All Activity

Do you mean the Light of Christ? As opposed to his spirit that ‘inhabits’ Christ’s resurrected body? It is sometimes written as the Spirit of Christ…so you may mean that, but it gets confusing with the small ‘s’. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/light-of-christ

From what I recall, mouse and primate models have been able to simulate through early ER activation during prenatal development, changes in brain structures that are generally sex-specific. These structural changes generally don't see significant activation until hormones begin to reactive those structures later in life (namely the equivalent of puberty). Naturally, human brains are much more complex, and can't be (currently) studied in the same way, but this would align with gender dysphoria becoming more pronounced in puberty when those self-same structures that were influenced during prenatal development experience elevated sex-hormone concentrations and binding. Also (and big caution on trusting my memory here), I believe twin studies have shown a higher preponderance of transgenderism amongst both twins with identical twins, than in fraternal twins, which would lead credence to models that suggest a complex interaction between genetic predisposition, and other factors (social, environment, etc.).

His spirit as in the spirit of Christ. At least that’s what it teaches on the church’s website. But as far as Holy Ghost is also a God, then yes God is omnipresent in that way as well in our teachings.

For me it’s a complicated yes

This - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ This - https://www.asrm.org/advocacy-and-policy/fact-sheets-and-one-pagers/just-the-facts-biological-sex/ This - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6677266/ This - https://genetic.org/variations/ Please note - I am NOT saying that ALL instances of trans orientation are due to a genetic contributor. However, the science does indicate a strong possibility that at lease SOME instances are genetically influenced. And, yes, your comparison to unicorns is insulting to people dealing with this issue. Despite your efforts to appear dispassionate in your analyses, your lack of empathy betrays you time and again.

Okay! Maybe we have more common ground here than I had realized. My recollection is that the emphasis is on God having a body of flesh and bone and therefore presumably having a physical location, that location being described in the Book of Abraham. So... is it your understanding that God is literally present in the room with you right now? And if so, is the answer simple or complicated? For me, the answer is a simple Yes.

His spirit being the Holy Ghost (why not his own spirit? Iirc, once resurrected, a spirit is tied too closely to the body to be omnipresent….at least that was what I was taught as a kid. In traditional Christianity, God the Father is spirit, but would they label that omnipresent spirit as the Holy Ghost or the Father? The Trinity is typically three persons. I assume God the Father is a spirit, the Holy Ghost is a spirit, and Jesus is body and spirit. Which seems to me means God’s spirit is different than the Holy Ghost/Spirit. But could be wrong.

It was a stupid song.

Right. We teach that He is omnipresent through His spirit. Which is the same way that all other Christian religions teach He is omnipresent, if I understand right.

Not physically himself though, his influence, awareness, and power. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/5-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-88-the-olive-leaf?

Hunting (for example fishing) is a type of work done by many who are not Indians.

Is there anyone here or in mainstream transgender discussion that is arguing a person who is transgender is biologically somehow the opposite sex?

Specific genes have not yet been identified, but there are indications of genetic influence in gender identity. For example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-06265-6 Sex hormones look less likely to have an influence though from this study. It’s unlikely to be one gene nor does such require genetics be the only influence, but to say no influence found is inaccurate imo. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29460079/

It is a part of mainstream teachings that God is omnipresent.

