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.

The site does have a disclaimer but the Church argues the current disclaimer isn't good enough and is potentially misleading as well (people sometimes don't read the full text and just see the Church's name and so assume a connection). This is what is in the Church's response (starting on page 32):

There was a transwoman who just recently expressed a desire to play in the WNBA. It is possible that this is what triggered it all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Tétart. She is a player on the French women's division. She expressed the desire on Aug 6. I believe the men that smac is talking about made their announcement on Aug 7.

If you want to read all of the filings as they come out, see https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73209567/intellectual-reserve-inc-v-open-stories-foundation/. It has the ACLU and EFF amicus briefs. And it has the latest filing from the Church. The current state is that Dehlin has filed a Motion to Dismiss, the ACLU and EFF filed an amicus brief in support of the motion, and the Church just filed their response to it. That is what triggered the latest batch of news. In the Motion to Dismiss, one of Dehlin's arguments is that this case is long after any statue of limitation. The term is "latches" for copyright cases and both of the motions (Dehlin's and the Church's) talk about it. The Church says that it has basically gotten worse. Starting on page 27 of their motion: (there are images that I can't copy from the pdf so I put <image> to indicate where they would go) Both motions are arguing about 2 different Supreme Court cases and which one has priority. Dehlin argues that "Rogers v. Grimaldi" is the controlling case and the Church argues that "Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC". The 1989 Rogers case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi) said that using a trademark word in a title is acceptable and gave a formula (called the Rogers test) to determine if the trademark was being infringed. The 2023 Jack Daniels case (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's_Properties,_Inc._v._VIP_Products_LLC) said that the Rogers test does not cover situations where the trademark was used as a trademark by the infringer. I think the Church's argument is stronger because "Mormon Stories" seems to be more than just a title. It is more like the identity. Yes, the company is technically called "Open Stories" but it is mostly marketed as "Mormon Stories". But even if the Church wins here, it just means it goes into the discovery phase. Dehlin could still win at the end.

I read that article and the ordinance and I don't see any "explicit let transgender people use the restroom of their choice". The ordinance is an anti-discrimination ordinance. It does say that it covers "public accomodations" that could cover public restrooms, but it isn't explicit and I don't see any attempt to use this ordinance in that manner. Additionally, in 2001, there was a case in Minnesota where a transwoman sued her employer because she was denied the right to use the women's bathroom. It went all the way to the Minnesota Supreme Court who ruled that the Minnesota Human Rights Act (which had similar language to the Minneapolis ordinance) did not protect her and that her employer could force her to use the men's bathroom. The case is GOINS v. WEST GROUP (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/mn-supreme-court/1061687.html is one location to read it). If the Minneapolis ordinance actually allowed transgender people to use the restroom of their choice, then it is odd that she didn't sue under that ordinance. And it is interesting that a very similar law was read the opposite. So, I don't think that the Minneapolis ordinance has anything to do with transgender people and bathrooms.

That's not the current policy.

They don't say everything is unknown. There are somethings that are known per the scripture. But the parts that the scripture doesn't explain is the Mystery. So, if you try to force other Christians to define things in those mysterious parts, you are either going to get their own personal ideas or the answer "it is a mystery". Similar to asking us to explain how God came to be God. Is He the original one or does He have a Father? Was He a savior of His world like Christ or not?. These are things we don't know and only have speculation on. It also kind of defeats your statement of "God helps us understand Him by continuous revelation through living prophets". Even for us, there are limits on what has been revealed. I think the normal response for us is that it is not important to our understanding of God, and I would expect that is also the normal response for other Christians as well. The things defined for the Trinity do allow theological disagreements between trinitarianism and us. And it does also show that we "believe in a different God/Jesus". I'm not saying that the entire belief of God is a mystery. Only the details about the Trinity are a mystery. For the Catholic church, the declaration of what is heretical or not would be called continuous revelation to us. They have the public revelation, which is all of the revealed scripture. And then God continues to give inspiration to make sure that it is understood correctly. So the Nicaean creed is pretty much the same thing as our document "The Living Christ" (the one from 2000 signed by the 15). The first is from leaders of the church who got together, discussed, argued, and came to an agreement and wrote to the world. The second is also from leaders of the church who got together, discussed, argued, and came to an agreement and wrote to the world. And both groups believe they were inspired. We (LDS) accept the inspiration of the latter but not the former. Catholics (and other trinitarians) accept the inspiration of the former but not the latter.

There's a reason that the Trinity is called a "Mystery". It can't be fully explained with our human understanding. We (LDS) have similar things with our belief in God. For example, to say that we believe in "one God" because it is a title, station, etc doesn't really help because we do believe that Heavenly Father is actually a God and the God. We pray to Him, not to Jesus. But Jesus is also a God but not the God. We do have multiple Gods as separate entities. Redefining it the way you did doesn't help with Occam's Razor approach.

In the last 70ish years, how is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints any different from the Catholic church with regards to revelation. We say we have continuous revelation but yet there are no new published revelations. Just "divine inspiration". Will we continue doing that? And when we get to be as old as the Catholic church (thousands of years old), will a new upstart religion be able to say the same thing you are saying here? That we (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) don't believe in continuous revelation because we only have "divine inspiration". Revelation means something specific for Catholics and is targeted for very specific things. But they still believe that God leads them and directs them. Pretty similar to us. We just use revelation much more broadly.

I'm from a small town in Arizona (Mohave County) and I always wanted to go to EFY growing up and that is the 80s/90s. I did get to attend the younger "World of Adventure" which was only for pre-teen boys. There was also a "World of Adventure" for pre-teen girls. Similar to EFY/FSY but for younger ages. I think they merged those in with EFY in 1999 - https://universe.byu.edu/1999/04/12/lds-church-educational-system-makes-changes-to-youth-program

Latest news points to the people were there for the funeral https://www.ksl.com/article/51611958/twin-brothers-identified-in-kearns-funeral-shooting The person who was killed was visiting from Seattle specifically for the funeral. The police also no longer believe it was gang-related. And all the participants are distantly related to each other.