All Activity

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 any 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.

How about we judge whether it is good art or bad art instead of basing that decision based on what the message is. There is really bad devotional art and really good satirical art out there. There is also really good devotional art and really bad satirical art.

The Lord is saying that He leaves these sayings to ponder in our hearts. I am pondering them and would request further input.

If art is intended to mock or denigrate Deity, it deserves criticism. But when art is born of a reservoir of faith and worship, it should be respected, even if who and what is being worshiped doesn’t align with our personal faith.

Foolish counsel to be honest. I am really confused on how getting rid of anonymity is supposed to avoid a holocaust. The SS weren’t going around masked. The danger of the KKK wasn’t their anonymity. That was just plausible deniability. Everyone knew who the Klan were and they were the respectable and upstanding citizens and their lackeys enforcing white supremacy through violence or the threat of violence. The value of anonymity is very valuable to those who are speaking against or fighting against structures of power. The KKK is the powerful wielding anonymity against the marginalized. Demanding a lack of anonymity is very dangerous to those who are already marginalized. A young newly out queer teen who fears their parents might harm them if found out should just “let their light shine” so they can get beaten or be rendered homeless? Should those fighting a fascist regime “let their light shine”? A victim of a sex crime perpetuated by someone in power seeking help should put their name on it so they get a bullseye? This is stupid. It is the rhetoric of authoritarian bootlickers. I don’t think that describes Elder Cook though. I think Elder Cook is just naive and read some stories about anonymity on the internet and made a snap judgment on it. When you have never been marginalized or been in danger this kind of saccharine stuff about being open probably sounds like virtue. Also quick reminder that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders used code names in the early revelations and in many communications for their own safety. Jesus went around telling people not to say who he was or that he had healed someone. Many prophets had to go into hiding for their own safety. Abinadi had to use a disguise to get into a position to preach. Were those all a tool of the adversary? Or does this only apply to the internet?

I ignore anyone who whines about “forced diversity”. That is just white people complaining that angels should be white people because………white people rule or whatever. It is a form of racism that somehow has social acceptance for some reason. The almost caricature costumes are a little odd. In the Bible some angels are portrayed as humanoid and some are seen as regular people. Others have multiple animal heads and lots of wings. I kind of like the wheels covered with eyes angels in Ezekiel. They sound like some kind of steampunk clockwork thing. Then it gets complicated because some of the “angels” in the Old Testament aren’t subordinated to God and are divine beings in their own right and were later shoved into the angel role for consistency. In New Testament times angels were generally assumed to despise humanity as unclean and the angels couldn’t understand why God keeps humans around or bothers to interact with them. Some forms of Jewish mysticism were about ecstatic experiences where you pass guardian angels to reach the chariot throne of God using passwords and sigils. You had to be ritually clean and pure to have a prayer of getting by the angels who consider humans to be trespassers there. In one reported trek God had to call the angels off from killing the rabbi who was approaching the throne. Angels not liking humanity is a common trope. The sweet and caring angels are a more modern invention.

<reads next sentence> You know you are allowed to read the whole post before replying…

I'm disclosing when I use AI (I thought I was, anyway, I'll need to be more consistent I guess). The critiques of Dan's use of scholarly sources were AI-generated, as I copied and pasted them. I just don't have the time to closely examine them. I did, however, provide links to each one so that Grok's critique could be checked/tested. That is one of the points of concern I have about Dan's social media content. Most of his audience is going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he presents scholarly materials. I am concerned that he is not a reliable purveyor of such things, at least on topics which are A) outside the realm of biblical scholarship and B) about sociopolitical matters about which Dan has strong personal opinions and beliefs. I too would have given, and initially did give, Dan the benefit of the doubt regarding his use of four articles about trans issues. Having worked with Grok to more particularly scrutinize these articles and compare them with what Dan said about them (and did not say), I think Dan has, to varying degrees, misused these papers. From one of my favorite bloggers: "Let us embrace the healing power of 'and.'" I do come here to talk with people who disagree with my worldview, and that will often end up involving defending the Church. It's all this and more. It's not that I have an expectation of persuading you, but more about wanting to listen to what you have to say, and testing what you have to say, and testing what I am thinking by presenting it here and letting people such as yourself (with a worldview that varies from mine in some significant ways, though I think we probably have a lot in common) critique my position. I don't come here to "socialize." I come here for discussion of important and difficult topics pertaining to the Restored Gospel and the institution that houses it. In the end, I may be just sorting things out for myself. No worries. I have generally thought I was explicit about my use of AI. I will work to be more consistent in my disclosures. As for why I come here, you are broadly incorrect about my motives. Thanks, -Smac