All Activity

I heard somebody talking about the concept of truth and the gospel in a podcast and it reminded me of your thread. They made the point that in scripture, truth is not just a what, it is also a Who. Christ says that He is the truth. That’s an interesting angle to think about the concept. And from that angle you end up with the statement “faith that is based on Christ is no longer faith”.

It is so in most cases.

I don't see how it documents express denial. For a lot of Christians, baptism isn't a requirement for anything. It is just a symbol of their faith. So, why would someone need to be baptized after they are dead? Don't we believe the same? I don't recall ever being taught that there is revelation missing in regards to salvation.

I don’t think you have actually established these two positions are opposing and cannot both be true, but simply assumed it. Work on that first.

The Wikipedia article has its strong and weak points. One that I find fascinating is found footnoted in footnote 66. It is a New York Times article that seeks to answer why Fundamentalists Love Trump. This is not a political article, so I copy a small portion for your reading enjoyment: "It makes no sense until you understand that the true distinction between fundamentalism and mainstream beliefs isn’t what fundamentalists believe but how fundamentalists believe. As Richard Land, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, once told me, “Fundamentalism is far more a psychology than a theology.” That’s why, for example, you can have competing Christian fundamentalisms, competing Muslim fundamentalisms and secular movements that possess fundamentalist characteristics. I grew up in a church that most would describe as fundamentalist, and I’ve encountered fundamentalism of every stripe my entire life. And while fundamentalist ideas can often be quite variable and complex, I’ve never encountered a fundamentalist culture that didn’t combine three key traits: certainty, ferocity and solidarity. Certainty is the key building block. The fundamentalist mind isn’t clouded by doubt. In fact, when people are fully captured by the fundamentalist mind-set, they often can’t even conceive of good-faith disagreement. To fundamentalists, their opponents aren’t just wrong but evil. Critics are derided as weak or cowards or grifters. Only a grave moral defect can explain the failure to agree.That certainty breeds ferocity. Indeed, ferocity — not piety — is a principal trait of every truly fundamentalist movement I’ve ever encountered. Ferocity is so valuable to fundamentalism that it can cover a multitude of conventional Christian sins. Defending Trump in 2016, Robert Jeffress, the pastor of First Baptist Dallas, an evangelical megachurch, explained, “Frankly, I want the meanest, toughest son of a gun I can find. And I think that’s the feeling of a lot of evangelicals.”Yet certainty and ferocity are nothing without solidarity. It’s the sense of shared purpose and community that makes any form of fundamentalism truly potent. There is an undeniable allure to the idea that you’re joining a community that has achieved an understanding of life’s mysteries or discovered a path to resolving injustice. As angry as fundamentalists may feel, at the same time, there is true joy among comrades in the foxhole — at least as long as they remain comrades. I’m reminded of an infamous quote by Mike Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, regarding the necessity of loyalty. Explaining Trump’s hostility toward Ron DeSantis, Huckabee said, “I think there are two virtues — loyalty and confidentiality. Be loyal to the people who helped you and learn how to keep your mouth shut.” Again, that’s not piety. It’s solidarity. When you recognize the psychology of fundamentalism, fundamentalist Christian enthusiasm for Trump makes considerably more sense. His fundamentalist supporters are certain that he is fulfilling a divine purpose. They are ferocious in their response to opponents, especially those Christians they believe to be weak or squishes. And they experience great joy in their motivated, activist solidarity. But the keys to fundamentalist success are also the source of its ultimate failure. Certainty, ferocity and solidarity can combine to create powerful social and political movements. They can have a steamrolling effect in institutions because their opponents — almost by definition — have less certainty, less ferocity and less solidarity. We’ve seen this phenomenon in both secular and religious spaces across the political spectrum. A small number of extremely confident and aggressive people can turn an organization upside down. Political activists who possess fundamentalist intensity can push through resistance — at least until their inherent intolerance creates sufficient backlash to trigger real opposition. That’s how fundamentalism fails. Certainty, which gives so much purpose, ultimately struggles in the face of complex realities. Ferocity, which allows fundamentalists to bully and intimidate opponents, also limits the ability to win converts. And solidarity, which creates community, can become stifling, as it encourages conformity and punishes those who raise good-faith questions." These three traits: certainty, ferocity, and solidarity do indeed characterize Fundamentalism wherever it is found and in whatever faith it is found, whether LDS, Baptists, Methodists, Islam, or Judaism. I think this part of the article is very well written. While still confusing Fundamentalism as a branch of Evangelicalism, it certainly examines the psychological roots of Fundamentalism wherever it is found. All I would add is that it might clarify that it is characterizing a group or organizational psychology more than an individual psychology. I would love to read your thoughts on it. best, Navidad

