BlipBlap

Except we aren't seeing further knowledge being gained from additional examination of public revelation, we are seeing conceptually new things. See the example of the Assumption of Mary. It has no support in scripture and it's support in tradition is questionable at best. There are some issues with this analogy: 1. Scale: In this case, the claim is that all data has been collected, but the experiment (i.e. mortal human existence) is still continuing despite the claim that all data has been collected. It is strange indeed to deny that data collection is continuing, but to then take so long at releasing the data set despite it supposedly being complete. 2. Lack of evidence: This support for this completeness claim is stated to be from the parameters (i.e. scripture) set forth by the designer of the experiment as well as chiefs among the designer's chosen representatives (i.e. God, Jesus' apostles). However, no explicit statements indicating this completeness can be found. Comparing this to a painting is even worse. If I can't see the whole painting, I have no reason to believe that it is complete. Were it complete, there is little reason to keep some obscured while still claiming completeness. Again, this is the cognitive dissonance. What they say and how they behave are at odds with each other. Instead of being honest and simply saying that public revelation is ongoing, they have to dance around the idea because they've caught themselves in a trap of their own making.

If I didn't really care, I wouldn't have bothered to look in the first place. If you find something about this to be "insulting", "inflammatory", or a "gotcha", that's more on you than me. You're choosing to be insulted over a critique of your church's own words and actions. Yes, cop outs. If there is nuance, then surely you should be able to explain it rather than simply state that it exists. They are logically opposing. Again, show the nuance. Seeing as how you referenced nuance twice to this point and failed to elaborate, I'll again go with this being a cop-out. Revelation that has not been made explicit is functionally equivalent to something that has yet to be revealed. If I claim that I have all of the burgers in the world and that there will be no more, but then in the same breath state that some burgers have yet to be made, I can't rightly claim to have all burgers in the world or that there will be no more. Whether you call the pope a "living prophet" or not isn't all that relevant. The point is that you claim that prophets are no longer needed, yet treat the pope as one in all but name. As for vicar supposedly having more "punch", that doesn't really hold water either given that "vicar" doesn't even have theological roots as a title, while the concept of a "living prophet" as relevant to Christianity goes as back to Adam. Also, given that "vicar" originally referenced the officials under the command of the Praetorian Guard, this isn't the flex you think it is (as some younger people would say) given the Guard's history as an organization. They had a bit of a habit of killing those who they were supposed to be protecting. Sure, both your pope and our prophet both claim inspiration and revelation. But again, as I quite explicitly illustrated earlier, the pope operates under the presumption that all public revelation has ceased while simultaneously claiming that not all public revelation has been made explicit. Again, this is the cop-out. Instead of just simply saying that the pope is a living prophet and that public revelation is still ongoing, you have to perform this dissonant dance where you deny the concept of a living prophet and ongoing public revelation but still behave as if both are true. The word revelation doesn't trip me up at all, that seems to be more your bag. Again, you claim that all public revelation has ceased but not all public revelation has been made explicit. We just say that it's ongoing. The latter is far more honest than the former. Yes, the Assumption of Mary was declared dogma back in 1950. Again, there's the issue. Why, if public revelation has been complete for close to 2000 years, would this only be made dogma less than a century ago? What would the point be in keeping this particular concept unexplicated for so long? Nevermind the absence of scriptural support and the questionable support in tradition. This goes back to what I presented earlier. The Catholic church's behaviors do not match up with it's actions. Accusing me of bad faith is hilarious when I point out a blatant contradiction in your church's statements versus its behaviors. You can't even elaborate on this "nuance" I'm supposedly missing or where I'm incorrect (given that my stance is taken directly from your church's own words). At what point did I claim that you were stupid? Again, if you have issue with my presentation, that's entirely on you.

Or perhaps you should work on reading comprehension. If I claim that public revelation has ceased, but not all has been made explicit, that is no different than saying that public revelation has continued. If something is not explicit, it is functionally no different than something that is unknown.

Not correct. Again, their denominations would not exist were that not the case. Why did the Reformation happen? Why did every schism happen?

Sure, but we also aren't talking about lesser things like tobacco use or polygamy. Constantine essentially called a council to determine the nature of God and essentially would not allow any sort of dissent with his view. This is of a much greater magnitude than the two examples you presented.

The concept of divinity is certainly an interesting topic for non-LDS, especially when they try to appeal to scripture to support the idea of "only one divine being".

Seems like if you're hearing quacking from this, that makes you the duck. Incredibly ironic coming from the dude downplaying persecution going back more than a decade as little more than "Ukraine war going bad".

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).

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

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

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".

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.