response for us is that it is not important to our understanding of God, and I would expect that is also the normal response for other Christians as well. The things defined for the Trinity do allow theological disagreements between trinitarianism and us. And it does also show that we "believe in a different God/Jesus". I'm not saying that the entire belief of God is a mystery. Only the details about the Trinity are a mystery. For the Catholic church, the declaration of what is heretical or not would be called continuous revelation to us. They have the public revelation, which is all of the revealed scripture. And then God continues to give inspiration to make sure that it is understood correctly. So the Nicaean creed is pretty much the same thing as our document "The Living Christ" (the one from 2000 signed by the 15). The first is from leaders of the church who got together, discussed, argued, and came to an agreement and wrote to the world. The second is also from leaders of the church who got together, discussed, argued, and came to an agreement and wrote to the world. And both groups believe they were inspired. We (LDS) accept the inspiration of the latter but not the former. Catholics (and other trinitarians) accept the inspiration of the former but not the latter.

Your "gotcha" attempt relies on a false equivalency between literary framing of the genre and theological events. Who even wrote the Book of Job and when? Job himself? Did he himself enter the council of the sons of God to witness Job 1 happen? Mainstream biblical scholars generally agree that the Book of Job is a piece of wisdom literature and dramatic poetry, not a transcript of the event. Latter-day Saints recognize Job himself as a real individual who suffered immensely (Ezekiel 14:14, James 5:11). Thought to be a patriarchal era figure, but the "book" of Job seems to be penned by an anonymous scribe after the fall of Jerusalem to answer why bad things happen to good people. Come Follow Me seems to be trying to help readers look past a somewhat jarring image of God making a "bet" with Satan, and instead focus on the doctrinal takeaways. To your question, if the prologue is poetic, then God speaking in chapter 42 must also be poetic (i.e., false). Even a made-up story can teach the truth. Or use a dramatic literary device in the beginning to set up a real spiritual resolution at the end. Is it not true that Satan is our adversary, suffering is not always a direct punishment for sin? Are Jesus' parables "true" stories? No, Jesus' parables were not literal, historical events. He made them up to teach spiritual principles.

...says the man who is obsessed with starting threads on these topics. You persist in attempting to distract from the topic and personalize this thread. I hope you can get past that. I've been trying to better understand your perspective and to challenge my own biases and to that end, I've licensed Grok as a thinking tool that doesn't share my biases. I think I've made my perspective and assessment quite clear. That you disagree with it is fine, but I would prefer to discuss the topic rather than me and my motives, as I see that as a combination of ad hominem, appeal to motive, and fallacy of relevance. Okay. But I'm not really interested in arguing over who is doing what and why. This analysis presupposes that safety is the only concern. While it is an important one, it is not the only one. I have noted this many times in this thread. Moreover, "no prosecutions" is not, I think, a useful indicator for prevalence of the problem. From a legal perspective, the basis for a statute does not need to be empirically demonstrated. This may have some relevance to the constitutional scrutiny, though. The "personal autonomy" right under the Kansas Constitution is somewhat unique, so legal challenges to the statute will be interesting to watch. The law is defensible if courts accept that sex-separated spaces serve a compelling privacy interest and that a biological-sex criterion is narrowly tailored to that interest. The law may be vulnerable if courts expand personal autonomy to encompass a right to have one’s gender identity govern access to intimate facilities and identity documents. The outcome will turn heavily on how broadly Kansas courts define the autonomy right beyond the abortion context. We'll see what happens. Rather than engage the points I have made, you are going to Grok and asking it to speculate about motives. I don't think that does much to advance the discussion. Fallacy of relative privation (also called "appeal to worse problems" or "not as bad as"). Again with distractions from the topic at hand. I hope you can get past this. FWIW, I uploaded your questions to Grok and asked it to identify logical fallacies and flawed reasoning. The results: I agree that your question was loaded a bit. Same here. Many trans folks and advocates are actively courting attention, and they are getting it. Again, safety concerns are not the only ones. This was my assessment as well. Please note that the foregoing critiques your posted arguments, not you as a person. I am happy to discuss issues pertaining to bishop's interviews, but not as a distraction from the topic at hand. Thanks, -Smac

Job is based on an older Sumerian legend which provides the main framing beginning with chapters 1 and 2, and concluding with 42:7-17. This is the standard story and part that people generally only read. The rest is an Israelite poem calling into question the very premise of the story, rejecting it, and even has Job announce that someone would avenge him by punishing God for such an injustice.

