All Activity

I wish. That is specifically against directives. But what are we supposed to do?

Sounds like you’re particularly judgmental of what’s going on around you. My suggestion is drop that burden.

I don’t see an issue with making exceptions for exceptional cases. The law doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There could be a process to be declared an exception by a committee if it turns out that self appraisal of how much one passes is not enough. This would not make it so anyone who wants to can use any facilities. I agree that exceptional cases can be handled as exceptions. The question, I think, is what counts as an "exceptional" case. As soon as we make an exception to allow women and anyone who in any way subjectively identifies as a woman into women's spaces, the exception swallows the rule, women's spaces are obliterated, and A diagnosed disorder of sex development is a medical fact. It is rare, documented, and does not require inventing a new category or a standing committee that evaluates identity claims. That is a narrow, evidence-based exception within a sex-based rule. What you are describing is different. A process that lets people apply to be treated as the opposite sex—whether by self-appraisal of “passing” or by committee review of identity—turns the exception into a pathway for reclassification. Once that pathway exists, the rule is no longer “these spaces are organized by sex, with rare medical anomalies handled as medical anomalies.” It becomes “these spaces are organized by sex, except for those who successfully petition to be treated otherwise.” That is not a minor administrative refinement. It is a substantive change in, even an upending of, the organizing principle. The problem is not the existence of any exception whatsoever. The problem is converting sex-based spaces into spaces that can be entered by the opposite sex through a bureaucratic or identity-based process. Diagnosed DSDs do not require that. Self-identification, even if filtered by a committee, does. A formal “committee” process for granting exceptions based on gender identity (or related criteria such as “passing,” diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or self-identification) could carry a real Equal Protection risk. A clean sex-based rule—everyone uses the facility matching biological sex—is a straightforward sex classification. Courts have upheld such rules under intermediate scrutiny when justified by privacy and safety interests tied to physical sex differences. The classification is applied uniformly: males use male facilities, females use female facilities. Once the government creates a discretionary pathway that lets some people use the opposite-sex facility based on gender identity, the policy is no longer purely sex-based. It now classifies people according to whether their gender identity has been approved by the committee. That introduces an identity-based distinction on top of the sex classification. Plaintiffs can then argue: The state is treating similarly situated people differently on the basis of gender identity (those whose identity is recognized versus those whose is not). The existence of an identity-based exception undermines the claim that the underlying sex classification is necessary or evenhandedly applied. Depending on the circuit and the evolving case law, the policy may trigger intermediate scrutiny (as a sex classification) or, in some views, heightened scrutiny if transgender status is treated as quasi-suspect. In short, the committee approach converts a relatively clean sex-based rule into a hybrid system that explicitly turns on gender identity for a subset of people. That makes the policy more vulnerable to Equal Protection challenges than a uniform sex-based rule with no identity-based exceptions. Rare, medically diagnosed disorders of sex development can still be handled as medical facts without creating a standing identity-review process that invites these claims. Thanks, -Smac

Against the rules unless things have changed.

I’m curious why this is different than other difficult to prove cases like stalking, harassment, and many cases of rape including marital rape. Cases where there exists a great deal of plausible deniability? Those cases are difficult for a reason, and the difficulty is not treated as a reason to abolish the underlying category. Stalking, harassment, and rape (including marital rape) remain crimes even though proof is often hard, evidence is contested, and plausible deniability is common. We do not, however, respond to that difficulty by declaring that the prohibited conduct is no longer prohibited, or by redefining the relevant categories so that the conduct becomes harder to identify in the first place. We keep the substantive rule and accept that some cases will be difficult to prove. The bathroom issue is different in a key respect. When the rule is “no males in the female facility,” the threshold question is relatively concrete: is this person male? That is a factual question about sex. When the rule is replaced by self-identification, the threshold question becomes “does this person identify as a woman?”—a claim that is, by design, difficult or impossible for an outsider to falsify. That is not the same as the ordinary problem of proving intent or non-consent in stalking or rape cases. It is a deliberate shift that makes the boundary itself unverifiable. Difficult proof is a feature of many criminal laws. It is not a justification for eliminating the sex-based boundary or for making the boundary turn on an unfalsifiable internal state. The two problems should not be conflated. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t see an issue with making exceptions for exceptional cases. The law doesn’t have to be all or nothing. There could be a process to be declared an exception by a committee if it turns out that self appraisal of how much one passes is not enough. This would not make it so anyone who wants to can use any facilities.

