SeekingUnderstanding

I have pointed out that as a group, former members of your church identify as ex/post/former Mormon overwhelmingly. You don't want to use that terminology because you think your church leadership has told you not to. That's fine. But please don't pretend it comes from a clinical neutral place, when clearly you have a strong moral objection to using the word as indicated by your words "capitulation" and "surrendering your standards". Own it.

I have never seen an "Ex-LDS" thread so no idea how to find one there. Former mormon's for sure mock the church's 180 on the term Mormon. That has nothing to do with why they identify as such. I suspect it has everything to do with ease and simplicity. If I tell anyone anywere that I used to be Mormon, there is not further explanation needed. Easy peasy. You mean "Mormon" dialogue and discussion forum? I was simply curious why you don't call people how they prefer to be called. I mean I call members of your church, Latter-day Saints because that's their preference. I also call Latter-day Saints Christian because they identify as such. Should I drop these courtesies? I think not. Apparently such curtesy is one-sided in a "rules for thee but not for me" kind of way. Duly noted. You do you. Correct. If you have an ideological ax to grind against the word "Mormon", ex-LDS is the most factually precise wording to use (by default). But ONLY because you are ideologically opposed to the word Mormon. That is completely arbitrary choice and has nothing to do with the mostly widely used neutral nomenclature.

Wow, touched a nerve. CFR that identifying as post/ex/former Mormon is “intentionally” weaponizing the word.

I think people should be reffered to in ways that they prefer. That's why I refer to members as "Latter-day Saints" and not "Mormons". From Claude: Which is more common nomenclature, ex-LDS or ex-mormon. 11:39 AM "Ex-Mormon" is significantly more common. It's the dominant term used in everyday conversation, media, and online communities (the main Reddit community is r/exmormon, for example). "Ex-LDS" exists and is understood, but it's used much less frequently. "Former Mormon" is also common and tends to appear more in formal or journalistic writing, as it sounds slightly less charged than the "ex-" prefix.

Everyone i’ve personally interacted with who has left the church, when self identifying, uses the term "Mormon". Post-mormon. Ex-mormon. Formerly Mormon. I have never met someone who uses "LDS" or "Latter-day Saint" to identify their former membership.

Can you help me understand this terminology? I have never seen an ex-LDS forum or an individual who identifies as ex-LDS. Am I missing something?

So, simple reading, the KJV that was used is after the 1760s (probably the 1769 version). But only one data point (which is about a difference in an italic word) gives that date and the rest push it earlier to about 1660s (which is at the end of the EModE era). I agree that it is not easy to follow, especially when date ranges are used that don't even overlap. Some of the EModE that Carmack has mentioned were heavily used in the 1500s and some were heavily used in the 1600s. It is possible for 1 person to use both but it is odd. The EModE is really curious to me. I'm getting to the point that I can't see how Joseph could have done it but I don't know what that means. Exactly. So why is an author that is writing/translating in the 1500s quoting a bible that doesn't exist?

Do they? It’s so hard for me to follow. I seem to recall that they say some is much more archaic than the King James Bible. Which would point to authorship or translation earlier than a book that is extensively quoted throughout? Like what’s going on. And why?

Well I haven't been following that long, but the lack of any sort of coherent model here seems problematic. Why the Book of Mormon (purportedly written for our day, by a God that "speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.") would be a mishmash of EModE that changes half way through 3 Nephi and is also interspersed with modern english is a mystery to me. That degree of tight control over the language seems to present challenges for other areas where apologists want to claim looser control to allow for mistakes and revisions.

I'm really trying to understand the theory here. What level of influence did Joseph's brain influence the text? It sounds like your position is none at all? Who translated the text then? You speak of changes in 3 Nephi. Are you posing two separate translators? More? Why isn't the text entirely EModE? Why the mishmash? I'd really like to understand what your hypothesis is for how the text was put together, and why God chose to do it that way.

It’s less than three minutes long just FYI. With the gist of it being available in the first minute.

I think links to Mormon stories dot com are automatically screened. This is YouTube. Channel name is not in link. I think it provides helpful context directly from the subject of the thread even if that individual has a pretty poor track record. As always, I happily submit to moderator judgment, and whatever punishments they may deem worthy.

John Dehlin has issued a response on his social channels detailing specific demands made by your church. His litany of demands bears little resemblance to the newsroom PR piece but is very similar to the lawsuit filed. I (genuinely)wonder who is telling the truth? On the one hand, John Dehlin often plays fast and loose with the facts. On the other hand, your church has a storied history of obfuscation and carefully worded denails going back to its founding. I eagerly wait (sarcastically) for the legal action against Mormon Housewives next.

As a branch from this topic it always surprised me that Latter-day Saints are as anti-trans as they are. It’s my understanding that Latter-day Saints view gender as an eternal characteristic. It’s also my understanding that Latter-day Saint doctrine allows for all types of trials in this mortal fallen world. It seems like a natural conclusion that, with those two tenets, some individuals would be born with a physical body that doesn’t align with their spirit gender. I mean people are born limbless? Is their spirit limbless as well? Some people are born with genetic abnormalities that cripple their intelligence. Are their spirits also crippled in this way? Some people are born intersex. Are their spirits intersex? People are born conjoined, deaf, blind, infertile. All manner of conditions. For those that believe trans men are just women, (and vice versa) why is gender misalignment the one thing that God doesn’t allow to happen in this world?

Complaint driven response is based on gender presentation not biological sex. What percentage of the time does "gender presentation" align with "biological sex"? I don’t know, but I imagine it’s over 90%. some portion of those 10% are trans. I would imagine most are just individuals that look more androgynous than average. Could you elaborate here? Again, I am not advocating for the above enforcement mechanism, and instead provide it as my understanding of the historical status quo. I acknowledge that we are currently have a societal debate about this stuff, but are you and I in agreement on that (re: historical status quo)? i’m saying that the historic status quo was based on gender presentation not on biological sex as you presume. Because no one has access to someone else’s biological sex without invasive search or testing. So in arguing for the preservation of how it worked before from my point of view you’re arguing to let trans people use the bathroom of their choice. And I’d argue that for the vast majority of trans people passing as the gender of their choice is the ultimate goal. So letting them use the bathroom of their choice works under your historic system in the vast vast majority cases. And if we start trying to catch edge cases, not only is it harassing for those involved, but is equally likely to target cis people that look more androgynous than average.