smac97

Are you asking me this as a question? Perhaps you could elaborate what you see as "institutional apostasy," and whether it has been affected by Covid. Perhaps so. Scriptural and prophetic references to "apostasy," whether individual or institutional, pertain to matters of individual/institutional righteousness and devotion to God. Reposing trust in the competency of this or that governmental agency has essentially nothing to do with the concept of apostasy. I think moral degeneracy is not limited to any particular racial category. No. I think you are drawing connections to specific sociopolitical issues and the Restored Gospel, which we all must do to some extent. However, I think these connections cannot be imputed to Elder Badnar's remarks. I am saying that Elder Bednar did not speak of Gadianton Robbers, nor did he draw correlations between Gadianton Robbers and specific sociopolitical issues of our day. I think the concern I had is whether we could infer such "lessons" as being intended by Elder Bednar. I would need to better understand what you are referencing here. Meanwhile, I think Elder Bednar was referencing matters of personal righteousness and conduct, rather than broader governmental/sociopolitical issues. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Not seeing this at all. Elder Bednar only mentioned Covid in passing ("My beloved brothers and sisters, sitting on the stand today, I have watched this Conference Center fill up three times, for the first time since COVID"). Then, much later in his talk, he spoke of "institutional" apostasy. Nowhere, however, does he speak of hearts being hardened against "institutions." Not seeing this at all. Elder Bednar had nothing to say about immigration policy, or about politicians having "influence." Not seeing this. Elder Bednar cited Pres. Benson for his "focus upon the purpose and importance of the Book of Mormon" as "'the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior,'" and also about its "teachings and warnings about the sin of pride," and how it "was written for our day." Elder Bednar invoked passages from Helaman to illustrate the increasing righteousness of the Lamanites and the corollary increasing wickedness - due to pride - of the Nephites. But he did not say anything about "Gadianton Robbers and Secret Combinations." He also did not mention Ether at all. Elder Bednar said nothing about these matters. @The Nehor and I disagree about most things, but I think you are inferring and extrapolating political issues into Elder Bednar's talk that are not there. There are times when such inferences and extrapolations can be done, but such reasoning needs to be retained by the individual rather than specifically imputed onto Elder Bednar. Thanks, -Smac

Medical decisions are based principally on the standard of care, and on the law. Why? Other people’s medical decisions are none of our business. Society generally, and the State, have legitimate interests in the welfare of minors. I support medical decisions being made by doctors and patients, and if the patient is a minor, by his or her parents as well. See? You can't or won't actually say that you support elective medical procedures that sterilize minors. Again, society generally, and the State, have legitimate interests in the welfare of minors. A minor often lacks the legal capacity to give informed consent. And parents may be emotionally and/or ideologically compromised in their assessment of what is best for their child. Consider, for example, the legislative testimony of Chloe Cole: Chloe now believes that her perspective at age 12 "was not organic," and was instead unduly influenced by "{a}ll the media {she} consumed as a kid." Do you think Chloe Cole was "best positioned to evaluate the risks and make the best decisions that are right for {her}"? Which of Chloe's narratives do you think should have carried the day? The one she had as a minor, steeped in "media" and "sexualized images of women {which} gave {her} an unrealistic expectation of womanhood," having "spent a lot of time online" and noticing "all the praise coming out as trans got on Instagram and other social media," and having comorbities ("a variety of mental health conditions"), and so on? Or the one she had later? Which version of Chloe, the minor or the adult, was "best positioned to evaluate the risks and make the best decisions that are right for {her}"? Do you think these this father and mother, whose daughter was suffering from "a variety of mental health conditions," and who had been heavily influenced by social media content (including "all the praise coming out as trans got"), and who were told by "mental health professionals" that "the options {for their daughter, Chloe} were transition or suicide," were "best positioned to evaluate the risks and make the best decisions that are right for {her}"? Or is it possible that these parents, given these "options," were compromised in their assessments of Chloe's best interests? This is a difficult topic. I am attempting to address it in measured and moderate ways. And yet here you are substantially mischaracterizing my statements and imputing thoughts and motives onto me which I do not hold. Thanks, -Smac