Which makes you kind of wonder whether things have changed in recent years, such that a laissez fair policy that was previously sufficient has ceased being so. Perhaps in the past Kansans axiomatically valued considerations that protect women's interests, and so prioritized those interests, and that prioritization was sufficient to allow a laissez faire policy to work. Nothing more was needed because there was no effort in years past to do what you are trying to do now, namely, obliterate sex-segregated spaces and let anyone and everyone enter into women's bathrooms. Sex-segregated bathrooms survived for over a century without detailed statutory rules because almost everyone shared the same basic understanding: sex is binary, real, and the relevant category for those spaces. The norm was enforced by social expectation, facility design, and ordinary common sense, not by a thicket of statutes. When virtually no one was claiming a right to enter the opposite-sex facility on the basis of identity, formal legal lines were unnecessary. But things have changed. That background consensus has been deliberately contested. Once institutions, activists, and some governments began treating sex as secondary and subordinate to self-identification, and once people began entering opposite-sex spaces on that basis, the informal equilibrium no longer held. The new statutes are a response to that change, not the cause of it. Pointing to the long period without explicit statutory language does not prove that sex-based boundaries are optional. It proves that shared recognition of sex made detailed legal enforcement largely unnecessary. When that recognition is rejected, the prior arrangement stops working on its own, and clearer rules become necessary to preserve the same spaces. The difficulties arising from the persistent lack of candor about the purpose of these spaces are substantial. Sex-segregated facilities for women were created to protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of women as a sex class. They were never designed to accommodate males who subjectively identify as women. That original purpose is routinely and vigorously obscured and ignored. The lack of candor appears in several recurring patterns, several of which are manifest in this thread: Conflating rare medical DSDs with identity claims. Treating disorders of sex development as if they justify self-identification policies, while refusing to distinguish the two. Selective concern for “safety.” Emphasizing the vulnerability of males who identify as women while downplaying or dismissing or ignoring the safety and privacy concerns of women and girls in the same spaces. Moving the goalposts on evidence. Demanding exhaustive proof that problems occur under self-ID regimes, while treating anecdotal or institutional accommodations as sufficient evidence that no problems exist. Euphemism and linguistic capture. Preferring terms like “gender-affirming,” “assigned sex,” or “sex assigned at birth” in ways that obscure the underlying biological distinction rather than clarify it. Asymmetry in application. Insisting that sex is irrelevant when males seek access to female spaces, but treating sex as highly relevant when discussing medicalization, sports performance, or criminal pattern data. Refusal to define terms operationally. Avoiding clear, falsifiable definitions of “woman,” “man,” or “gender identity” that could be applied consistently in law, policy, or data collection. Treating dissent as "harm." Framing disagreement about sex-based rules as inherently bigoted or dangerous, which short-circuits substantive debate about trade-offs and consequences. No limiting principles. The refusal to state any coherent limiting principle that would prevent the category from expanding without end; and the corresponding unwillingness to acknowledge the predictable result—that women’s single-sex spaces are steadily eroded or eliminated once sex ceases to be the operative criterion. These are not minor rhetorical disagreements. They are systematic efforts to avoid stating, in plain terms, what the policy actually requires and whom it disadvantages. Thanks, -Smac

