smac97

I never said polygamy and Jews in the attic are "the same." An analogy is a comparison of traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things. If I compare an apple to a tennis ball, it will likely be about their shared approximate size, not how they taste the same. My great-great grandfather was imprisoned for months. The difference is one of degree, not kind. My great-great grandfather wasn't given a trial: Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Per this article, AF was imprisoned for six months. AF suffered. His family suffered. Many other Latter-day Saints suffered. This is surely distinct from the horrors inflicted on the Jews by the Nazis, but the distinctions are more of degree than of kind. ETA: I acknowledge a key distinction of kind, namely, that Jews were persecuted for who they were, whereas Latter-day Saints were persecuted for who they were and what they did. Nevertheless, the material similarity draws on the moral dilemma aspect. People in Europe during WWII faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to hide Jews. 19th-century Latter-day Saints faced a moral dilemma in deciding whether to obey the law of the land or what they viewed to be the laws of God. Can you acknowledge that such a dilemma for this latter group existed? If not, why not? I agree. Ah, I did not know that (or I have forgotten). Thank you for the clarification. Understood. But it's a hypothetical. And if there was some element of the situation where you were compelled to deny your relationship with your partner, would you do it? I'm not sure you are aware of why I post in the style I do. We have a way of testing this. You could post what you think re: "why." Then I could do the same. I suspect they would be quite different. And between us, I am far better situated to speak as to the "why." Okay. Thanks, -Smac

You can ignore my posts. Excellent. Back to the topic. Thanks, -Smac

Okay. You've had your say. Let's get back to the topic. Or you can ignore my posts. Or both. Thanks, -Smac

Well, you could just stick to the topic, or ignore my posts, or both. Thanks, -Smac

I think we have differing expectations. You seem to think "common courtesy" imposes an obligation to respond. I don't.

Thanks. I think CB's and Calm's repeated references to "other people" agreeing with them to be kind of weird. It's argumentum ad populum. Other people like my posting style, so where does that leave us? My take: It takes us to a return to discussing the topic, with each of us at liberty to ignore posts we dislike. Thanks, -Smac

Figuratively. It's not an "excuse." It's an illustration of a principle, which is this: There may be circumstances in which it is moral to disobey civil law. For Latter-day Saints, who are commanded to obey the laws of the land, this can create a moral conundrum. Here's another illustration: If you and your husband were moving to another country, and if that county conditioned your entry and residency on you getting a divorce (because the country has laws against same-sex couples/marriage), would you obey that law? Or if the county required you to affirm under oath that you are not in a same-sex marriage, would you make that affirmation? Yes, you stacked the deck there. You are free to speak as you like. As am I. Yet again, someone is conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. I understand that some people dislike my posting style. I disagree with, and reject, requests that I alter my posting style to suit your preferences. Do you see the difference? Thanks, -Smac

You’ve received similar feedback from multiple participants and you ignore and defend. I am the world's leading authority on what I think. That more than one person imputes motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold does not validate those imputations. Instead, you go passive aggressive and indirectly accuse me of being immature. Classy. And ad hominem. Sure would be nice to discuss the topic instead. We are each at liberty to proceed as we see fit. But yes, if you key your participation on this board on how much you can control and dictate how others participate (such as myself), I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment. I think there is a substantial mismatch between my reasons for participating here and your expectations of my reasons, and of my participation. My posts do not conform to your expectations (which apparently involve "socializing"), and I am not inclined to change my posts to conform to them. If that frustrates you, then perhaps you are better off ignoring my posts. I wish you well. Thanks, -Smac