Which claim are you asking me to document, specifically? The express denial, or the one regarding the afterlife? The one regarding the afterlife is easy, as none of them practice baptism for the dead while we do. As baptism is an action undertaken only through consent of subject, the logical follow-up is that the dead who we are baptized in proxy for must still accept such, which means that they still retain agency after death. This could easily serve as documentation of the express denial as well. I have demonstrated such through their own words. What does "closed" mean? It means that it no longer occurs. Therefore, the logical follow-up is that they believe that all that has been revealed is sufficient for salvation. https://catholicism.org/has-divine-revelation-ceased.html "It is clear. Public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle (Saint John), ca. AD 100. This means that the depositum fidei the “deposit of the faith,” was complete at that time, nevermore to be added to with new articles of the Faith. It is entirely sealed." "The twenty-first “condemned and proscribed” point of Pope Saint Pius X’s Lamentabile Sane was the Modernist heresy that, “Revelation, constituting the object of the Catholic faith, was not completed with the Apostles.” So according to the Catholics, it is heresy to believe in ongoing public revelation. However, further down you'll see this: Even the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is quite clear on the point. We read there, under the explicit heading, “There will be no further Revelation,” that, “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” [footnote text: 28 Dei Verbum 4; cf. 1 Tim 6:14; Titus 2:13.] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries. So the Catholic church cops out with the idea that "Revelation is complete, it just has not been made completely explicit yet." That is functionally identical to my earlier post, wherein I stated that "mystery is a fallback when pressed". This is a textbook example of cognitive dissonance, wherein the Catholics hold what is logically two opposing positions as being true. The dissonance expands when you consider how revelation is explicated i.e. through the pope and ecumenical councils. They deny a living prophet, yet essentially treat the pope as one in all but name. Compare this to how doctrine is determined in the LDS church by referencing D&C 107, that being through a council of the Prophet and the Twelve. Same with the Reformed concept of sola scriptura. https://reformationbiblecollege.org/blog/the-five-solas The Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, affirms that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation, the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. Why? Because Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, what Scripture says, God says. There is, therefore, a basic ontological difference between Scripture (God’s Word) and any creaturely words. Scripture is metaphysically unique. Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the church, and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith (Acts 15). If scripture is the "sole source of divine inspiration" while also being complete, what does that mean? It means that there will be no more and that what is extant is sufficient for salvation. So to put a more blunt pin on it, "mystery" as used in this context is a cop-out or an excuse to pull things out of their posteriors (consider the Immaculate Conception is a good example of this).

Lovely.

Mystery is what makes knowledge charming to us. The possibility of the hope for the light of discovery is what motivates man to try to grasp the mysteries of creation or the mysteries of God. We are "wired" in such a way as to find delight when light shines on a mystery. "A truth that is easily discovered can neither enchant nor hold [our attention]. To enchant and hold us it must surprise us by its novelty, it must overpower us with its magnificence, its wealth and profundity must exhibit ever new splendor, ever deeper abysses to the exploring eye. We find but slight stimulation and pleasure in studies whose subject matter is soon exhausted and so leaves nothing further for our wonderment. But how powerfully sciences enthrall us when every glance into them suggests new marvels to divine, and every facet of the object imprisons new and greater splendors!" ---The Mysteries of Christianity, Matthias Scheeben, B. Herder Book Co., St. Louis Mo, 1947, p. 5 I am out of town with our daughter's family and this thread was causing me to think about the book on my table at home which I just quoted. It wasn't deep and lasting, but perhaps you can imagine my delighted surprise at finding the very book I have at home here at my daughter's house. It might be a weak illustration of the value of mystery and discovery. But there is little so invigorating to the soul as a pleasant surprise. This is what all those who are aware of their lack of knowledge are searching for as they try to explore and find the new and startling truths that await us because besides Himself, He made all of His world full of mystery...for us!