The Kris Ripper case does not show that recording biological sex on a government ID is “outing.” Again, “outing” means disclosing private information that a person has deliberately chosen to keep hidden—typically something like sexual orientation or gender identity that is not otherwise apparent or documented. Biological sex is, under the law, not that kind of information, even if this or that individual feels otherwise. It is a material, observable, and already-documented fact recorded on birth certificates, medical records, and (in Kansas under the new law) driver’s licenses. Requiring an ID to state that fact is not the same as forcing someone to reveal a concealed personal secret. In the actual incident: Ripper’s license correctly stated Male, which matched the birth certificate and complied with Kansas law requiring the marker to reflect biological sex. The officer’s initial confusion arose from the mismatch between appearance and the marker on the license. That is a predictable consequence of presenting in a way that diverges from the recorded sex; it is not evidence that the recorded sex itself is “private.” Some months ago I was working on an a protective order (against a tenant who had threatened the property manager, my client). The police called me and said they were having difficulty identifying the guy (in the housing complex). They had his DL photo, but it turns out the guy had, since taking the photo on this DL, gained weight, shaved his head, and grew a beard. The police's initial difficulty was immediately resolved. They found the guy a few minutes later in the common area. This is not an uncommon thing. According to Ripper’s own account, the officer ultimately returned the license and issued only a verbal warning at the scene. The later charge appears to have been an administrative error or processing failure that the prosecutor dismissed once the facts were clarified. A bureaucratic mistake does not redefine the nature of the information on the ID. The claim that the birth-certificate sex is “private information [Ripper] would rather keep hidden” inverts the categories. The state is not requiring disclosure of internal identity, medical history, or preferred presentation. It is requiring the license to state a factual attribute that the government already maintains for identification purposes—exactly as it requires name, date of birth, and photograph. Those attributes are also “disclosed” every time the ID is presented; we do not treat them as outing. If the objection is that the law creates friction when appearance and documented sex diverge, that is a different (and debatable) policy argument. It does not convert the recording of biological sex into “outing” in the ordinary sense of the word. Thank you! That is exactly my point. That is why the description on your driver license is supposed to describe what you look like. Hmm. You seem to overlook the point I was making. The comparison doesn’t hold. A driver’s license contains two different kinds of information. Appearance fields (photo, height, weight, eye/hair color) exist to help an officer confirm that the person standing in front of them is the same person the license was issued to. Those fields are updated because appearance changes. That is their sole purpose. Sex is not an appearance field. It has never functioned primarily as a current visual description. It records a stable biological classification—rooted in reproductive anatomy and development—that serves identification and medical and legal and statistical and security purposes across many systems. It is not analogous to “has this person’s weight changed since the last renewal?” Updating a photo every few years does not convert the sex marker into a field whose job is to match current presentation. If that were the rule, the license would also need to track breast development, facial hair, voice pitch, or any other secondary sex characteristic that can be altered. No jurisdiction treats the sex marker that way, and for good reason: it would cease to function as a reliable classifier. On the examples you cite: In the ordinary transgender case (Kris Ripper), the “M” marker is not an “inaccurate description of appearance.” It accurately records biological sex. The visual mismatch is the result of presentation or medical intervention, not an error in the vital record. Emily Quinn has Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (XY chromosomes, internal testes, female external phenotype). That is a genuine disorder of sex development. Such cases are rare, medically complex, and do not turn the binary classification system into something “objectively wrong” for the 99.98%+ of people whose sex development is unambiguous. Treating a rare developmental anomaly as proof that the sex marker on everyone’s license should track self-perception or current appearance confuses the exception with the rule. The Kansas law requires the license to state biological sex. That is consistent with the marker’s historical and practical function. It is not a rejection of the idea that a photo should look like the holder. Those are different data fields doing different jobs. And your policy preference is to abolish women's spaces, full stop. I think that is a bad idea. Also, if the Kansas Legislature were to amend the statute to provide some limited exceptions pertaining to persons with DSDs, you would still find it a bad law, right? So the presence or absence of exceptions does not seem to be determinative. The law is bad because you want men to have the legal right to enter women's bathrooms, changing rooms, and so on. Anything other than that is, in your view, "a bad law." Am I correct on this surmise? No. Recognizing that a tiny number of people have disorders of sex development is not the same as abandoning the binary or adopting the liberal position. Sex in humans is binary: male or female, defined by the type of gamete the body is organized to produce (sperm or ova). Disorders of sex development (DSDs) such as Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome are medical conditions in which development is disrupted. They are not a third sex, a spectrum that dissolves the categories, or proof that the categories are optional. They are exceptions within the binary, not exceptions to it. As I understand it, Emily Quinn has CAIS: XY chromosomes and testes, but the body cannot respond to androgens, so external development followed the female pathway. Per this article, this condition has a prevalence of of 2:100,000 to 5:100,000. In other words, it is an exceedingly rare condition, one which which makes the person biologically male with a specific developmental disorder, not “objectively female” and not a third category. The existence of such conditions does not mean sex is a spectrum any more than the existence of people born without legs means humans are not bipedal. On the driver’s license point: the sex marker records biological sex, not current appearance or self-identification. In the overwhelming majority of cases this is straightforward. Rare DSDs create edge cases that medical systems and governments have historically handled by looking at the full developmental picture (chromosomes, gonads, phenotype). That is not “putting objectively false information” on the license; it is dealing with a medical anomaly. It does not require, and does not justify, letting ordinary males who identify as female - and I think you must concede that this is the group for which you are really advocating in terms of putting them in women's bathrooms - change the marker. On restrooms: sex-segregated spaces exist because of the average physical differences and privacy/safety interests between the two sexes. A person with CAIS who