...says the man who is obsessed with starting threads on these topics. For my part, I'd be oblivious to these issues if it weren't for you. I've been trying to better understand your perspective and to challenge my own biases and to that end, I've licensed Grok as a thinking tool that doesn't share my biases. As an example, I asked the following question to both Grok and GPT: Q: Which side of the debate is moving heaven and earth to make trans issues a source for daily discussion and debate and news? Grok: The gender-identity side. They drove the institutional and media push that turned a once-low-visibility issue into constant public controversy. GPT: In current U.S. politics, the political right—especially Republican politicians and conservative media—has done far more to keep transgender issues in the daily political and news agenda, through legislation, campaigns, litigation, and sustained media attention. The left is often responding to those initiatives, though progressive activists and institutions also contribute to keeping the subject visible. There is clearly a bias somewhere. As I've thought about this, here are some of the prompts I gave to Grok and the responses I received. Q: Is the 2026 Kansas bathroom law a good law? Treat this as an adversarial evidence review. Don't infer the answer from progressive or conservative conventional wisdom. Separate empirical facts from value judgments. Identify the strongest evidence against the conclusion you initially favor. Prefer primary sources, quantify things where possible, and tell me explicitly where the evidence doesn't support a confident conclusion. Grok: The 2026 law’s empirical case is weak: Kansas had no documented rise in restroom assaults or voyeurism that it addressed, and post-enactment data show almost no prosecutions. Its strongest justification is definitional—it restores a verifiable sex-based rule after institutions began treating self-ID as official—rather than a response to measured local harm. The main costs (edge-case mismatches such as masculine-presenting females in women’s rooms, plus reported avoidance of public facilities) are real but unquantified. Evidence does not support a confident claim that the law either prevented a breakdown or improved net safety in Kansas. Q: Have the law's supporters really thought it through? They *say* they want female privacy from biological males, but perhaps what they really want is to not have to go into the restroom with people who *look* like they don't belong there. Grok: Many have not fully. The law uses birth sex, so it sends masculine-looking biological females into women’s rooms and feminine-looking biological males into men’s rooms—the opposite of “people who look like they belong.” That mismatch suggests the real driver for a lot of supporters is visual and social discomfort, not a consistently applied biological principle. The following questions are intended to put into perspective accusations of sexualizing and grooming children Q: If a Mormon leader--be it a bishop, teacher, scoutmaster, or anybody else who has the trust of members through his affiliation with the church--hurts a child, what are the chances that it will reach the news outside the church? Grok: Low. Independent trackers have compiled hundreds of cases in which LDS bishops or similar leaders allegedly abused children or failed to report it, yet most never become secular news; they typically surface only years later through lawsuits, court records, or investigations such as the AP’s, not through church disclosure. Q: What are the chances that a bishop will "sexualize" children in worthiness interviews by asking him or her questions about their sexual activities at an inappropriately young age? Grok: High. Thousands of documented accounts describe bishops asking 11- and 12-year-olds explicit questions about masturbation, touching, and sexual acts in one-on-one interviews; the church later advised against probing but implementation still varies widely by untrained lay bishop. Q: What are the chances that the bishop sexualizing children in interviews will make the news? Grok: Low for any single interview, which stays private; the broader practice reached national news only after a 2018 campaign collected thousands of stories and prompted church policy changes. Q: If some sort of drag queen story time at a library or whatever does something that is inappropriate and sexualizes children, what are the chances that this event will make the news? Grok: High. Public library events are filmed and promoted, so documented cases of sexualized performances or convicted sex offenders reading to children have repeatedly gone viral and drawn national coverage. Q: In terms of both the frequency and severity of harm to a child, which is more dangerous--exposing a child to storytime by a drag queen at a library, or exposing a child to Mormon church leaders in worthiness interviews and other church settings? Grok: The Mormon interviews and related church settings are more dangerous. They are systematic and repeated for millions of children in private with an authority figure who can impose religious penalties, producing thousands of documented accounts of explicit sexual questioning plus hundreds of abuse or failure-to-report cases; drag story times are optional public group events whose isolated problems, while real, reach far fewer children and lack the same power imbalance or secrecy.

In the Torah, the Book of Job is included in the "Poetry" section, not the "History" section. I think the whole story of Job is a work of allegorical prose/poetry literature, and not a true or accurate history of a man.

I don't think I like the metaphors of "losing" and "battle." But that is how a lot of folks on all sides look at it. I this situation I love the principal slogan of the Moravian Church: “In essentials, unity; in non‑essentials, liberty; and in all things, love.” In the words of the song, "And the world would be a better place for you, for me. Just you wait and see!"