False equivalence fallacy. There are a number of identifiable genetic variations which can lead to trans occurrences. There is no such thing for any of items you presented as comparable. Despite your claim to being able to love trans people, this kind of rhetoric contradicts your claim. I respectfully disagree that the comparison is not a false equivalence, and the genetics claim does not hold up. Overwhelmingly, people who "identify" as "trans" do not have a DSD, and instead have Gender Dysphoria. There are well-documented disorders of sexual development (DSDs) caused by identifiable genetic or chromosomal variations (e.g., CAH, AIS, certain sex-chromosome aneuploidies). Those are real, measurable biological conditions that affect physical sex development. They are not the same thing as a person with typical male or female chromosomes and anatomy identifying as the opposite sex, or as neither sex. AFAIK, no genetic variant has been shown to cause someone with a normal male or female body to be, in any literal biological sense, a member of the opposite sex. Twin studies, heritability research, and large-scale genetic studies have not identified any such deterministic “trans gene” or set of variants. The etiology of gender dysphoria and transgender identification remains complex, multifactorial, and poorly understood; it is not equivalent to the clear genetic causes of DSDs. The other examples I gave (identifying as a space alien, a wolf, a unicorn, nine feet tall, etc.) are likewise incongruent with observable physical reality. In each case the person is asserting an identity that contradicts measurable facts about their body or species. Pointing out that similarity is not a claim that the psychological experiences or social dynamics are identical in every respect; it is a claim that all of them involve a mismatch between asserted identity and physical reality. That mismatch can arise from role-playing, social contagion, or genuine psychological distress. The existence of distress does not convert the asserted identity into a biological fact. On the “love” point: recognizing that a person’s self-description does not match their biology is not incompatible with concern for their well-being. Many people who experience gender dysphoria are in real psychological pain. Accurate description of the underlying reality (sex is binary and determined by reproductive anatomy and gametes in humans; self-identification does not change that) is not an expression of hatred. It is possible to oppose social and medical practices that treat the incongruent identity as literally true—especially when those practices involve irreversible interventions on minors—while still wanting the individuals involved to receive effective mental-health care and to be treated with ordinary human decency. Conflating disagreement about the nature of sex with an inability to love people is a rhetorical move, not an argument. Thanks, -Smac

Something can be fantastic art and still teach a horrible message, can it not? Perhaps a beautifully done film that celebrates torture of animals. I agree. Triumph of the Will and Birth of a Nation are excellent "art" in technical terms, but they convey horrible messages. Thanks, -Smac

False equivalence fallacy. There are a number of identifiable genetic variations which can lead to trans occurrences. There is no such thing for any of items you presented as comparable. Despite your claim to being able to love trans people, this kind of rhetoric contradicts your claim.

This. Thank you Calm.