I don't know what it is like to struggle with anorexia or bulimia, but that does not mean I cannot have an opinion on whether we as a society should be encouraging/facilitating such behaviors. Yes, mental health issues can be difficult to fathom. I think we all agree on that. "Glib" as in "(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow." You, like Roger, are fabricating and imputing motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold. Again, I think you are doing this because you are trying to silence discussion of this topic. Again, I think we should be having these discussions. I think my question is a reasonable one. "What other medical procedures are authorized under threat of suicide?” I can go along with that. But I think there can be some "way{s} to proceed" that are not appropriate for minors. A 15-year-old girl who is 5'6 and weights 98 pounds and suffers from Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD) or an eating disorder, such as anorexia nervosa, may really really want to receive some form of bariatric surgery. Would there be any circumstance in which you feel such a procedure would be beneficial to the patient? Now suppose she even says that she will commit suicide if she doesn't get the procedure. Would that alter the calculus? Is a threat of suicide a legitimate factor when considering bariatric surgery for this patient? Thanks, -Smac

Earlier you (selectively) quoted from this article. Short of quoting an article in its entirety, we always "selectively" quote them. I did, however, provide a link to the article. Your comments evince nothing like a desire to "understand where {I am} coming from." This is a difficult topic. I am attempting to address it in measured and moderate ways. And yet here you are substantially mischaracterizing my statements and imputing thoughts and motives onto me which I do not hold. I have said nothing about this "specific situation." I have, instead, been speaking about PSTM in a broader sociopolitical and moral context. I have raised a number of substantial issues/concerns about pediatric sex trait modification treatments: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I do not have information about comorbidities, informed consent, etc. about a specific party. Neither do you. So there's not much point in discussing that specific party. Including people like Doctor Bell, correct? I am curious as to your thoughts about this story: Among the “gender-affirming” surgeries offered at BCH are “gender-affirming hysterectomies,” which involve the removal of the cervix, or the lower, narrow end of the uterus that forms a canal between the uterus and vagina, as well as the fallopian tubes. Per this USA Today article, BCH is denying that it is performing hysterectomies on minors, despite their website advertising "gender affirmation surgery services to eligible adolescents and young adults who are ready to take this step in their journey." Back to the first article: On BCH’s same pediatric gynecology webpage, underneath a subheading that reads “Delivering Specialty Care” which lists the treatments offered by BCH's pediatric gynecologists, “transgender reproductive health” is included. "Our team are world leaders in the care of teens ... {needing} transcare." But "transcare" does not, per BCH, include hysterectomies. According to the eligibility requirements for BCH’s “Gender Surgery Program," minors as young as 15 can receive breast augmentation and double mastectomies with parental consent, but phalloplasty and metoidioplasty surgeries require patients to be 18, while 17-year-olds can access vaginoplasties. The program’s webpage makes no indication about hysterectomies. "{M}inors as young as 15 can receive {} double mastectomies with parental consent." "17-year-olds can access vaginoplasties." But not phalloplasty and metoidioplasty surgeries. See also this story: DC children's hospital offered 'gender affirming' hysterectomies for kids, audio and deleted webpage reveal And this story: Putting numbers on the rise in children seeking gender care That seems like a substantial trend upwards. I am