All Activity

The behavior from your personal experience seems to match what I'm talking about. The first one, the women definitely scrutinized you. And probably would have asked you to leave or at least been very worried about you. But then a woman announced that you were with her and they felt better because there was someone escourting you. The second one, the men scrutinized the woman but accepted the situation because of the long line. If there hadn't been a long line, there might have been some more interaction. The third one, the woman knew she was crossing the rules and so asked for permission. Similar to the first one, because she had permission, no further interaction. So, scrutiny is happening. And, if the situation warrants it, they might not do anything further. But they might escalate it. We've had lawsuits that go all the way to state supreme courts on whether people can go in bathrooms and this is before 2013 and before any bathroom laws (in either direction) were implemented. There was a cultural rule that you went to the bathroom you were supposed to go to. If you didn't, you would be scrutinized, told to leave, harassed, or even arrested. It is why transgender fought for the right to go into the bathroom of their choice. Previously, they didn't have that and could be denied a bathroom.

Smac, I favor people ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves. That includes transgender women who are biologically male, without requiring them to prove their sincerity or look sufficiently feminine. We are making some progress. I am glad of that. I asked: "Under your policy, who is the 'class' of persons that can access women's bathrooms?" You sort of answer that above: "People ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves." You also sort of answer this one: "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?'" Your kinda/sort answer: "That includes transgender women who are biologically male." Okay, but does your proposal exclude any males? It seems like it does not, as all anyone has to do to gain entry is think "I 'identify' as a woman." Do you acknowledge this? Under your policy, which males are to be excluded from women's bathrooms? 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? So when I ask "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?", and when you obliquely respond with "my approach doesn’t preserve an exclusively female admission rule," can I take your answer as, effectively, "Yes, I acknowledge that my proposal amounts to the elimination, either de facto or de jure or both, of sex-segregated spaces."? I agree that people should be able to use a restroom without being inspected, photographed, or shamed for how they look. I also agree that circulating videos of confrontations can train people to treat every ambiguous stranger as a suspect. That isn’t the culture I want. Women and girls should be left alone. So should people who are just trying to wash their hands. Where we differ is what the room is for. I think sex-separated restrooms exist because the two sexes have different bodies, different patterns of sexual offending, and a long-settled expectation of privacy and propriety and decorum regarding spaces where women are in a state of partial undress or otherwise in need of a space providing privacy, propriety and decorum. Gender identity does not change those facts. A policy of “whoever decides they belong here belongs here” is not a modest extension of grace. It is a profound and fundamental change in the admission rule from sex to self-description. You are right that my rule does not preserve an appearance-exclusive women’s room. It isn’t trying to. It preserves a sex-exclusive one. That means some females who have beards, flat chests, and masculine clothing would use the women’s room, just as some butch women already do. Encountering someone who “looks male” would not, by itself, prove the rule was broken. I accept that cost. The alternative cost is that any male who claims a female identity — or who is willing to say he does (or even sillently think to himself that he does) — has a standing invitation to go into women's bathrooms. You note that someone could abuse discretion. Under self-ID, abuse is not a loophole. It is the rule operating as written. I don’t think the possibility of abuse “doesn’t establish” anything. It is the reason we have locks, stalls, and sex designations in the first place. We already reject “most people will behave” as a sufficient reason to make locker rooms, showers, shelters, and prisons mixed-sex. Bathrooms are the same kind of space, only more common. Regarding enforcement: I do not want staff or patrons running a femininity test at the sink. A report that “someone washing her hands looks male” is not enough. I would treat it the way we already treat other low-information complaints. Staff can look for conduct: lingering without using a fixture, filming, peering under or over stalls, following a particular person, exposing genitals, or refusing to leave a stall when asked in a way that suggests they are not there to use the toilet. Sex is established the same way it is established everywhere else we still care about it—birth records, medical history, or, in the rare contested case, the same kinds of facts courts already use. Day to day, almost none of that happens. Most people self-sort. The point of a sex rule is not constant policing. It is that when there is a problem, the institution is allowed to say “this space is for females” without first litigating someone’s identity. I also think we should build more single-occupancy rooms. That is the cleanest way to give masculine-looking females, dysphoric males, and anyone who just wants a door that locks a place to go without converting the multi-stall women’s room into a mixed-sex space. You favor ordinary grace plus intervention after harassment. I favor ordinary grace inside a sex-based boundary, plus intervention after harassment. The disagreement is whether the boundary itself is worth keeping. I think it is, including for girls who cannot be expected to sort “sincere transgender woman” from “male who wants access,” and including for women whose discomfort is not a character flaw. Leaving people quietly alone is easier when the room still means what the sign says. Thanks, -Smac