Except it isn't a "redefinition". It is the logical conclusion to our theology. "God" being a status does not in any way conflict with the idea that God the Father is both "a God" and "the God" or that Jesus is also "a God" but not "the God". My army can have two generals. Both are referred to as "general". However, one can be senior to the other and thus be "the general" in matters of decision-making. Boiling down the Trinity to "a Mystery" effectively renders any theological disagreements Nicaeans have with us (or anyone else) on the nature of God moot. If God "can't be fully explained with our human understanding", then there is no logical or theological basis for saying that the LDS church "believes in a different God/Jesus". It also provides some of the strongest support for a "Great Apostasy", as it shows how the various schisms in the post-Apostolic church were all based on man-made nonsense. It's almost like God helps us understand him by continuous revelation through living prophets. John Calvin had Michael Servetus executed for denying the Nicene Trinity. If it is indeed a mystery, how was that act justified? How are concepts like partialism or modalism considered heretical if the Trinity is ultimately "a mystery"?

That also isn't accurate. Reformed/Calvinist denominations believe in a concept of unconditional election. What this means is that God chooses who to save and that humans, based on the concept of total depravity, are unable to choose God on their own. Therefore, it doesn't matter what you say or do as God will ultimately decide your fate for you. They even believe in two churches. The visible church that comprises all those who profess belief, and the invisible church that is made up of God's elect. Catholics have historically believed that formal heretics receive some form of divine punishment. This would include many Protestants, as they not only engage in theologies that the Catholic church considers heretical (see sola scriptura, the priesthood of all believers, sola fide), but reject certain Catholic dogmas (see Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation). Your story even backs up my assertion. If the ruling council did not believe that their church was the one true church, the pastor would not have been removed over merely expressing thoughts that the council disagreed with. There would be no formal censure at all for merely expressing a theological or socio-political opinion. If I'm coming off as "snotty", that's entirely on you. Accuracy is important to me as well, and you aren't accurate. You're having to ignore both the formal theologies of these groups as well as their behaviors, both current and historical. If none of these groups considered themselves to be "the one true church", what was their rationale for justifying the murder of dissenters? The very concepts of heresy, schism, and apostasy require a belief in the singular truth of one's group over the others.

If you are unaware that the Evangelical movement split off from Fundamentalism in the 1940s and that the differences have expanded ever since, then you are not as informed about non-LDS Christians as you think. Fundamentalists are often or more often witnessing to Evangelicals as they are to the LDS. They think we have apostasized from the truth, so perhaps we (Evangelicals) are even worse than the LDS. The Evangelical community broadens in incremental ways, especially within theological distinctions. I am a "wideness on God's mercy" Evangelical. That makes me center left in the Evangelical community. I have been to Temple Square many times, but never once to witness. I, in fact would be far more likely to chastise my Fundamentalist friends that to my LDS friends. Cherry picking websites and youtube posts is not a particularly good way to make a point. Anyway, I don't think you are of a mind to dialogue with either me or your more moderated brothers and sisters here from the LDS community. BTW strickly thinking, I have never seen an Evangelical witnessing at Temple Square or at a pageant. Many Fundamentalists, yes, but never an Evangelical. But, best wishes anyway.

I have no idea what is going on here with the youth as I have not attended for a few years now. I know of my remaining active children (adults with kids) say there is pretty much no youth program anymore where they are at. My neighbor says the same of the ward I live in. Most of the folks in this neighborhood which is all one ward have their kids n other activities because nothing of substance is going on at church during the week (according to my neighbor). I have not heard about any FSY stuff, but again I’m not really connected anymore so..

Youth conferences are still held in most stakes (at least in the US) and are different than EFY or the new FSY stuff. They are generally put together by the stake youth leadership (the stake young mens and young womens presidencies) and then the ward YM and YW presidencies help during the event. They are a lot of work, it was always my least favorite thing about serving youth leadership callings. Entertaining and spiritually feeding (and just physically feeding and keeping alive) a few hundred kids for a couple of days is a herculean task. Some of the people in charge of the big ones probably should get paid as well!