curious what has happened since 2021. "Some changes from hormone treatment are permanent." "Hormone treatment may leave an adolescent infertile, especially if the child also took puberty blockers at an early age. That and other potential side effects are not well-studied, experts say." We ought to be discussing these things. "In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket." We ought to be discussing these things. Again, I do not have information about the specific "psychiatrists, psychologists, and physicians" involved in a specific instance of PSTM treatment. Neither do you. So there's not much point in discussing that specific instance. Meanwhile, however, the broader issues (comorbidities, informed consent, ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care, etc.) all remain relevant and proper areas of scrutiny and discussion. I agree. Hence the need to address the concerns listed above, as those "consequences" are pretty extreme. I get that you do not want to publicly commit to an ideological position that specifically supports medical procedures that, for example, sterilize minors. It is, on its face, a profoundly important and consequential medical procedure that a minor may come to regret later in life. Hence the importance of addressing things like informed consent, comorbidities, longitudinal data, ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care, etc., and so on. But for that last one, I would be perplexed at why people who are otherwise obviously intelligent and rational can nevertheless be compromised in their assessments of the best interests of the child. The other day I came across this video on YouTube, which reminded me of you: The transcript (modified for clarity) : Which of the respondents in the above video hew closer to your perspective? Sigh. I am claiming no such thing. I think we ought to be discussing pediatric sex trait modification procedures. I think it is wrong for people to attempt to stifle such discussion. Your gloss. You are fabricating and imputing motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold. I think you are doing this because you are trying to silence discussion of this topic. I think we should be having these discussions. As for "Better dead in a body that is free from puberty blockers than alive in a body with them," I think you are either succumbing to or perpetuating the fallacy of false dilemma: See, you gave us: Option 1: "dead in a body that is free from puberty blockers" and Option 2: "alive in a body with them." There are, in fact, more options than just these two. Indeed, I think this false dilemma is often central to the compromised thinking of some regarding the best interests of the child. "Glib" as in "(of words or the person speaking them) fluent and voluble but insincere and shallow." Again, you are fabricating and imputing motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold. Again, I think you are doing this because you are trying to silence discussion of this topic." Again, I think we should be having these discussions. I think my question is a reasonable one. "What other medical procedures are authorized under threat of suicide?” Again, you are fabricating and imputing motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold. Again, I think you are doing this because you are trying to silence discussion of this topic." Again, I think we should be having these discussions. I harbor similar concerns about so-called "gender affirming" medical treatments for adults, but I ultimately reach a different conclusion about them. I think issues like comorbidities and informed consent remain present as to adults receiving these treatments. I think comorbidities need to be substantively addressed, and informed consent needs to be obtained. If and when an otherwise mentally competent adult addresses these issues and still wants such elective treatments, then that is, or ought to be, their right. While I would not personally support such a procedure, I would not support legislatively eliminating the right for adults to seek and receive such treatments, either. Thanks, -Smac