Isn’t saying or is saying?

I'm not so sure, and that type of behavior isn’t exactly what I was talking about. Here is all of my personal experience. Once, my wife was having a birthday party at a busy bar/restaurant. This was about 15 years ago. One of our guests grabbed my arm and said, “Analytics! You’ve got to see this!” She then proceeded to try and drag me into the women’s restroom. I refused to go, but she absolutely insisted and refused to give up. Finally so as to not make a scene, I reluctantly followed her in. Everybody stopped what they were doing and look at me. My host said, “It’s all right everyone! He’s with me!” With that, everybody exhaled and ignored me. She showed me there was a whiteboard in the restroom, and somebody had drawn an extravagant birthday message for my wife. I spent a tenth of a second admiring it, and got the heck out. Perhaps 5 years ago, I was at a crowded downtown venue, and there was a very long line for the women’s room, and a very short line for the men’s. A woman who was an unambiguously cisgender woman got into the short line for the men’s room. She waited her turn, used the toilet, washed her hands, and got out. Everybody there felt quite uncomfortable, but everyone very deliberately ignored her. About a year after that, I was in exactly the same situation, but this time a woman asked me for permission to use the men’s room, because she had to go very badly and couldn’t wait in the women’s line. I gave her permission to use the toilet. She went in, took care of business, and got out. Again, everyone ignored her. Likewise, when Lily Contino used the women’s restroom in Disneyworld, everyone politely ignored her and nobody made a stink about it until her videos went viral, and even then, the main objection was her videoing other people in the restroom and not her presence there. Compare that to the videos Smac collects that show people whipping out there cellphones and recording themselves saying, “I just saw a tranny go into the women’s restroom, and I’m going to confront them on video when they come out!” One person in his collection actually flew across the Atlantic Ocean in order to generate this type of content, and when she got impatient waiting for the person she was stalking to use the restroom, decided to confront her in a hallway with the accusatory question, “You’re a man! What bathroom to you use???!!!!” That isn’t healthy.

My issue is how @theplains is smuggling "true deity" into the discussion as though it means "the only being who can properly be called divine." That isn't necessarily what the biblical language is doing. God the Father is "only true God" saying other elohim being non-divine. There is one supreme God. There are nevertheless other beings who belong to the divine/heavenly realm and can properly be designated elohim. Their derivation and subordination do not make them non-divine any more than dependence on him makes them non-existent. The propositions that: 1. Yahweh unique among the elohim. Their King. And Elyon is their Father 2. Yahweh alone is worthy of worship in Israel. God the Father is the "one true God" 3. Other elohim are genuine inhabitants of the divine realm. All are perfectly compatible. In fact, Psalm 82 becomes rather strange if elohim in verses 1 and 6 simply means "imaginary gods" or "false gods." God is standing in the "midst" of them and judging them in heaven. The most straightforward reading is that the designation as gods is somehow meaningful even if their status is subordinate. If theplains says "they're not true* deities*" It must be unpacked. If by a "true" deity means there is one ultimate God, then yes, there is only one. But if a true "deity" means a real divine being, then they've simply changed the definition. Elohim doesn't function as a proper name meaning "Yahweh and nobody else." It can designate beings belonging to the divine realm. Yahweh's uniqueness is established not necessarily by denying the existence of every other supernatural beings called "elohim". The other gods are derivative gods, dependent on God, but genuinely divine. Appealing to "true" as though it's self-defining.

