All Activity

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.

When did I state anything about "specific"? You're conflating "church" as in an institution derived from a specific set of beliefs with "church" as in an individual congregation. The entire reason why any denomination exists is because those who adhere to the tenants of said denomination believe they are the correct choice in a venue where their can essentially only be one correct choice. This is also why many of the other churches' objections to the idea of a "Great Apostasy" are hilarious. Why did the Reformation happen? Oh right, the Reformers believed that the Catholic church was in error. Why do you think Martin Luther referred to the Papacy as "the synagogue of Satan"?

Yes, completely malleable. Those in power make the laws. Find me a single law in any country that is entirely unchangeable. Yes. It isn't "Devoid of rationality" at all. That's just another cop-out when you can't actually address the point. The premise absolutely supports the conclusion. Again, another cop-out. The law was made in 2016. Do basic math. What is 2022-2016? 6 years, correct? So, a law was made 6 years prior to an event. The Russian government suppressing our church began BEFORE the war in Ukraine kicked off to the current point. Ergo, there is no logical basis for your claim that this is only happening due to the war going worse than they planned. Your entire point loses to basic math and a calendar. Okay, answer your own question. The war didn't go according to plan, but it has been going better since it started for Russia. The consistently take Ukrainian territory, so the claim this is only because of war issues fails on that accounts. As for why wasn't he arrested years ago, why are you assuming that his actions were known years ago? Given the nature of the Russian government and European governments in general, any dissenting organization is likely to not just have information on their donors out in the open for all to see. "Great Replacement" isn't "antisemitic" at all. That's you just repeating the media's version of it. No one claiming Jewish involvement can even produce evidence of Jews being involved at all in any significant capacity. Ah yes, good job not reading the document at all. Typical. Yeah, yes. Not wrong. Godwin's law only applies to Hitler, not Nazis in general or anything related to them. By your logic, I can bring up Hugo Boss' various clothing lines and have Godwin's law be applicable. Appealing to pedantry is another cop-out from someone ill-equipped to debate the topic in the first place. You are entirely downplaying persecution. You ignore the laws passed prior to the war and chalk this up to "Meh, just due to the war going bad. Nothing to see here guys. Please ignore the law and historical persecution of any church other than the state-aligned Eastern Orthodox church." You aren't "trying to understand", you're making an argument that requires ignoring all relevant context. Law was made justifying this action prior to the war. Country has a history of such actions against non-state churches going back decades at minimum. But you're trying to claim that this is because of a war that is at most 12 years old (if you count the annexation of Crimea as the start) or at least 4.

The Bible explicitly calls Baal an elohim / a god (1 Kings 18:27) and also a shedim / demon (Deuteronomy 32:17). If Baal is a real spirit with spiritual power over territory, and the Hebrew Bible explicitly categorizes that as an elohim. On what authority do you claim Baal is "not a god"? 'A-god-but-not-a-deity' has never been a category. Satan is Baal (Matthew 10:25, 12:24–27, and Mark 3:22), and God the Father gave him his territory and people (Deut 32:7-8, Psalm 82). Again, are your non-deity elohim in Psalm 82 wood idols, human figures, or demons who reside in the heavenly vaults and rule the nations with God given authority?

Nope, not completely malleable. And in authoritarian nations using the laws to persecute political enemies is done openly. In liberal democracies you usually have to be more subtle if you can do it at all. No. It is devoid of rationality. The premises do not support your conclusion. Then why was it not exercised to arrest this guy years ago. His activity that supposedly was a violation of the law happened many years ago. So by your standards you lose to a basic calendar. It is an antisemitic conspiracy where “elites” are trying to dilute a nation by bringing in non-white people. It is the rhetoric that got Hitler into power. It wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now. If you want to preach fascism at least be honest about it. Immigration happens therefore great replacement theory true? Yeah, no. Wrong. Godwin’s law also applies to (incorrectly) labelling someone a Nazi or a fascist and saying someone is pro-holocaust is pretty much assigning that label. Your pedantic dodge is facile and silly. I am not downplaying persecution. I am trying to deduce why this is happening now and not five years ago. You are just being a simpleton about it. Not what I am arguing but if you need to brush up on basic math go nuts. Yes, it is normal. This particular level of persecurtion of those who donated to someone years earlier is not the norm. This guy wasn’t a political opponent like any of those you listed. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Trying to understand why something is happening now and not years ago when it could have isn’t downplaying the persecution. You aren’t very logical. Then again you buy into fascist conspiracy theories so that is kind of a given.