has a fully female external phenotype and has been raised and lived as female is not the same situation as a typical male who identifies as a woman. Policy can (and long has) treated genuine DSDs as the rare medical exceptions they are without opening the category to anyone who claims an identity. Conflating the two is the actual radical move. The position is not “no exceptions ever” or “exceptions for anyone who wants one.” It is that sex is binary, DSDs are rare developmental disorders that do not erase the binary, and policy should be grounded in that reality rather than in the claim that sex itself is a spectrum or a feeling. You’re treating this as if the question is “who gets to hand out special exemptions so males can be treated as female.” I think that is the wrong framing. Genuine DSDs are medical facts, not privileges granted by some authority. A person is not male becA person with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome has a documented developmental condition: XY chromosomes and testes, but a body that did not respond to androgens and therefore developed a female external phenotype. Doctors diagnose it; it is not a policy preference or an identity claim. We already handle rare medical anomalies through medicine and existing legal processes without needing a central “exception committee.” That is altogether different from the current demand that any male who identifies as a woman must be allowed to change the sex marker on a driver’s license or enter female spaces. One is a documented developmental disorder. The other is an ideological claim that sex is subordinate to identity. Conflating the two is the error. So the answer is not “we need a First Presidency equivalent to approve males into female categories.” The answer is that sex remains the classification, rare medical DSDs are handled as the (exceedingly) rare medical exceptions they are, and ordinary males do not get reclassified as female by declaration, feeling, or bureaucratic permission. No new authority is required to invent that reclassification, and none should be created. A male who has a diagnosed DSD. You keep asking questions to which you already know the answer. Marquise Vilsón is a biological woman who has taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as a man. Absent some viable limiting principle that avoid the obliteration of sex-segregated spaces, yes, she would need to use the women's bathroom. I am not conceding that sex-based rules have open-ended exceptions for subjective "self identity." The teenage boy I met at Encircle House "identifies" as a dog, but he's not really a dog, and our society is not (yet) ready to actually treat him like one. When he gets sick, his parents don't take him to the vet. He doesn't eat dog foot or sleep outside or relief himself on the lawn. And just as a teenage boy does not "become" a species he is not by "identifying" as one, a man does not "become" a woman by identifying as one. Emily Quinn has a documented disorder of sex development (CAIS): XY chromosomes and testes, but a body that could not respond to androgens and therefore developed a female external phenotype. That is a medical condition that produced a female appearance and secondary sex characteristics. It is not a claim that sex is a feeling or that males become female by declaration. Marquise Vilsón is a biological female who identifies as male and presents as such. That is an identity claim layered on top of an intact female developmental pathway. The two situations are not symmetrical, and treating them as equivalent is a category error. That is, "a semantic or ontological error in which things belonging to a particular category are presented as if they belong to a different category, or, alternatively, a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property." A man is not a woman, even if he chooses to dress and act like one. Ipso facto, men are in the "male" category, including those who dress and act like women. Sex-segregated spaces exist because of the average physical differences and privacy/safety interests between the two sexes. A person whose body developed along the female pathway due to a rare developmental disorder is not the same case as a person of the opposite sex who adopts the appearance or identity of the other sex. One is a medical anomaly in development; the other is not. I am not inventing a system of discretionary exceptions that lets males into female spaces (or vice versa) based on identity. I am saying that rare disorders of sex development are medical facts that do not erase the binary, and that ordinary policy based on sex remains the correct default. Conflating those rare developmental cases with transgender identity claims is how the binary gets dissolved in practice. Again, you keep asking questions to which you already know the answer. From my prior posts: I am not sure how much more clear I can be. I am not conceding a system of discretionary exceptions that lets people opt out of sex-based rules by identity or appearance. The line is drawn by biological sex and by the medical reality of disorders of sex development. Sex is binary: male or female, defined by the type of gamete the reproductive system is organized around. That classification holds for the overwhelming majority of people and is the proper basis for sex markers on identification and for sex-segregated spaces. A tiny number of people have disorders of sex development—medically diagnosable conditions in which the usual developmental pathway is disrupted (for example, Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). These are not a third sex, a spectrum that dissolves the binary, or a license for self-identification. They are rare developmental anomalies. When they produce a clear mismatch between chromosomal/gonadal sex and external phenotype, medical systems have long treated them as the medical exceptions they are. That is not the same as rewriting the categories so that anyone who identifies as the opposite sex, or who has altered their appearance, is reclassified. The distinction is straightforward: A documented disorder of sex development is a medical fact. A transgender identity claim is not. I do not support a process in which ordinary males (or females) are allowed to change the sex marker on a driver’s license or enter opposite-sex spaces because they identify as the other sex. That is not an “exception” within the binary; it is a rejection of the binary. Rare medical DSDs do not require, and do not justify, that rejection. The line is therefore not drawn by feelings, self-declaration, or visual presentation alone. It is drawn by sex, with genuine, diagnosed disorders of sex development recognized as the narrow medical anomalies they are. The name “Compliance Crew” is doing the rhetorical work for them. These are biological females who identify as male. Under the Kansas law, that means they are required to use the women’s facility. So they put on masculine presentation, walk into the women’s room in groups, and call it “compliance.” The point of the stunt is to create exactly the visual and social mismatch the law is designed to - and generally will prevent (people who look and present as male occupying a female space) and then treat the resulting discomfort as proof that the law is absurd. It is not a demonstration that sex-based rules are incoherent. It is a demonstration that when people adopt the appearance of the opposite sex, friction occurs. That friction is the reason sex-segregated facilities exist in the first place. Calling it “compliance” does not change the underlying reality: the law is sorting by sex, not by identity or presentation. Their protest confirms why that sorting is necessary. Thanks, -Smac