In his speech, Elder Stevenson doesn't indicate that he is speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. Two thoughts: First, we do not appear to have a transcript of his entire remarks, so he may well have said that he was speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. Second, there do seem to be some fairly strong indications that he was speaking in a representative capacity. Most obviously, his remarks were published in the Church News and Deseret News, both of which outlets specifically identified him as a member of the Q12. From the Church News (emphases added) : The Des News: I just don't see how you can read these remarks and still dispute that Elder Stevenson, a member of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, was speaking at a public event reported in the Church News and Deseret News on behalf of the Church. Second, your response does not not answer my question: If your position was "No, he was not speaking for the Church," then I would like to better understand your perspective. If Elder Stevenson was not speaking to the NAACP in a representative capacity, are you suggesting that he was speaking in his individual and personal capacity, entirely outside his priesthood office and responsibilities? How do you account for all the "we" and "our" wording in his remarks, his various and repeated references to the Church, and perhaps most particularly his statement "I would just like to reiterate our position as a church is clear...")? But we do find Elder Stevenson saying "Our position as a Church..." Yes. Not sure "repentance" works in a collective sense. As Edward Kimball put it: "The {1949} statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a 'direct commandment' from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came 'from the days of [the Church’s] organization.'" I think the same must be said about the 1969 item. What are your thoughts about this? Is Bro. Kimball correct in his assessment? This 2023 FAIR article may be worth a read: I would be interested to hear your thoughts about this assessment. Yes, there are some inconsistencies. However, there is a fairly important consistent item, namely, that there is no known revelatory provenance for the ban in the records of the Church. Leading members astray also equals leading them away from truth. I can't agree with this formulation either. It is a de facto imputation of inerrancy/infallibility. Could you elaborate? I would like to understand your perspective here. Possibly. I agree. In your view, which of the two propositions is better substantiated? If the ban was a "direct commandment," but if there is no record of that direct commandment... I'm not quite sure that the first half of this statement ("it isn't a question of who said it or when...") has ready application here. Nevertheless, the last part is ontologically accurate: "{T}he question is whether it is true." Where "it" is "Did the priesthood ban originate as a revelation from God, or was it something else?", it seems like the most accurate answer would be something like this: "There is no record of any such 'revelation' in the history or records of the Church." To which I would personally add: "For my part, the absence of any known revelatory provenance, coupled with the muddled origins we have pertaining to Pres. Young's 1852 address to the Territorial Legislature (and odd venue for declaring a revelation), and in light of the historical circumstances and prevailing racialist sentiments of the era, I provisionally conclude that the ban was 'something else.'" Thanks, -Smac