I believe it’s a Jewish prohibition as well, though not as encompassing as I thought. https://aish.com/destroying-statues-and-judaisms-prohibition-of-making-graven-images/

I don’t see it that way as I agree with him (at least as written here). But I suspect I have a different view of what the Gift of the Holy Ghost means than you possibly understand it to mean for us. For me, it is one vehicle to facilitate our relationship with the Spirit. It is only available in the here and now through receiving the specific authorized ordinance performed by an authorized priesthood holder, where authority and priesthood is defined by LDS standards. I don’t equate it, for example, with what happened to John as described in Luke 1:15 or the Pentecost.*** https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke 1%3A15&version=NIV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 2&version=NIV However, there are many, many other vehicles out there to facilitate our relationship with the Spirit and I suspect some are not available to LDS (I think a monastic life is one, living as full time clergy with no other career besides serving God’s children in a devotional way is another). I believe doing volunteer work, prayer, scripture reading, caregiving, study of faiths, meditation, sacraments of many faiths, walking in nature and many more all can function as vehicles. The most important factor imo (and there may be LDS who think otherwise, but I think they are wrong and I know other Saints who agree with me) is the individual, not the vehicle…how open they are to experiencing the Spirit; how strong of a drive they possess to seek out God; how willing they are to be humble enough to accept what they hear, learn, or feel; how physically or emotionally they are prepared for the experience; or if they then use such knowledge to grow closer to God or help his children. I am sure I could come up with more variables that affect our experience, ones we have control over and others we don’t. To say another does not have the Gift of the Holy Ghost in my head isn’t any more offensive than saying someone is not LDS. Either they haven’t had the opportunity to receive either membership or the Gift or for what is likely a very reasonable reason, they have chosen not to take the opportunity. Neither of those means to me they are rejecting God or his Spirit in any way. Nor does either tell me how strong their relationships with God or the Spirit are. Analogy alert… Your wife chooses not to become a member of this message board to communicate with you through this medium. No one in their right mind would assume she has therefore rejected a relationship with you or believe that somehow I have a better relationship with you because I can communicate with you through posts here while she cannot. There are many vehicles of communication these days, email, message apps for texting, phones, face time, snail mail, DVD recordings or audio recordings, painting or sculpture for a more abstract form, body language, sign language, touching, and then face to face verbal communication. I have probably missed some. Each of these might be superior than the others for a specific purpose, but none of them tell us how well someone communicates or understands us and the choice of medium in no way tells us how deep or shallow that relationship is. There are people on this message board I know better and care more about than the neighbors across the street. I probably know some better here than I know a certain close in blood relative who separated from the family decades ago. I can’t think of a non superficial conversation I have had with them that I walked away from feeling good about since they were a teen. One could use a message board like this or email or even snail mail to open up with someone in a very deep and intimate way while barely talking to someone they see across the office every work day of their life. We make all sorts of assumptions about relationships based on the how a relationship occurs, but they may have little to do with reality. I don’t know if that member who told your wife that was judging her relationship as inherently less than any active member of the LDS faith or if to him it was a simple observation of her not experiencing one form of encountering the Spirit…a form that many members don’t make much use of, btw, I would suspect, but hope I am wrong. The Gift is certainly a blessing from God and I think it would be great if everyone had access to it, but it doesn’t appear to be high on God’s priorities in mortality given how few of his children he has ensured they have that opportunity. I believe the Light of Christ is another vehicle for a relationship with God and the Spirit and God made sure to give that to each of us. Those who make full use of that gift of the Spirit are going to have much deeper and stronger relationships with God than someone who has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, but ignores any promptings of the Spirit. From your comments, it sounds like your wife is a deeply spiritual woman, someone any LDS would do well to learn from. She is not less spiritual or less valuable in that way just because she never partook of that specific ordinance. BTW, I am not telling you or your wife not to be concerned with what that LDS member said. I wasn’t there, you are likely to have a much better impression from tone, facial expression and other body language as well as their past behavior how he meant it. I am just sharing why some of us might agree with the words that he said. ***The dedication of the Kirtland Temple was described as a Pentecost, but those experiencing this would have already received the ordinance of the Gift of the Holy Ghost, so this must have been something different to that Gift. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-109-prayer-of-dedication-for-the-kirtland-temple?lang=eng