I’ve spent enough time with people telling me, as a latter-day saint, what I actually believe that it’s a red flag to me when a Latter Day Saint does it to someone else. We have to be really careful not to create a double standard in these kinds of conversations, where it’s ok if we do something to someone else that we would never tolerate them doing to us. There are obviously some independent denominations out there that do believe they are the only right ones. There have certainly been times in the past (and in places even now) when persecution between denominations was intense. Some of that had more to do with cultural heritage rather than doctrinal disputes. It’s messy But most (I was very careful in my work choice there) do not view church and Christianity through that lens. A Presbyterian may think that a Methodist is wrong in some of their beliefs, but, generally speaking, they don’t have a problem considering them to be Christian. I’m curious why it’s so important to you that they do? It’s seems like a weird hill to die on.

From its founding in 1861 until February of 2026, Kansas had exactly the laissez faire policy that I propose. I've looked for evidence that it wasn't working. I came up empty. I asked you to provide evidence that it wasn't working. You couldn't provide anything, either. Here is my reasoning, with candor. My "policy preference would not result in the obliteration of sex-segregated bathrooms" because my policy preferences worked perfectly fine from 1861 until 2026. With candor, why do you think sex-segregated bathrooms survived in Kansas until February of 2026 without laws that said who can and cannot use various restrooms?