Thank you. Likewise. There is some historical tension with the church's portrayal of this. One article says it was Brigham Young who announced the policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/priesthood-and-temple-restriction?lang=eng However, Joseph Fielding Smith explicitly taught that the priesthood restriction did not originate with Brigham Young, but with Joseph Smith. In The Way to Perfection, he wrote "This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith". He then cited minutes from an August 22, 1895 meeting of Church general authorities, in which George Q. Cannon reportedly said that Joseph Smith had taught that the seed of Cain could not receive the priesthood until the seed of Abel had precedence. Joseph Fielding Smith made the claim even more explicitly in the April 1924 Improvement Era, saying: "The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him". But the current LDS Church considers it as a theory, not as a doctrine as the earlier LDS prophets taught. LDS leaders taught it was doctrine decades ago. But I can understand why today's leaders prefer to call it a theory. The Joseph Smith Papers states, "Joseph Smith's earliest visions and other communications with the divine, which began in 1820, were likely not recorded when they occurred". It explains that some of Joseph's early divine communications were initially oral and private and were only recorded later, if at all. The church says Joseph Smith received over 100 revelations that were recorded, but also explicitly says "Several of these revelations were not included in the Church's scriptures or published during Joseph Smith's lifetime. They are available today through The Joseph Smith Papers". And the church's "Religion 324-325 - Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual" says there were "some revelations still in possession of the Church which were not included" in the Book of Commandments. I wonder how many LDS members even read the church's article about Elder Stevenson or the above sources you mention. Yes. The LDS Church has spent an enormous amount of time and money in their effort, but they failed to provide a simple "we are sorry", "we apologize" statement. And they continue to refer to the reason for the priesthood ban as "theory" instead of "doctrine". Just tell the LDS membership, and the NAACP, that LDS leaders taught a false doctrine, leading people astray for decades and causing ham to others in some way. That the LDS Church resisted removing the ban even after Joseph Smith and Brigham Young died. See above. Early LDS leaders viewed it as a directive from God. He needed to add context so people inside and outside the LDS Church would know who the ban applied to. Believing the Book of Mormon teaching God put a mark of dark skin as a sign of a curse on people and then propagating it as "doctrine" to restrict people from holding the LDS priesthood leads people astray if it is not true. The "Religion 327 - Pearl of Great Price Student Manual" says "It must be noted that the mark that was set upon Cain was not the same thing as the curse that he received. The mark was to distinguish him as the one who had been cursed by the Lord. It was placed upon Cain so that no one finding him would kill him". Several LDS leaders explicitly taught that Cain's curse was associated with dark/black skin and that the curse continued through his descendants. Here are the clearest examples: [1] Joseph Fielding Smith In "The Way to Perfection", he wrote "A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin... These are the descendants of Cain". [2] Brigham Young Brigham Young was even more explicit about the physical mark. In an 1859 sermon he said "The Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin". He then connected that race to Cain's descendants and said the curse would remain until it was removed in the future. Journal of Discourses 2:179-91, 7:282-91, 11:266-72, 14:78-91 [3] Wilford Woodruff Wilford Woodruff also taught that the blackness/mark of Cain descended to his posterity: "What was that mark? It was the mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present". He further identified millions of Black people as descendants of Cain. [4] Bruce R. McConkie "Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes..". He also connected Cain, Ham, and Black people with the curse and priesthood restriction. The later LDS leaders interpreted these passages together and identified the blackness as the mark associated with Cain's curse. If this is false, then they have led their members astray. Either the priesthood ban was from God or it was from man. Either God put a skin of blackness on the Lamanites and cursed those who married them in the same way or he did not. Either Jesus is the Eternal God or he is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God. Wrong teachings lead people astray. If I teach Jesus is Michael the Archangel or a spirit child of a heavenly mother who became a God, then I have made a Jesus according to my imagination.

But wasn't that scrutiny always happening? If someone before 2013 walked into a bathroom and didn't look correct for that bathroom, didn't people scrutinize them? I've accidentally walked into women's bathrooms and I was definitely scrutinized and even mocked by the girls in there. If you look too feminine in a male bathroom or too masculine in a female bathroom, people will react to it. I've heard of people going to the employees and telling them that someone of the wrong gender is in a bathroom. So, I think people have always had to establish their sex. That was the norm of society.