And yet you asked the question generally. And you knew I had commented in this thread. Rather, "but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" will enter it. So it becomes important to ascertain that will. And in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, we have some pretty solid tools to do that. "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son." (John 5:22.) And apparently Jesus has, or will. delegate some judgment authority as well. From Matthew 19: From Mormon 3: From 1 Nephi 12: From D&C 29: And so on. See also here: The Judgment Seat of Christ Thanks, -Smac

The first thing I would say here is that the Book of Mormon does not explicitly name Columbus. Latter-day Saints have chosen to read Columbus into the Book of Mormon without really knowing who it was that Nephi saw in his vision. Yes. Columbus is the prevailing interpretation. Or Columbus could be that "figures used to symbolize the European discovery of the New World." Thanks, -Smac

No, I don't think you do. Everyone is invited to accept the Gospel. There is no separate and alternative set of commandments for people who don't like this or that doctrine or precept. And yet, you asked a question that you knew would be answered in this way. I don't know that we do agree. "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21.) The Church invites all to "come unto Christ." We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments. Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord. Do you agree with these statements? Thanks, -Smac

And the supposed threat that is encircling the Church is . . . what? "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21.) The Church invites all to "come unto Christ." We do so by exercising faith, repenting, and keeping the commandments. Part of keeping the commandments is constraining sexual behavior to the parameters prescribed by the Lord. I appreciate and respect that different people can have different views on these parameters. Some people think that sex outside of marriage is acceptable, others do not. Some think that same-sex behavior is acceptable, others do not. And so on. Within the paradigm of the Restored Gospel as espoused by Joseph Smith and his successors in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, these parameters have been pretty clear for quite a while. It is up to each individual to choose to accept them or not. All are invited, however. If by "try and bring ALL unto Christ" you mean to suggest that the Church can and should disregard and/or radically re-define the Law of Chastity, then "in whatever way they are able to draw closer to him" would seem to be addressed in Doctrine & Covenants 3:4: (Emphasis added.) We cannot do this. That is made clear in the next few verses: (Emphases added.) There are a lot of pressures on the Church these days to conform. To capitulate. To abandon the precepts of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. We cannot do it. Elder Holland put it well back in 2014: "Surely the angels of heaven wept as they recorded this cost of discipleship in a world that is often hostile to the commandments of God." "You may wonder if it is worth it to take a courageous moral stand in high school or to go on a mission only to have your most cherished beliefs reviled or to strive against much in society that sometimes ridicules a life of religious devotion. Yes, it is worth it..." "So here we have the burden of those called to bear the messianic message. In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship)." "That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: 'Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad' or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly." “'[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits..." "{I}t is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds." Agreed. Nor do we want him to violate the commandments of God. Jesus Christ said something that was not popular. Many of those who heard it, per John 6, "murmured at him." Many of those who heard it "strove among themselves." Many of those who heard it "went back, and walked no more with him." Christ said and did things that were not well-received by the society around Him. I'm quite okay with that. I hope as many people as can will join the Church. I am of course interested in the reputation of the Church, as it affects our ability to fulfill various mandates from God, not the least of which is the Great Commission. But preserving and enhancing the Church's "reputation" cannot come at the expense of other mandates, such as upholding and proclaiming and teaching principles pertaining to marriage and the Law of Chastity. Christ did not upend the moneychangers' tables in the temple because it was popular. He did so because it was right. Christ did not preach the "Bread of Life" sermon in John 6 because it was popular. He did so because it was right. Christ preached a gospel that was not going to be popular in the minds of an increasingly wicked world. He knew that. But He preached it anyway. I think He knew beforehand that His message would alienate many people, including some otherwise good and decent people. But He preached anyway. I think He did so because those who were ready for His message needed to hear it, and needed to be gathered out of the World. Perhaps this is why He said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words." Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me." My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus." My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus excludes the sociopolitically inconvenient and unpopular facets of obeying God. Christ had warnings for us, after all. Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you." And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil." And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail." And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." So the hostile reactions of the World (and even some members of the Church) to the inspired leadership of the Brethren are, I think, not surprising. To the contrary, they are the anticipated responses to prophetic counsel. In a way, I find it grimly satisfying that the Brethren are saying and doing some things that, in my mind, are A) unpopular in the eyes of the World, and B) plainly in accordance with revealed truths and based on revelation. Thereafter comes unity. Unity through revelation and obedience to the commandments of God, not in rebellion against such. Thanks, -Smac

Well, he may have been prophetically referenced in The Book of Mormon. That's the link. Thanks, -Smac

A few thoughts: 1. I reject the notion that there is any one-to-one correlation between being a faithful Latter-day Saint and being a member/supporter of any particular political party or ideology. 2. I think an individual's political choices are, or should be, "downstream" from the Restored Gospel. 3. I believe political ideologies vary, sometimes significantly, from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ as to some moral/religious issues. 4. We should listen to God and His servants as to matters of morality, ethics, etc., and then - having considered prophetic counsel and having sought personal revelation - make decisions as to finding political platforms / parties / policy positions / candidates that, in the aggregate, kinda-sorta get closer to aligning with some of the principles of the Restored Gospel as compared to other political platforms / parties / policy positions / candidates. 5. The foregoing efforts are pretty subjective, and therefore must largely be left to the individual. 6. I think we as individual Latter-day Saints must allow for disagreement between reasonable minds on sociopolitical issues. 7. The Church's formal statements on political participation merit regular review: Political Neutrality and Participation First Presidency letter emphasizes Latter-day Saints’ participation in elections and civic affairs, reaffirms political neutrality Church of Jesus Christ affirms positions on political neutrality, civil discourse, abortion 8. I think religious unity of the sort referenced in prophetic counsel must transcend any other sort of difference, whether it be political, nationalistic, racial/ethnic, etc. Thanks, -Smac