Interesting idea. Please document this claim. Should be easy to do so if it’s the dominant view. Plus even if those in the afterlife can’t deny this knowledge, the knowledge is learned/newly experienced. That means the book isn’t closed on mysteries yet. The beatific vision, the ultimate purpose of man’s existence for many nonLDS Christians, will be a new and essential experience of what is now mystery, a spiritual and intellectual contemplation of God, for example. https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_12/ii_heaven.html I do not believe you have demonstrated that nonLDS Christians who believe public revelation is closed means what is still unknown is unimportant because it doesn’t logically follow that we fully comprehend all that has been revealed yet, thus more knowledge, important knowledge, may come. Also, if something is the ultimate purpose of mankind, even if it comes in the next life, how can that be labeled unimportant knowledge? Or not actually a mystery? And that’s because even if God has revealed and mankind can comprehend all that is necessary for salvation, that any other knowledge is unimportant or unnecessary for us to learn. If you believe that nonLDS do believe we can fully comprehend all that God has revealed, document this please. If you believe that nonLDS do believe the only knowledge worth having is that necessary for our salvation, document that as well. I am not claiming nonLDS Christians believe the above, I am simply claiming it is illogical to close out the possibility of further knowledge even if God has revealed all already (a library has so much knowledge available but who comprehends it all just because the books are there?)

Not so in this case, as each teaches that there is only one "Gospel/God" AKA "correct answer" and that they are said correct answer.

Do you understand what "effectively" means? Those using "mystery" in this context do not have the same conception of the afterlife as the LDS church does, where spirits have agency even after death to accept or deny knowledge. Many expressly deny it. Therefore, "effectively" means that yes, they do consider it to be unimportant as they believe that all that is important enough for them to attain salvation has already been revealed. That is the foundation for the claim of "Mormons believe in a different God/Jesus/Gospel". What do you think "sola scriptura" is? It means that the Bible (whichever version they use) is not only inerrant, infallible, self-interpreting, and complete, but that it is also formally sufficient for salvation. There's also the Deposit of Faith concept in the Catholic church, where they claim that all public revelation ceased after the death of St. John and that there will be no more until the Second Coming. Therefore, they believe that all that has been currently revealed in their eyes is likewise sufficient for salvation. That necessarily renders anything else as false, unimportant, superfluous, etc.

Anticipating something in the next life doesn’t render it unimportant in this life or we wouldn’t be caring about the afterlife at all. Just because someone believes something will always be a mystery in mortality doesn’t mean they believe God will keep the doors closed on more revelation in the next life or when Christ establishes his Kingdom on earth, however they imagine that.

Believing you are correct, and believing that God only accepts your specific church (or your individual congregation) as His true and living church, are two different things.

It is, but you'll find that the "Reformed" churches aren't exactly short on contradictions. See ol' Doug Wilson and his "only orthodox Christians should be able to vote" while being a Calvinist. He just needs to hope that a conservative Catholic or Eastern Orthodox doesn't get into power because he'd be seen as a dirty heretic too.