In his speech, Elder Stevenson doesn't indicate that he is speaking in a representative capacity for the LDS Church. I didn't use the word "Church" as you did because he does not speak for protestant or catholic churches. A person doesn’t need to have a priesthood office or a priesthood responsibility to speak when invited to an event. One particularly significant part of the speech concerned the Church's history regarding race. Stevenson said: "Our position as a Church is clear. We do condemn all racism, past or present, in any form, and we disavow any theory that black or dark skin is a sign of a curse". Then "I am deeply saddened and hurt by this error". I don't find Elder Stevenson saying, "I apologize," "we apologize," or "the Church apologizes". I cannot find an official statement in which a Church President or apostle explicitly says, "We apologize for the priesthood ban/restriction". There are, however, increasingly strong statements of repentance, sorrow, condemnation, and disavowal. It's been almost 50 years. Just say a simple "we are sorry" and "we apologize". Just look at the example the Canadian Government set when it apologized to former students of Indian Residential Schools. https://rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1100100015644/1571589171655 Here is a brief snip: "To the approximately 80,000 living former students, and all family members and communities, the Government of Canada now recognizes that it was wrong to forcibly remove children from their homes and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that it was wrong to separate children from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions that it created a void in many lives and communities, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, in separating children from their families, we undermined the ability of many to adequately parent their own children and sowed the seeds for generations to follow, and we apologize for having done this. We now recognize that, far too often, these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled, and we apologize for failing to protect you. Not only did you suffer these abuses as children, but as you became parents, you were powerless to protect your own children from suffering the same experience, and for this we are sorry". The 1949 First Presidency called the restriction a "direct commandment from the Lord" and connected mortal circumstances with premortal conduct. "The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time". The 1969 First Presidency statement took essentially the same position, saying the restriction: "is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God". This is important because it shows that the claim continued well after 1949. There was a lot of flip flopping on the priesthood ban. The Book of Mormon records that God was the cause of people receiving the dark skin. It even records the skins of the Lamanites becoming white after the curse was removed (3 Nephi 2:15, "Their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like the Nephites"). Leading members astray also equals leading them away from truth. For example, the LDS Church's teaching that Jesus is the first spirit child of heavenly parents who became a God in his premortal life. This is a different Christ. Also, there are several teachings of a different Heavenly Father. "The progression of our Father in heaven to godhood, or exaltation, was strictly in accordance with eternal principles" (Achieving a Celestial Marriage Student Manual). "Man is a soul, that is, a dual being, a spirit person clothed in a tangible body of flesh and bones. God is a perfected, saved soul enjoying eternal life. He is both immortal and exalted to the highest glory. He is enjoying that blessed condition which men may attain to by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (How Men Are Saved, President Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, October 1974 General Conference). Possibly. Nevertheless, it was referred to as direct commandment of the Lord. Some LDS Church teachings and policies are not specifically written down and classified as "revelation" or "official doctrine". As Boyd K. Packer said, "It isn't a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true".

Smac, I favor people ordinarily using the restroom corresponding to their gender identity and making that decision themselves. That includes transgender women who are biologically male, without requiring them to prove their sincerity or look sufficiently feminine. I prefer that approach because everyone needs to use the restroom, and people should ordinarily be able to do so without having their appearance or sex investigated. Someone could abuse that discretion. But the possibility of abuse doesn’t establish that policing eligibility would produce better outcomes, including for biological women and girls. Your rule would also direct transgender men, including people with beards and thoroughly masculine appearances, into the women’s restroom. So encountering someone who looks male wouldn’t even establish that your rule was being broken. That matters beyond the occasional mistaken complaint. I worry about encouraging a culture in which people scrutinize strangers, challenge their presence, and shame them for looking like they don’t belong. You say you don’t condone that behavior, but you also watch and circulate videos of self-righteous culture warriors policing bathrooms, including in this thread. Sharing a video isn’t necessarily endorsing everything in it. But how we frame and circulate these encounters matters. Are we discouraging intrusive scrutiny, or encouraging viewers to see it as protecting women? Women and girls deserve to be left alone. And I think we’re better off extending ordinary grace than looking for reasons to police each other. I understand that my approach doesn’t preserve an exclusively female admission rule. We disagree about whether preserving that boundary is a good thing in terms of how it would require masculine-looking people to use the lady’s room, to mention nothing of the costs of enforcing it. I favor leaving people quietly using the facilities alone, with intervention for specific evidence of harassment, intimidation, voyeurism, or other improper conduct. You say your rule can be enforced through rare, fact-specific complaints. Suppose a patron reports that someone washing her hands looks male. What additional evidence, if any, would justify intervention, and how would staff establish that person’s sex?