I saw this story over the weekend: Columbus probably Spanish and Jewish, study says Christopher Columbus was secretly Jewish, new DNA study reveals This article is circumspect and sensible: Experts advise caution about report Christopher Columbus was Jewish A few thoughts: 1. At first blush, I don't really find this story to be particularly noteworthy. I just don't care that much about the genetic ancestry of Columbus (or, for that matter, any other notable historical figure). It does not have much to do with the individual's life, accomplishments, etc. From the last article: 2. Columbus, like pretty much every historical figure these days, is "controversial": 3. Latter-day Saints have a "religious" interest in Columbus insofar as he is apparently referenced in The Book of Mormon: Scripture Central: Why Did Nephi Prophesy of Christopher Columbus? Book of Mormon Central: Why Did Nephi Prophesy of Christopher Columbus? (1 Nephi 13:12) FAIR: Christopher Columbus in the Book of Mormon Latter-day Saints Mag: Christopher Columbus, the Book of Mormon, and the Gathering of Israel LDS Living: What Latter-day Saints Should Know About Christopher Columbus and the Restoration BYU Religious Studies Center: Columbus: Fulfillment of Book of Mormon Prophecy Ask Gramps: Does the Book of Mormon mention Christopher Columbus? This creates a fairly unique and specific religious dimension on the story of Columbus. From the LDS Living article: Although Columbus never had access to Nephi’s prophecy—during his time, it was written in an unknown language on gold plates buried in a hill on a continent that Columbus was yet to discover—his words leave many convinced that he thought his voyage was the fulfillment of prophecy: "The Lord purposed that there should be something clearly miraculous in this matter of the voyage to the Indies. . . . I spent seven years here in [the] royal court discussing this subject with the leading persons in all the learned arts, and their conclusion was that all was in vain. That was the end, and they gave it up. But afterwards it all turned out just as our redeemer Jesus Christ had said, and as he had spoken earlier by the mouth of his holy prophets."4 Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the life of this remarkable man is how much it seems he truly understood his prophetic mission and his place in history. Why Did Nephi Single Out Columbus? In the 42 verses of 1 Nephi 13, Nephi identifies only one individual: the “man among the Gentiles” whom we know as Christopher Columbus. Why did Nephi focus on Columbus and not Martin Luther, George Washington, or others who played important roles in preparing the way for Joseph Smith? One potential answer seems to be found in history. Columbus didn’t just discover America; he discovered the highway to America. By unlocking the secret of the trade winds, he made travel between Europe and the New World predictable and commercially feasible. And that changed everything. In our modern world, where we can see every corner of the globe online, it is difficult to appreciate the impact of Columbus’s discovery of a new and unimagined continent. Columbus’s account of his first voyage, published just weeks after his return, became an instant bestseller, going through three printings in Rome before the end of the year. His discoveries ignited an intellectual wildfire that spread across Europe. Only 11 years after Columbus’s death in 1506, Martin Luther sent his 95 theses to the Bishop of Mainz, beginning the Protestant revolution. Seven years after Luther, William Tyndale translated the Bible into English. That English Bible inspired the Separatist movement in England, leading to the voyage of the Pilgrims in 1620 and the great Puritan migration to America beginning in 1630. In 1776, the descendants of those early immigrants declared themselves an independent nation and defended that declaration through a war in which they miraculously defeated the greatest military power currently on the planet. It was in this new nation that a young Joseph Smith went to a grove of trees early in the morning of a spring day in 1820 and later received and translated the ancient record containing Nephi’s prophecy of Christopher Columbus. So why did Nephi single out Columbus? Perhaps it was because no other single individual would have such an impact on preparing the world for the Restoration. Just as historians mark 1492 as the year the modern age began,5 it is in many respects the year the Restoration began. No voyage of any man in all of recorded history since Noah would change the world as certainly and completely as the great voyage of discovery of Christopher Columbus. This discoverer unlocked what the Lord had locked away— the Promised Land of the Americas—and set in motion a series of events that would culminate with Joseph Smith and the Restoration. Even without a knowledge of the Restoration, the 16th-century historian Francisco López de Gómara proclaimed that Columbus’s voyage was “the greatest event since the creation of the world, save the incarnation and death of Him who created it.”6 4. My question is this: If Columbus was religiously Christian (Catholic), and possibly also ethnically Jewish. Does this matter? Does this affect, or should it affect, our assessment of Columbus insofar as he is referenced in The Book of Mormon? If Columbus was ethnically Jewish, does that carry any doctrinal import for the Latter-day Saints? Or is this recent genetic study just a curiosity? Thanks, -Smac

No, I don't think I did this. I have been addressing pediatric sex trait modifications. Not all "medically unnecessary surgeries that removed parts of the body." Thanks, -Smac