The "neo" or "new Mormon" thing, to be blunt, is cope. "You just keep changing your doctrine" is a fallback used by critics who were generally not familiar enough with our doctrine in the first place, so when corrected, they fall back onto that refrain. I suppose the only real "new" thing is the willingness for younger members to more strenuously pushback against the nonsense. The article in the OP even points out that many critics of the LDS church, when faced with an actual learned member, tend to have a great deal of difficulty As for "fundamentalist evangelical", that could be just people using words for negative connotations without paying attention to what they actually mean. There are probably people that identify as such too if you asked and some that are without knowing it. The actual fundies emphasize literalism, so they're often a punching bag for the political left and anti-Christians who point to them as a "typical Bible-thumping uneducated hick". Due to this, "fundamentalist" is used as a slur. Now while some/many are likely to be Bible-thumping uneducated hicks, not all of them are going to be such. "Evangelical" is used in the same way as the "Christian fundamentalists" are a subset of and came primarily from evangelical Reformed Protestant churches. Take the Wikipedia link how you will: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism

"Intersexed" isn't a different sex, they still operate on a male-female binary. They do not possess a unique sex chromosome or unique sex organs. Even the very term "intersex" requires one to be within the bounds of the standard sex templates. As the standard sex template in humans is male and female, that would make all "intersex" people "interbinary".