Yep!

It sounds like something the Godfather would say, or Gadianton, or Cain.

Ok, pick another creed Chalcedonian Creed. Same thing. Though, we also do believe that outside influences can trigger revelations. See D&C 89 and Emma's concern about tobacco, Official Declaration 1 and all the polygamy federal push, etc. So, I don't see the problem with government influence in something that was also inspired. Just because the government was involved doesn't mean that inspiration and revelation wasn't there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZB8dkq1V0 "Who is Truth"/ Gospel Chats podcast

That's definitely one way to look at it. If I get the chance I'll link to the podcast. It's short and it's from the latter-day saint perspective but I'm not sharing it in an attempt to argue that it's the correct way to approach the topic. The podcast is quick to point out that that isn't their purpose either. It's just an interesting perspective that we tend to ignore in this day and age where 'truth = accurate' is most common. I just thought you'd be interested in the topic in general but you don't have to listen to the link, no worries.

It all depends on how you define truth. That is the essence of the book I am working on. I am too tired tonight to go into it, but I will try in the morning. Christ is the truth in the Greek/Hebrew concept of truth . . . very different from the modern concept of truth as correct and incorrect, right and wrong. Christ is the truth in the aletheia sense, that of being the revelator of that which had been hidden before Him. Truth as being is the ancient view of truth. My concept was that faith that is based on the modern concept of truth (correct vs. incorrect) is no longer faith. Faith that is based on truth as revelation - revealing that which was hidden is indeed faith. That is the kind of truth that Christ claimed to be. We no longer see truth in that way. More on that tomorrow.

I get the feeling you don't really care to find out what we Catholics believe. Gotchas, insults, inflammatory posts seem to be more your method. "Cops out"? There is nuance. Not everything is on/off, black/white, right/wrong, true/false. They are not logically opposing. They are nuanced. I've said for many years on this forum that the Pope and LDS Prophet function practically the same. And yeah, we don't call the pope a "living prophet." We call him the Vicar of Christ. It's got a little more punch to it than prophet, so don't think we are downplaying his role as compared to your prophet How, in practical terms, is the Pope, together with the College of Bishops, promulgating doctrine and dogma any different than the LDS prophet, together with the other 14 apostles, promulgating doctrine? They both claim inspiration and revelation, right? I know that word revelation trips you up, so let's take a look at the last time the pope infallibly declared a dogma. This is the dogma of the Assumption of Mary, that she was taken body and soul into heaven. Pope Pius XII declared this on November 1, 1950. Yes, 76 years ago, but unless I'm mistaken, the last time the equivalent happened in your church (Official Declaration 2, which the internet says June 8, 1978) was 48 years ago. Here's what the Pope said in Munificentissiumus Deus: So, he claims the authority of Christ and apostolic succession, then calls it "divinely revealed." Dogma is the highest level of doctrine in the Catholic Church. It is revealed by God, infallible, and requires positive assent by Catholics. Again, I don't think you discuss things in good faith. You don't understand the ideas and beliefs of other religions, then you dismiss it when people of those religions tell you you are wrong about their beliefs. You call their explanations cop outs, excuses, and cognitive dissonance, and say that they pull things out of their asses as the source of some of their most cherished beliefs. As you might know from my avatar picture, I adore the Blessed Virgin Mary. Finally, we may be wrong, but we're not stupid. The brightest minds of western civilization believed in and argued for the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Wrong, perhaps, stupid, no way. Please be more respectful when disagreeing with others' cherished beliefs. As others on this board can tell you, the non-LDS Christians here try to do the same with your beliefs.

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, God made all of His world full of mystery...for us!