First, I quote Dan and provide links, so the context is there. Yes, you provide the context that gives meaning to Dan's claim TPUSA doesn't actually care about the unborn and transgendered youth. You just ignore it. I don't ignore it. I don't think it is there. I don't think Dan's citation to studies constitutes "data" indicating that "people in general matter to Turning Point USA." He provides no data relevant to the motives and inner-held thoughts and sentiments of the people at TPUSA. He just imputes negative motives to them because they have a different viewpoint on sociopolitical issues. Consider, for example, if you said this: "In my view, a person who doesn't support women's reproductive rights is terrible. Only people who fully and unapologetically support a woman's right to abort her child at any time during gestation can say they care about women. Consequently, 'the data' do not support the conclusion that Spencer Macdonald, who opposes elective abortion, cares about humanity." Who is making the adverse claim against Spencer? SU. Who is pointing to "the data" which is supposedly probative regarding Spencer's care for humanity? SU. Who is deciding what counts as "the data?" SU. Who is the arbiter about what "the data" indicate about Spencer's motives and inner-held feelings? SU. Who is speaking in conclusory fashion about Spencer's motives and inner-held feelings, despite never having met him? SU. Who is already ideologically arrayed against, and already really dislikes on a personal level, Spencer Macdonald? SU. Who is unilaterally disregarding Spencer's professed care for humanity? SU. And so on. I think you would be stacking the deck. So it is, I think, with Dan and TPUSA. He is posting his sociopolitical videos on the same channel as he posts videos based on his scholarly bona fides. He is creating and editing the videos so that they reflect the same "branding" elements as his "scholarly" videos (the laconic delivery, the comic-book shirts, the “let’s just look at the data” framing, the screen caps of studies and scholarly materials, the reading of excerpts of those materials, etc.). He is using the same channel to propagate "scholarly" stuff and also his opinions on sociopolitical issues. They appear side by side on his channel, and they look the same, and are branded and edited in virtually indistinguishable ways. There is no differentiation. There are many aspects of Dan's "scholarly" critiques of matters touching on biblical scholarship that I value, but his dunking on amateurs is tiresome and beneath him, as are the nasty personal invectives and hostile mindreading and imputing of motives he doles out. When the topic shifts to contemporary politics or to people who disagree with him on contested moral questions, his posture changes and he becomes even nastier than when he dunking on amateurs. The gap between the marketed persona and the "I'm commenting on sociopolitical stuff" behavior is large enough that it undermines the claim of dispassionate expertise, particularly when he is marketing both categories of content in the same channel and in virtually the same packaging. Ad hominem. I consider each and every "trans" person a child of God. A son of God cannot become a daughter of God by "identifying" as one, nor vice versa. I wish every "trans person" happiness. I am not persuaded that most of trans ideology is conducive to that, particularly the irreversible medical procedures, the date for which is quite poor. I respect individual autonomy of adults to do to their bodies as they see fit. There are constraints. Sex trait modification procedures are, and should remain, elective. Comorbidities and informed consent (risks, lifelong regiments, lack of data re: long term effects, etc.) and extensive and competent longitudinal data re: efficacy and so on all need to be extensively addressed. This stuff is for adults, not children. I condemn any sort ill treatment of "trans" people. I do not think maintaining sex-segregated spaces and events is ill treatment. I strongly reject any notions of compelled speech, preferred pronouns, etc. I also reject the notion that opposing these things amounts to ill treatment of trans people. I have a lot of sympathy and, and some empathy, for "trans" people. I limit the latter because I cannot claim to understand or fully appreciate subjective and inner-held feelings of being a woman trapped in a man's body, or vice versa. The sympathy, however, is substantial because folks with Gender Dysphoria are the only ones being encouraged to ratify and adopt their incongruent-with-reality feelings. We as a society do not encourage anorexics to starve themselves because they subjectively see themselves as obese. We do not cut off healthy body parts due to some distress about them. We do not ratify delusional claims of a person being a person they are not ("I 'identify' as the son of Elon Musk!"), or a species they are not ("I 'identify' as a dog"), or an age they are not (Stefonknee Wolscht, who "identifies" as a permanently six-year-old girl). None of this is dislike or hatred. To the contrary, I think the real harm is caused by those who encourage mentally ill persons in their incongruent-with-reality sentiments, particularly when extended to cutting off healthy body parts, receiving irreversible medical procedures, getting sterilized, burdened with intensive medical regimens for the rest of their lives, and so on. I do not condemn these misguided folks, as I think they are well-intended. But they are also fundamentally wrong. What I think is that your claim that I "dislike trans people" is patently incorrect and incongruent with what I actually think. I am, after all, the world's leading authority on what I think. If you feel I have said things that you look to as "the data" for your statement, I would be happy to look at it. I don't think you'll find much that falls outside of the "stacking the deck" parameters noted above. No. If someone legally changes their name, I would go by that. If someone has informally changed their name, I would likely go by that as well. Not really a hill worth dying on. I am strongly opposed to compelled speech, preferred pronouns, and so on. I reject the large-scale and pervasive equivocation folks like you rely on when speaking of "gender." “Sex” and “gender” are used in two incompatible ways, switched according to the claim being advanced: When the goal is to preserve ordinary distinctions (sports categories, medical protocols, single-sex spaces, crime statistics, developmental biology), “gender” is treated as co-extensive with biological sex. The categories “man” and “woman” track reproductive anatomy, chromosomes, and gametes. No one historically sorted people into those categories on the basis of self-reported feelings or social roles; the sorting criteria were physical and observable. When the goal is to override those distinctions, “gender” is redefined as an internal identity or social construct independent of sex. Under this usage, self-identification alone determines membership, and biological sex is demoted to an assigned or secondary trait. The same word that previously tracked sex is now used to detach the categories from the traits that made them useful. The practical result is that the terms are not held to a single, stable meaning. “Gender” functions as a synonym for sex when continuity with existing institutions and data is convenient, and as a free-floating identity when continuity would constrain a preferred outcome. Because the shift is not announced as a change in definition, claims that rely on the older meaning (fairness in sport, accuracy in medicine, privacy in spaces) can be answered with the newer meaning, and vice versa. The two senses are not reconciled; they are alternated. This is why the statement “a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman” can be advanced alongside continued reliance on sex-based categories in other contexts. The word is being asked to do two contradictory jobs at once. A consistent account would either (a) keep the categories tied to biological sex and treat self-identification as something else, or (b) openly abandon sex as the basis of the categories and accept the consequences for every domain that previously used them. The current pattern does neither. This ties into "misgendering." It is merely a code for using biologically and linguistically incorrect pronouns. I reject that this is wrong, morally or otherwise. Nevertheless, in a sort of resigned, I-don't-really-care-to-die-on-this-hill way, I sometimes use preferred pronouns, and sometimes do not. I want sex-segregated spaces to remain segregated by sex. I reject the notion that this amounts to dislike or hatred. It's not that. It's just disagreement on a topic about which reasonable minds can disagree. If you feel that reasonable minds cannot disagree about this, feel free to lay out your reasoning. I'd be happy to hear what you have to say. Yes, I do. I also think people who "identify" as a space alien, or as a wolf, or as a unicorn, or as being nine feet tall, or as being the son of Elon Musk, and so on. All of these are incongruent-with-reality notions that are either resulting from pretending or larping, or - when sincerely believed - from mental illness. My mother is in fairly late stage dementia. She recognizes me, but can't remember my name. She often speaks incoherently. She is, in most ways, non compos mentis. I can acknowledge that and still love her a lot. I can do the same with people who suffer from other mental health challenges, including people who have incongruent-with-reality notions about "identity" in terms of gender/sex (gotta love the equivocation), species, age, weight, etc. If you can differentiate between these incongruent-with-reality notions, I would be happy to listen to what you have to say. No. I have spoken extensively about why I am opposed to pediatric sex trait modification procedures. I haven't hid the ball on that at all. None of it involves dislike or hatred of minors suffering from Gender Dysphoria. Thanks, -Smac