Same on the women’s garment issue. My choices are either triple extra small or triple extra large. I don’t live in Utah so going to an actual distribution center there isn’t an option (though for some reason it does seem like they have them available since I see many many people online getting them) and the distribution center closest to me hasn’t had any either for a while. It’s very frustrating. .

Does a TBM wear them while swimming, bathing, contact sports, or intense physical exercise? No. Yet, when asked, "Do you wear them?", in an interview, answering "Yes" is an honest assessment of following a rule within its reasonable bounds. The church leaves decisions about when to remove it to individual conscience, prayer, and common sense rather than cultural trends, nor having leaders act as daily wardrobe auditors.

Lol he has not devoted his entire career to serving God and his people. Do you even look these people up before making assumptions about them? He is still "working" as the CEO of Whiting right now while serving as a Seventy. His entire career was not devoted to the church. Although he did serve as a mission president two times while he was CEO of whiting, does anyone really believe he would be taking any kind of cut in compensation from a mormon owned firm when he can have a conference call once a week just to stay abreast of things? While he is the CEO of said corp? The board of directors would have to approve his absence and Im betting he didnt realize one cent of a cut in pay for being absent. if it was exxon mobil sure...whiting...heck no. This guy just so happens to have a career in a mormon owned company that allows him to be paid and hang out in church meetings all week (like that is a good time, but it takes a special kind of Masochist to tolerate that garbage and actually say yes to more of it). The Modest stipend likely doesnt even cover their vacations. Even if he didnt have a job at all... he def wouldnt need the money. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/learn/steven-d-shumway?lang=eng "Elder Shumway received a bachelor of science degree in chemical engineering from Brigham Young University in 1996. He worked for Exxon Chemical Company in Houston Texas from 1996 to 1998. Since 1998 he has been president and CEO of Whiting Brothers Investment Companies." https://www.whitingbrothersinvestments.com/current-leadership "Steven D. Shumway is president and CEO of Whiting Brothers investment Co. and a managing partner of its affiliated companies. Steven received a bachelors degree in chemical engineering from Brigham Young University and began his professional career working for Exxon Chemical Company at an olefins plant in Houston Texas. Steven and his wife Heidi returned to Arizona to work with Whiting Brothers in 1998. They are active in their community and church. Steven's best hours are spent with his wife and four children working together and enjoying outdoor activities in the beautiful White Mountains of Arizona. " This guy definitely needs a "Modest stipend."

That or keep one's covenants. Yes, lying is bad.

Do like a lot of TBM women here in Gilbert AZ and likely Utah do... Wear workout clothes all day and be comfortable....and keep your recommend. Its what all the cool kids do. Of course that would involve working out on a rare occasion and staying in the workout getup for the rest of the day. We would not want to lie to our Bishop about wearing the temple garment day and night throughout your life.

It doesn't begin with a false supposition at all. What you accept or reject is irrelevant when looking at the problems inherent with your doctrine. God not having a material mind has nothing at all to do with the fact that, if he created all things, those things would still be products of God. You can use the term "mind", "thoughts", "ideas", "plan", etc. here interchangeably as they'd all functionally mean the same thing. If I decide to build a house, what do I need to do first? Make a plan for it, yes? Are you claiming that God created all things without any kind of planning or forethought? That it was all just instinct/reflex/randomness? What does us not being able to make matter with a word have to do with this? Why would thoughts and word not having physical properties (words kinda do, the sound used to vocalize them as well as the material to visualize them i.e. ink) matter? Presuppositions can only be granted if they have a basis. Mere "rejection" isn't a basis and doesn't make the idea immune to deconstruction. Why would I need to grant any presuppositions at all? I don't grant Reformed churches their presuppositions that the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and the ultimate authority on doctrine because it is based on bad logic, so why should I do any different for you?

