webbles

The church would have their revelations published so that others could read them. For D&C 22, we don't seem to have the original manuscript that was done. We have a copy in the "Revelation Book 1" but it appears to be a copy of either the published copy in Painesville or what ever is the original manuscript. You can see that version at https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-book-1/16. To find additional versions on the Joseph Smith Papers, there is an "Additional Versions" drop down in there. I linked to the earliest version since you were asking for when the idea was introduced. I think the Civil War prophecy you are referencing is D&C 87 https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-25-december-1832-dc-87/1. It was given in December 25, 1832. The Painesville Telegraph had run an article on December 21, 1832 about a cholera outbreak in India and the nullification crisis in South Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis). I don't believe the revelation was printed in the Painesville Telegraph. Joseph Smith Papers doesn't include that as one of the possible "Additional Versions". The white horse prophecy is different. The earliest evidence we have for that prophecy is at least a decade after Joseph has died. And there is a lot of debate on how much of it has been embellished. Some of the ideas in that prophecy are known to be Joseph's. For example, the idea that the nation will be on the brink of destruction and will be saved by the church is in a speech that Joseph gave in 1840 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-circa-19-july-1840-as-reported-by-martha-jane-knowlton-coray-b/4. But the full white horse prophecy is generally not accepted by the church. For most of the revelations to Joseph, he would dictate the words and a transcriber would write them down. D&C 35 was done that way. After Rigdon was baptized, he came to meet Joseph for the first time and Joseph received this revelation for him. The words would not have been Rigdon's. We don't know who transcribed the words so it could have been Rigdon. But we believe it is God's words through Joseph. Yes, it is quite a leap. But we believe that the revelation is from God, so it would be His words. Here's another attempt to explain our belief on proper authority. We don't believe the authority comes from the Church. We believe there is one authority, and it is God's. We generally call it priesthood. This priesthood is given to man by God. But it can only be given by the laying on of hands (see Article of Faith 5, Moroni 3:1-4, Alma 6:1, Acts 6:6, Acts 13:3, and we also assume the act of ordination involves laying on of hands). The ordinances (baptism, confirmation/Gift of the Holy Ghost, marriage, priesthood ordination) all have to be done by someone who has this priesthood, otherwise the ordinance is not binding. We believe that God can revoke the priesthood from someone even after they have been ordained (it is His authority after all, also D&C 121:37), but receiving it requires physical laying on of hands. This is why John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John had to visit Joseph and Oliver to restore the priesthood. At the time, only the 3 Nephites and John the Beloved were on the Earth with a valid priesthood, but for what ever reason, they weren't using it for ordinances. It is also why Elijah and Moses visited the Mount of Transfiguration (to give priesthood keys to Peter, James, and John). And why Moses, Elijah, and others visited Joseph and Oliver in the Kirtland Temple. So, anyone who has this authority can perform valid ordinances. But as of right now, we believe only the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can show that they've received this authority through proper laying on of hands with a chain all the way back to Christ and with no apostasy of it (this is why we don't accept Catholic or Community of Christ or other break offs of the church).

Revelation on valid baptism is D&C 22, received in 1830. It was specifically triggered by new members who didn't want to be rebaptized. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-16-april-1830-dc-22/1 has a bit of the history around it. For the Gift of the Holy Ghost, besides D&C 22 (which covers it because it talks about all "works"), I would say the two strongest is D&C 35 (1830 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-7-december-1830-dc-35/1) and D&C 49 (1831 - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/revelation-7-may-1831-dc-49/1#historical-intro). D&C 35 is about Sidney Rigdon who had just been baptized. He was previously a Campbellite preacher and had baptized many people and believed they had received the Holy Ghost. In D&C 35, he is told that he now has proper authority to baptize and lay hands on them to actually give them the Holy Ghost. D&C 49 is about the Shakers. It says (among many things) that they need to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Since the Shakers already believe they have the gift, this is evidence that God sees differently. Additionally to those 2 sections, it also follows logically with our belief in authority. To receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it has to be done with proper authority after you've been baptized with proper authority. An early example of this is from a discourse from Joseph Smith in 1842 (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-20-march-1842-as-reported-by-wilford-woodruff/4) where he discusses Cornelius I don't expect that to ever change. Proper authority is really important to us. We believe resurrected beings literal came to Joseph and Oliver and restored the priesthood. Every Melchizedek holder (which is pretty much every adult male in the church) has a "Line of Authority" which shows how their priesthood went back to those events. A non-LDS would have to somehow show that the authority was proper and that is a pretty hard argument. We don't even accept Catholic authority and they have a well documented line back to the original apostles. Edited to add the link about Joseph Smith's discourse about Cornelius.