Your approach is to mine the internet for politically oriented editorials that support your preconceived notions. Over a period of years, and through extensive (albeit neophyte) research and study and evaluation, I have developed a fairly well-informed opinion about the topic of PSTM. For example, I was not initially aware of the prevalence of unaddressed/disregarded comorbidities, I had not really examined this issue through the lens of "informed consent," and so on. Now I have. I have examined and re-examined my assessment by reading relevant materials, and by listening to people whose opinions and perspectives differ from my own. Some of these folks respond less by substantive analysis, and more through personal attacks and taunts. For me, this topic is not primarily political. Political parties and figures may well have their own opinions that align with, or disagree with, my assessment. I don't pay much attention to political platforms when formulating my opinions, as politics are - for me - downstream from morality, ethics, evidence, reasoning, etc. So I am more particularly interested in articles that address the topic in substantive ways. The article in my previous post, by Jay Greene, did that. The article was not just Jay Greene spouting off about his say-so (though his opinion is clearly there), as he included dozens of articles and other references which supported and corroborated his assessment. Politics and legislative actions are obviously part of the picture, but these are - or ought to be - downstream from reasoned, evidence-based assessments of the issues. Notably absent from the article, however, was any particular religious/theological argument or critique of PSTM. That is not to say that such arguments don't or can't our ought not play any role, but there are plenty of substantial grounds to oppose, or be gravely concerned about, PSTM which are over and above such considerations. I never said such a thing with which you can be said to "agree." Instead, I have noted a number of areas of concern for me re: PSTM: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). Jay Greene makes a number of solid evidentiary and policy arguments in his article, some of which touch on some of the foregoing concerns. Front and center, I think, is the absence of meaningful data and longitudinal studies addressing, as Greene put it, "the relationship between cross-sex medical interventions by teenagers and suicide risks" (this fits within a few of the above bullet points, such as "longitudinal studies essentially absent," "comorbidities," and "compromised assessments of the best interests of the child," and - perhaps implicitly - "ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care"). He states that the study you cited, by Turban, along with two others - also by Turban - "are the only three studies that examine the relationship between cross-sex medical interventions by teenagers and suicide risks that make any use of a comparison group." He then examines Turban's work, notes what he thinks are substantial flaws, and concludes: He then goes on to present what he thinks is "a better research approach." All of this is worth some discussion. I have also cited and quoted a number of other articles and resources which I think also merit some discussion and consideration. Yet instead of doing that, you first posit that you are "agnostic" on the issue, and then proceed to hector me about my ideological presuppositions. That seems like an ideological argument, Mr. Agnostic, as does your vague appeal to sympathy for medical personnel who have applied PSTM to minors. Some may well be "qualified, conscientious healthcare professionals" and yet may also be compromised in their assessments of the best interests of the child and subject to ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. This illustrates my point. It does not. Which I suspect you, Mr. Agnostic-on-the-Topic-of-PSTM, found online by searching for references which support your ideological perspective. For shame! I have cited many references which illuminate and inform and substantiate my concerns. The above was one of these many. I think we ought to discuss and focus on the topic of pediatric sex trait modification procedures. That is, so-called "gender affirming" medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of minors (like penectomies and mastectomies) and electively sterilizing minors. It is, for me, understandable that some may not want to commit themselves to openly/publicly supporting such procedures. Like supporting elective abortion, I think supporting PSTM becomes quite difficult when we get down to brass tacks, hence the tendency in both circumstances for ideological supporters to A) retreat to the "I have no opinion about this, and society should not have a say about this, either"-style approach; and/or B) attempt to divert attention away from the brass tacks and toward personal jabs/attacks against perceived ideological opponents. I think we ought to have open discussions about these things. I think there are ample grounds to be gravely concerned about, and/or specifically opposed to, PSTM in its current condition. Both sides claim to be concerned for the welfare of children. Perhaps we can start by giving each other the benefit of the doubt on that point, and then proceed to examine whether that benefit can be justifiably upheld. Thanks, -Smac

No. I have not bee speaking about "all unnecessary surgeries." I have, instead, been speaking about "Pediatric Sex Trait Modification" medical treatments. That is to say, medical treatments involving electively removing healthy body parts of children and electively sterilizing children. That is further to say, medical treatments which involve the following ongoing concerns: Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I have not been speaking of circumcision. I have not been speaking of adults receiving these treatments. My concerns pertain to pediatric sex trait modification ("PSTM") treatments. There is religious/moral dimension to my perspective on this issue. However, my particularized concerns about PSTM pertains to the foregoing bulleted items, which I believe I would hold even if I were not a Latter-day Saint. Thanks, -Smac