I feel for you. Having recently realized I'm an autistic person, I hate tight fitting clothing (touch sensitivity), yet I do like many layers of cloths (pressure seeking). I don't suppose you are open to tailoring it?

Clearly not given that we are treated under the same laws as other persecuted groups. Seems like I do know what I'm talking about here as you can't seem to elaborate on why I don't. Yes, it has zero to do with Ukraine. This arrest was made based on laws passed in 2016. Yes Russia is engaging in the same basic behavior as other European nations, they're just going about it differently. At this point, you might as well be engaging in Holocaust denial.

I would not-so-quietly state that it does represent the truth. Again, you're acting as if actions mean nothing. Were that not the case, there would've been no pogroms against "heretics" or "infidels". Were that not the case, there would either be no individual denominations at all, or they would be far, far fewer in number. Why do you think the various schisms happened? Why do you think the Reformation happened (also an interesting question to ask Reformed believers when discussing the topic of the Great Apostasy). Varying interpretation has little to do with the concept of "the one true church". I don't recall anyone claiming that no such thing existed in the LDS church or any other. Whether it's "quite a bit more complicated" or not doesn't seem to detract from the fact that he was lured in under false pretenses and subsequently murdered as an official act for being a dissenter. An apology hundreds of years afterwards doesn't negate that fact. Do note that I'm not attempting to hold any modern people accountable, but the act itself can't be ignored when discussing history. The documents at Cambridge only summarize themselves. Whether they give a full, accurate accounting of his beliefs remains to be seen. Even then, what would that matter? The fact that any were destroyed at all as an act sanctioned by the Catholic church is the problem.

A claim doesn't have to be made. All you have to do is look at how they behave. You aren't open about your history precisely because you spent hundreds of years torturing and murdering dissenters and anyone deemed infidel while burning their material. Material that is objectively part of your history. Hilarious that you ask that and then the very next line you respond to is you stating how you think it's a shame. Where is presentism an issue here, precisely? How does invoking presentism make a difference? I'm going to assume you're referring to my commentary on how using presentism when discussing the marriage of "underage" women, so imagine being so desperate for a point that you have to conflate a long-standing practice across the entire planet built out of a need for the survival of the species to a statist "church" making laws in order to justify killing their political rivals. At this point, you might as well be doing the "Everything Hitler did was legal" meme unironically. Also, what about the Danites? Are you going to try to claim that they were officially supported by the LDS church? Can you show evidence that any of their activities were officially sanctioned by the LDS church, particularly the more infamous ones like Mountain Meadows? Even if they were, you'd still have to hand-wave away the orders of magnitude of difference between them and the historical Catholic church. Meanwhile, your church quite literally has it's own official army and has co-opted those of entire nations more than once. Trying to act like they're anywhere near the same is peak disingenuousness.

Another distinction without a difference. They can't all be "true" and yet all be different.

They most certainly do believe such, regardless of whether they say it out loud or not. If they did not believe such, there would be no separate denominations. There would be no such thing as "heresy", for none would believe themselves to have the authority to declare anything as such.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Still can’t get garments unless I want 3XL. Husband finally was able to order his regular shirts - came yesterday but the sleeves hang extra low beyond regular tshirt length!!! What in the world! Frankly I’m tired of this.

Why would that matter when that isn't the topic? The Catholic church officially denies continued public revelation prior to the Second Coming of Christ according to the Second Vatican Council. Despite this declaration, they've treated many things as such. See the Fatima visions, see the determination of canon, etc.