I understand his intent. General authorities have been pressing us to pay attention to how we behave online for quite some time and it’s not working. Certainly if we were representing ourselves with our real names, we would interact much differently online in lots of ways. if we have the capacity to behave more maturely and stoop less to personal attacks and criticism and judgment, anonymity becomes a non-issue. It’s not about the name we use. But if using a fake name gives us permission in our minds to behave badly then that’s something to look at and change the behavior.

Agree, but there are tasteful ways to do diversity as an artistic statement. The 1957 live action production of Cinderella was already an established, successful adaptation. The 1997 production, starring Brandy and Whitney Houston, wasn't filling a void for a good Cinderella adaptation, it was deliberately multicultural and didn't attempt to disguise or pretend that it was reproducing some historically authentic European setting. Multiculturalism was the creative premise and audiences liked and accepted it. I recall the SNL Frozen 2 sketch that mocks the diverse guard "shoehorned" in without much concern for plausibility. Jenkins has defended the decision that he cannot claim certainty about what supernatural beings actually look like. An angel isn't presumed to have a human ethnicity in the ordinary sense. Merely casting an actor of African, Asian, or Indigenous ancestry as an angel isn't inherently an error. But clothing, weaponry, hairstyles, armor, and other visual design choices accentuates their ethnicity but it also communicates non-Judeo-Christian cultures.

Something can be fantastic art and still teach a horrible message, can it not? Perhaps a beautifully done film that celebrates torture of animals. I don’t think let’s roll was commenting on the quality of art, but the purpose when he says respected. He can correct me if I am wrong. I agree with this.

Yes, you provide the context that gives meaning to Dan's claim TPUSA doesn't actually care about the unborn and transgendered youth. You just ignore it. No where in this video does Dan lean upon his scholarly bona fides. It's pretty clear that you dislike trans people and the organizations that support them. You call their names fake, misgender them, want to force them to use bathrooms according to their gamete size. You think they suffer from mental illness. When you provide data to support your view that gender affirming care should be banned for trans minors (while available for cis-gendered minors) are you being rhetorically dishonest?

I'm going out on a limb that my experience of getting a message online detailing my address, my son's name and school, my immediate family members and their addresses, was a bit different than had I been a high-ranking official in an organization with a dedicated law firm and professional permanent security staff. I'll stick with valuing anonymity.

I think you are both right. There are times when it's relevant to judge the merits of the art itself and times when it is relevant to judge the merits of its message or intention.