Biological women and girls is specifically what I asked asked Grok, Claude, and GPT to consider when comparing our policies. According to their analysis, your policy harms biological women and girls, and harms transgender women and girls. Their answers aren't proof, and you can challenge their reasoning. But interpreting the exercise as broadening “women and girls” misses the question I actually asked. Again: I am asking you to say, in a sentence that could go in a policy, which males are out. This is what you are steadfastly refusing to do. Again: The question remains which rule does that, and who counts as the women and girls in the tally. That is the argument, and you are evading important elements of it. Again: “Don’t pass a law unless there is a need, and don’t let it do more harm than good” is not a criterion for who the class is. It is a reason to regulate less. Applied to a women’s prison or a girls’ locker room, it can just as easily mean “don’t pass a sex law” as “don’t pass an identity entitlement.” You still have to say which males are out. Again: The natural and foreseeable effect of your proposal is the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces. I am not asking about analysis of whether biological women and girls will be harmed by your policy. I am, instead, asking you to explain your policy in the first instance. Under your policy, who is the "class" of persons that can access women's bathrooms? Under your policy, which males are to be excluded from women's bathrooms? Under your policy, who counts as "women" and "girls" for the purposes of gaining access to women's bathrooms? Is it "anyone who identifies as a 'woman' or a 'girl?'" Do you dispute that the natural and foreseeable effect of your proposal is the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces? We can have that discussion. The discussion we are not having, not really, is what I see as a motte-and-bailey style evasions. You are refusing to answer questions. I ask you "Who will have access to women's bathrooms," and you respond with "your policy harms biological women and girls, and harms transgender women and girls." I see that as evasive. Women and girls do have a right to be left alone. I am glad we agree on that. In fact, that is one of the main reasons those rooms were built as sex-separated rooms in the first place: so a woman is not required to undress, menstruate, or use a toilet next to a male stranger. You are not addressing this. The scenario you describe is not what a sex-based rule is. It is not “every woman must prove her sex to the public on entry.” Women’s bathrooms have been sex-based for generations. Masculine-looking women have used them the entire time. There is no TSA lane and no ID ritual. The ordinary rule is: this room is for females; if there is a genuine dispute, it is handled like any other rare, fact-specific complaint — not like a standing inquisition of every woman who does not look feminine enough for a stranger’s taste. Two things follow from that. First, the harm you are describing is already possible under any rule that still has a “women’s room” on the door. People can be rude. People can be wrong. A policy cannot abolish awkwardness. What a policy can do is preemptively decide whether the legal category is sex or a self-declared sexual identity. Those are not the same thing. Treating them as the same thing, and/or ignoring the substantial difference between them, is a pretty big part of our disagreement. Second, self-identification does not protect the woman you are worried about. It changes who gets put on the defensive. Under that rule, the woman who objects to a male in the room is the one who must justify herself. She is the one told she is the problem for noticing. The male who says the words is presumed to belong. That is not “leaving women alone.” That is requiring women to absorb the cost so that a male’s claim is never questioned. You asked what prevents the same woman from being scrutinized again and again. The same question applies, with more force, to the policy you prefer. What prevents a male from walking in again and again, once the only key is a sentence he can repeat? There is no document, no diagnosis, and no consistent presentation required. A woman who “looks masculine” can at least, if it ever came to it, point to the ordinary fact of her sex. A rule based on identity has no such fact. It is enforced, if at all, by vibes and social pressure — which is the one method most likely to hassle the tomboy and wave through the man who insists. So I agree with the principle you opened with. A woman should not have to put on a performance of femininity to be left alone in a women’s room. That is an argument for a sex rule, not against it. Sex is not a costume. Presentation is a costume. A policy that makes presentation or self-description the ticket is the policy that invites strangers to police how women look. The right to be left alone includes the right not to share an intimate space with the other sex. That is the older, smaller claim. It does not require women to justify their faces at the door. Grace is a good habit. But then, so is not policing women who do not look feminine enough for a stranger. I am not arguing for bathroom sentries or for treating every atypical appearance as a crisis. Harassment and threatening conduct are already out of bounds, under either rule. The question is not whether people should hunt for someone to object to. Rather, the question is what the room is for when a male is in it. “Don’t look” is not a privacy rule. It is an instruction to the woman: absorb the fact and treat your noticing as the unhealthy part. That puts the cost on the person the room was built for. A woman going about her business undisturbed includes not sharing a toilet stall wall, a sink line, or a moment of undress with a male stranger. Courtesy does not create that condition. A sex rule does. Courtesy is what we owe after the category is clear. I also agree that restrooms, locker rooms, sports, shelters, and prisons are not the exact same factual setting. Exposure, fairness, and confinement change the mix a bit. You can use a harm-and-cost frame in each place and still land on different rules. That is a fair point, and I will take it. What I will not take is the further step that usually follows: because the settings differ, the access principle may be identity in the bathroom and sex everywhere else, with no account of why a court or a school board should stop at the bathroom door. Again, this is what I see to be the motte-and-bailey aspect of your policy proposal. “We can get different results” is true. “Identity is the ticket here, but that only applies to bathrooms” is a hope, not a limiting principle. If the justification is “she identifies as a woman and should be left alone to use the women’s room,” the next sentence in a locker room or a shelter is obvious. So use the test you just named. Which policy better protects biological women and girls, including their privacy and their ability to go about their business undisturbed? A sex-based rule. The room remains for females (again, the persons for whom the segregated space was originally intended to benefit). A woman who presents in a "masculine" way is still a female using the room that belongs to her sex. She does not have to pass a look test. A male does not become a rightful occupant by announcing an identity or by presenting in a feminine way. Enforcement can stay rare, complaint-driven, and aimed at the actual mismatch of sex — not at women who fail a femininity costume check. An identity rule protects a different interest, namely, it prioritizes a male’s claim to be treated as a woman in that space, to the subjugation of the interests of women and girls who don't want men in women's spaces. It may reduce his friction, but it does so by making women and girls' undisturbed use depend on his say-so. Privacy here is not only “nobody assaulted me.” It is not being required to treat a male as a woman in an intimate setting, and not being treated as the problem for declining to do so. If the comparison is really about biological women and girls, the sex rule is the one that keeps the category intact. The identity rule keeps the sign on the door but then fundamentally changes what the sign means, and even makes the sign de jure or de facto meaningless. That is not leaving women alone. That is asking them to share with males spaces intended for women and keep silent about it. Thanks, -Smac