I'll try to clarify. It is equivalent to them not considering themselves to be the true church because the disagreement has no bearing on their beliefs about what will be happening to each of them in the next life. While the presbyterian may believe the methodist or the baptist is wrong on some points of doctrine or belief, they generally don't believe that translates into a need for the methodist or the baptist to change anything in order to receive eternal life or be saved. There probably was a time (and in some independent congregations I'm sure that time is right now) where the doctrinal differences were much more tied to heavenly consequences. Most of the big denominations came to existence during a time when people were very much trying to find the 'correct' gospel and they persist today, even though the members don't usually hold to the same perspective, for a lot of different reasons. My husband grew up very active Lutheran. He began investigating the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when the pastor of his church was kicked out due to disagreements with the ruling church council and they wanted to hire someone else. The pastor that was booted started his own congregation and took a large chunk of the other congregation with him (while my husband started taking the missionary discussions and moved on). That's one example of why so many different protestant churches exist and it has nothing to do with the old Lutheran congregation believing that they were the only true church, nor the new Lutheran congregation believing they were the only true church. (I was shocked to learn just how many different kinds of Lutheran churches there are!). As an aside, I'm not sure that 'snotty' is the tone that you want to be conveying right now, but it's what's coming through so just be aware. Sometimes we don't realize the tone that our posts have and I'm guessing you aren't here to do more harm than good. Accuracy is important to me. I've seen to many members become the worst enemies of the gospel of Christ because of they way they speak and act when trying to defend it. I have been that person in the past and all that comes from it is bad fruit.

There's a reason that the Trinity is called a "Mystery". It can't be fully explained with our human understanding. We (LDS) have similar things with our belief in God. For example, to say that we believe in "one God" because it is a title, station, etc doesn't really help because we do believe that Heavenly Father is actually a God and the God. We pray to Him, not to Jesus. But Jesus is also a God but not the God. We do have multiple Gods as separate entities. Redefining it the way you did doesn't help with Occam's Razor approach.

Jfyi this will be the last response you ever get from me on this board. I will refuse to entertain any of your responses because you recently labeled me as pedophile without any justification on another thread. I don’t engage with name callers or those who attribute statements to me (that was someone else, not you) that I never said. Anyway- just saving you keyboard time unless you enjoy writing soliloquies.

I did make a point though, that being that evangelical Protestantism requires very little out of its adherents, hence its popularity. This in turn leads to what is essentially a big head, and so when they try to play the apologetics game armed with little more than "muh faith" and "muh inerrant Bible", they get trounced. Some of them don't even attempt to address arguments and just use formal debates as their "Hey look I have a Mormon audience so I can crap on them to their faces" time. While Kelly Powers isn't a good example of someone knowledgeable, he has a decently large following on his Youtube channel. About two months ago, he had a debate with Robert Boylan of the Scriptural Mormonism blog: During this, you can see that Powers spends most of his time doing anything but addressing the topic of the debate. It's lazy, weak, and only serves as more support for the article's premise. Am I "conflating Fundamentalists and Evangelicals"? How am I doing so? What is the official difference between the two? Does one even exist considering both groups seem to reject the idea of magisterium (hence the sola scriptura concept)? As for "likes and dislikes being valuable currency", speak for yourself on that matter. Internet points get you nowhere and popularity is not a measure of correctness. Were that the case, we'd all be in trouble. Strictly speaking, LDS missionaries don't go hanging outside other churches just to harass their members. Trying to equate these two is more evidence of bad faith on your part.

@BlipBlap seems to have forgotten that the Latter-day Saints have a scripture specifically instructing them not to attack other religions. D&C 18:20: "Contend against no church, save it be the church of the devil."

Deleted

Last week's Come Follow Me dealt with Job chapters 1-3; 12-13. "The opening chapters of Job emphasize, in a poetic way, Satan’s role as our adversary or accuser; they don’t describe an actual interaction between God and Satan." Job 42:7 says God spoke to both Job and Eliphaz. Was this also poetic?

Note that I didn't assert inconsistency, I asserted a contradiction. Why don't you explain the concept instead of telling me to look it up? It stands to reason that you should be able to instead of outsourcing to others, correct? Here, I'll put forth what I believe these to be based on the text of the Nicene Creed: https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe Consubstantial: Being one in essence or substance despite a difference in aspect Hypostatic union: The quality of being both fully divine and fully human, we can derive this from the Athanasian Creed: "Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02033b.htm Now, here's where the contradiction occurs. If I am "one in essence or substance", that would require them to share all of their natures. As seen in the Athanasian Creed, Jesus is "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead". In other words, his divine aspect is equal to that of the Father. However, the very next statement, "and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood", illustrates that the human nature of Jesus is inferior to the Father and therefore his own divine nature. How can I be "consubstantial" with something yet have a part of me that is explicitly stated to be inferior? This is where Nicene Christians had to go to non-Christian philosophy to create their belief. Jesus distinguishes himself on multiple occasions as being not the same as the Father. The Father does likewise at least twice. This is where the difference in thought comes in: Nicene Christians believe "God" to be a singular being. The LDS church still believes in "one God", but essentially holds that "God" is a status, office, station, organization, etc. It's the Occam's Razor approach. Keep in mind that you chose to continue responding to me. Instead of quailing over your feelings in what reeks of false piety, you could've simply spared yourself the trouble and just, you know, said nothing.