As long as people are not bowing to and worshipping said statue, I guess fine, as I said it ' bends the commandment' not breaks it. I have noticed that many of the LDS temples do not have a " Moroni " on top. I also notice that Muslims are much more strict about images than Christians.

Do you find all statutes an issue, just religious ones, or just ones outside or inside worship areas. What do you think of the Christus or the Angel Moroni statues on temples? (Apparently the sculptor intended them to be Gabriel, thus the horn, but then an apostle suggested Moroni (think it was Marinner Merrill as I just looked this up yesterday as we drove by Provo’s temple) and that’s what stuck. I never understood the horn before, book was obvious.

No worries. I am overly verbose sometimes. Understood. I agree with this. The Church does not "save" anyone. Christ does. We believe the Church, which He organized and heads, is there to facilitate ordinances and other components of discipleship in a communal sense. I appreciate the clarification. When we say “creedal Christianity,” we mean churches that treat the historic creeds—especially the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity—as the binding definition of God, and that treat the creed-making era as having closed the book on new public revelation. Individual sanctimony/pride in gifts of the Spirit is antithetical to that Spirit. I am sorry you have witnessed that in us. I served my mission in Taiwan, where no small number of Christians and prospective converts balked at the "onlyism" of Jesus as the sole source of salvation. There are elements in each of our faith traditions that rankle. By "it's not personal" I think we would each mean that these are the doctrines as we have found them and believe them to be, in a "let the chips fall where they may" sort of sense. They are not crafted to indict or offend, but to clarify. Yes, Christ taught in the temple. There is no evidence in the New Testament that he was ever “comfortable” there. In fact, since you are an attorney, I would suggest there is more evidence of his discomfort there. I think we are viewing things through the lenses of our respective presuppositions. Christ went to the temple as a young man (Luke 2:46-49), and characterized Himself as doing "my Father's business" while there. He healed in the temple (Matthew 21:14). He drove out the moneychangers from the temple (John 2:16). That is, I think, the only recorded instance of violence by Him. He referred to the temple as "My house" and a "house of prayer." Matthew 21:12–13; Mark 11:15–17; Luke 19:45–46. He chastised those who had made it a "den of thieves." He entered the temple as party of his triumphal entry (Mark 11:11). At one point He taught daily in the temple (Luke 19:47; 21:37–38), and at other times (John 7:14, 28; 8:2, 20; 10:23; 18:20). He paid the temple tax (Matthew 17:24–27). I can't read these without feeling that Christ revered and honored the temple as a sacred edifice. I don't see these passages as indicating He disliked or resented or rejected or was otherwise alienated from the temple. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. Thanks, -Smac

I sense sequels coming….

It does! I couldn’t figure out how they were possibly going to come up with an ending either. But did you notice that the ending is kind of tricky? It leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

I haven’t personally spoken to a Protestant that didn’t claim to be creedal. But I don’t know how active they were in their own faith. Maybe they didn’t know what they were talking about.

Personally, I am not a fan of statues inside or outside of a chapel. It borders on bending the second commandment. Exodus 20:4-6: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of -__anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; Then again there is that pesky AoF which says we allow folks to worship " how where and what they may "