Biological women and girls is specifically what I asked asked Grok, Claude, and GPT to consider when comparing our policies. According to their analysis, your policy harms biological women and girls, and harms transgender women and girls. Their answers aren't proof, and you can challenge their reasoning. But interpreting the exercise as broadening “women and girls” misses the question I actually asked. You said, “I can weigh the same facts and think dissolving the criterion is the worse package. That is a policy fight.” Yes. But establishing that your rule excludes all males doesn't establish that it produces the better outcome for biological females. I understand that preserving that exclusion is itself something you value. We still need to consider what enforcing it does to the people you intend to protect. Women and girls have a right to be left alone. A woman shouldn't have to establish her sex to strangers simply because they think she looks masculine. Suppose someone reports her, she produces identification, and the encounter ends with an apology. She has nevertheless been scrutinized and made to justify her presence while simply using the restroom. What prevents that from happening again and again and again? Being left alone is a substantial part of the privacy we should be protecting. A policy that invites people to question whether somebody belongs can undermine that privacy, even when they meet your criterion for admission. And there is something to be said for extending ordinary grace from the other direction, too. I think we're better off letting other people go about their lives without making their appearance our business. Responding to harassment or threatening behavior is one thing. Looking around for someone whose presence we might object to isn't healthy. Finally, applying the same harm test to different situations (i.e. restrooms, changing rooms, sports, shelters, and prisons) does not require the same result. Exposure, competitive fairness, and confinement change the analysis. Someone can carry the basic framework of harm and cost into any other policy question without establishing that it warrants the same outcome. Which policy better protects biological women and girls, including their privacy and their ability to go about their business undisturbed? That is the comparison I think we should focus on.

See higher rates of assessment for autism and the broadening definition of autism (or autism spectrum disorder) being the likely cause for the higher rates of autism. That and just straight up fraud. Interestingly enough, Utah's per capita anti-depressant use ranking has dropped quite a bit over the last 20 years or so, from 1st to 16th. People also tend to forget that there are still a lot of non-LDS people in Utah, be they former members or people who never were. Could be that the LDS church does cause increased anti-depressant use, but not among members.

You might have to reference material from multiple books, but Jeff Bradshaw wrote In God's Image and Likeness 1 and 2 as well as Joseph Smith: A Life Lived in Crescendo. There may be some material in each of those that will be relevant.

Alternatively, such a mascot would just be more "haters gonna hate" content.

This seems like an issue of proper vs. improper nouns, with "God" having more importance, significance, power, authority, etc. than "gods".

It is quite logical. If there is no more public revelation and scripture is complete, then any remaining "mystery" is effectively unimportant by the tenants of your own belief. If it is unimportant, it's existence is superfluous at a minimum. Unless you want to try to make the case that God does superfluous things, then the idea that it's just a cop-out that's dug up when pressed on unresolvable issues of logic or theologic within your system is pretty strong. It isn't that "the room was not built with a door", it's that you (the general "you") deny that there is and/or will ever be a door and you decry any attempts to make a door or any claims that said door does in fact exist, all based on little more than appeals to precedent and/or popularity. Your "room not built with a door" isn't a room at all, just a pointless void.

That isn’t logical. There can always be mystery if there is something that is never intended to be revealed in this life. You will never know what’s in a room even if you have opened every door in a house if that room was not built with a door.

They don't have to "say everything is unknown". Those who use the notion that "Mormons believe in a different God and are therefore not Christian" are making an absolute statement on the matter. Their behaviors and actions reflect that stance. Sure, "the mystery" does come from what scripture doesn't explain. However, again, behaviors get in the way. When you put forth the idea that there is no more public revelation and that scripture is complete, you essentially make the case that there is no actual "mystery" and that further reinforces the idea that "mystery" is just a fallback when pressed. The things defined for the Trinity can't even be agreed on by Nicaean trinitarians themselves, see the problems between the Eastern and Western churches over the filioque. It doesn't show that we believe in a "different God/Jesus" at all, merely that we have different perception/information. If I cut a picture of a dog in half and give two people one half each, they don't "believe in a different a different dog". The problem arises when one side says "I may not have the whole picture, but what I have is sufficient, there will be no more information revealed until dog returns, and anyone who disagrees believes in a different dog and is therefore not a dog-believer". The Nicaean creed isn't quite the same as The Living Christ, as The Living Christ didn't have overt influence on its content from a government.