And a believer of the Nicaean Creed could easily say that God inspired the argument between Arius and Alexander so that it would reach Constantine so that he would then call a council and so that the correct understanding of God would be revealed to the world. What I'm trying to argue is that just because Catholics don't talk about continued revelation in the same terminology that we use doesn't mean that they don't believe in continued revelation. For us, we call inspiration that is clarification of beliefs as "continued revelation". For Catholics, they call it differently but it is pretty much the same thing. For them, the "public revelation" is finished but God still inspires and directs the Pope and the bishops to clarify understanding of the public revelation. We say revelation is ongoing but then we also seem to have a closed cannon at this point. Sure, we believe that it is possible to add to the cannon, but will we? It feels like you are trying to argue semantics and show how we are more correct because our terminology makes more sense, but that only works if everyone accepts our definitions. But they don't. I think it is more useful to understand the definitions of others and work with those definitions vs trying to just say that they are wrong because their definition isn't ours.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just want to point out that the 7-10% gap is large enough to be able to include many transgender people. If there were non-trans men/women that were incorrectly identified, it would be interesting to compare their self-identity to trans men/women. Is there something that the 7-10% gap that shows up in self-identity?

I agree that it is indisputably going on but I also think it is happening on both sides. It seemed to have started on the transgender side and now has kind of blown up. One side will do something that triggers the other side and back and forth. The Kansas law that you've been talking about is the just the most recent in the ping-pong situation. Maybe some day we'll be able to get some middle ground, but right now, both sides really don't want to give up any ground. I've never heard of Lily Tino either. And I don't really follow the drag queens thing (I think it is overblown way too much). But every now and then, a news article crosses my screen that discusses transgenderism (most recently because of the supreme court cases). I like to dive deep into what is happening and will try to read a wide variety of things. I do see that people are bothered by 'male looking people' in bathrooms and are bothered that they can't seem to do anything about it. I don't think anyone has ever done statistics on it, which is sad. But it is also probably going to be similar to women's assault statistics, where most things are just never reported. I've been told that women are socialized to not create a scene so if someone invades their space, I would expect most to just get out and go on with their lives. That makes it really hard to quantify it. Should we take the few lawsuits that have occurred to mean that is the only times it happened? Or to mean that there's a lot more going on and women are just being silent about it? This societal change is only a little more than 10 years old. I don't think you need to be obsessed with videos featuring those people to feel the order is breaking down. I don't, yet I still feel like things are changing. I can see it when just reading supreme court arguments.

Society started changing the laws around 2013 in California when it started to allow transgender people to use the bathrooms of their choice. So if "society got along fine without such laws", then why was that law necessary (technically it was a statewide school administrative decision so not a law passed by legislature but is pretty similar in effect). It was then 2014 when the first law was attempted to restrict bathrooms to the sex, pretty much in reaction to the 2013 change. So doesn't that seem like the start of this whole bathroom battle was the change to society to allow transgender in bathrooms and people are just trying to get back to how society was previously. Female specific bathrooms is a fairly new invention. In the Victorian and earlier, women didn't have toilets that they could use in public. They had to stay pretty near their homes. The creation of female public bathrooms is considered to have helped with emancipating women and letting them get out in the public. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flush_toilets_at_the_Great_Exhibition has a quote "It has been argued by Prof. Clara Greed that the lack of such toilets in the Victorian era was actually intentional, and a mechanism to control the movement of woman and exclude them from public spaces." A term used for this is "urinal leash" where women were leashed to their homes because there were no toilets available for them. I think the reason we didn't have "bathroom laws" before 2013 was because we lived with a societal code: If you were a man, you used the men's toilets. And if you were a woman, you used the women's toilet. And if you were transgender, you didn't tell anyone and tried to use the toilet that you felt comfortable. But now, we have laws that allow people who look like men to use the women's toilet and people who look like women to use the men's toilet. So the societal code has broken down and there are people who are afraid that the change in the societal code could be dangerous. Maybe we'll go back to having the "urinal leash"?

I did ask claude to see if it could find an increase in abuse/harassment since 2013 and it said it did increase but since it is based off of what is reported, it wasn't sure since it could just be an increase in news reporting vs an actual increase in incidents. But I do think some restrictions need to be in place. I don't like the "reasonable people will act reasonable" approach.

If the "personalization" is just adding your first name, that technology has existed for decades now. Pretty much as soon as spam was invented, that technology existed. I would not consider that to be a personal email but just another mass email. The same thing is possible with texting as well. So if you see a text that just has your name as the only personalization and the rest of the text looks like it is a spam, that's probably what was used. This sounds very much like he pushed a button on the screen and it sent out a mass email to all members.

The episodes have no disclaimers in them. Nothing in the end either. So, he would have to put in quite a bit of work to insert the disclaimer as it is currently not there. And I don't know if that impacts result sorting. Does an edit to a video cause it to be considered a new video and loose all of its likes?

I actually can't see it either. It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things. Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason. And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons. The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing. Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination. How is that not a "laissez faire" approach? If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom. Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point? Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

I think this is where the original discussions broke down. The Church asked for a disclaimer to be read at the beginning of every clip. Probably because if you just come across the video through youtube, instagram, etc, there is no disclaimer visible. Dehlin disagreed with that. This is what the Church wrote in the original complaint: Someone used the wayback machine and noticed that the disclaimer on the bottom of the pages was a recent change, so the initial mediation between the two groups did cause a disclaimer to be added, but it the Church doesn't think that is a good enough disclaimer.