When you refuse to answer questions that might clarify your position, there is not much else we can do. I generally respond to inquiries, quite a bit in fact. In any event, the imputation of ill motives is, in my view, a form of ad hominem. I have questions not responded to all the time. It's just the way these boards work. We're not obligated to each other. We lose track of discussions. We may lose interest in discussions. I may not want to respond to questions about me instead of the topic. As for "not much else we can do," I disagree. We could return to discussing the topic rather than the participants in it. Hard to keep track of every thread and every discussion within each thread. And it's not like any of us is obligated to each other. Take, for example, Nehor. I regularly let him "have the last word" because I find his provocateur schtick and frequent lack of substantive commentary/insight and dialed-to-eleven sarcasm and personal hostility to frequently detract from discussion of the topic at hand. Rather than dwell on Nehor, though, I generally try to get back to discussing the topic. Similarly, I find your tendency to personalize discussions frequently detracts from discussion of the topic. I would prefer to focus on the topic. If I misunderstand something, that can be pointed out and demonstrated (rather than, say, simply assumed and followed by lectures). Most of the time, though, I think I do understand, I just disagree, and that disagreement is then construed by some as, and publicly declared to be, me "misunderstanding" something, which is another form of ad hominem. I don't come to this board for "connection." That's an expectation I have, I think, repeatedly rejected. As I noted to Mustard a few weeks ago, I don't come here to "socialize." I come here to discuss and debate topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and the Restored Gospel, quite often difficult ones. As for "concern for the other," I really don't know how to respond to that. None of us knows each other. I am generally quite civil and respectful in my comments. You are, of course, free to board nanny and personalize threads, as you frequently do, but I wish you wouldn't. My sense is that I have ruffled some feathers and outright offended some (and others have done that to me). As you say, online text communication is never perfect. More to the point, though, is that many of the topics raised here are controversial, which means participants will understandably have differing viewpoints on them. When that happens, disagreement can become less about the topic, and commentary can devolve into various manifestations of ad hominem and other forms of fallacious reasoning. I think communication is hindered when discussions become personalized, when terrible motives are imputed (and rarely demonstrated), and where logical fallacies overwhelm substantive interaction and focus on the topic. More mindreading and tone policing and board nannying. Sure would be nice to focus on the topics of discussion, rather than endless personalizing of threads. How about this: I will let you say what you think, and in ways that you deem fit (within the parameters of the board rules and general civility), and I'll ask that you reciprocate that accommodation. And this: If you don't care for the content or tone or format or style or whatever about my posts, you can ignore them. I would prefer that, as I don't answer to you and don't feel obligated to conform to your expectations and preferences. But again, you are free to say what you like, and participate in ways that you like. Argumentum ad populum. The valuable thing about a message board is that if a misunderstanding arises, it can be clarified and corrected. For example, you regularly impute things onto me that I think just are not so. I often - though not always - respond to clarify my perspective, often to seemingly no effect. If you still think I am "misunderstanding," then perhaps we can just be okay with that and move on. No need for ongoing lectures and tone policing. Okay. I disagree. I think big ideas and topics are often worth parsing out in ways that I like. While you sometimes (frequently? always?) take that as me missing "the whole picture," I don't think that is the case very often. It's just you making assumptions (and negative ones), or else just grousing about other participants and detracting from discussion of the topic at hand. Again, I don't come here to "socialize" or to "connect." That you and Mustard and others may come here to do that is all fine and dandy, but I would ask that you stop faulting me for not joining. I come here to discuss topics, not me. So in the end, I don't really care to discuss your armchair psychoanalysis of me, your imputing motives to me, your critiques of my writing style and supposed "misunderstandings," your lectures about me and my supposed moral failings ("real connection or concern for the other..." "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist") and whatever. I would prefer that you discuss the topics, not me. There may have been times in the past when there was a sense of camaraderie and conviviality on this board, but those days are, in my view, long gone. I participate here because I am interested in discussing the Church and the Restored Gospel, and particularly to listen to those who have viewpoints on these things which vary from my own, and who are willing to explain their viewpoints. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. I think that could happen. Not sure it will. I don't think so. Polygamy was very different from polycules. The wives were not married to each other. I have elsewhere explained my difficult in viewing marriage as divinely instituted (though in the end, I do believe it). One is mostly about licentiousness and and embedded infidelity, and the other was not. One is not based in sincere religious belief, and the other was. I see a number of differences. I think much has been done to deconstruct and damage marriage as an institution. Severing sex from marriage. Severing sex from children. Severing marriage from God. Severing marriage from children. Radically re-defining marriage. Thanks, -Smac

That's a fair question. I think the members of the Church genuinely believed that they were following God's law. Eventually they stopped, but only after much pressure and tribulation and - in my view - revelation. I think that can be a reasonable inference, but I'm not sure I can competently speak as to God's expectations on this matter. I think God commands us to do, or not do, certain things. Broadly and overwhelmingly, these things are congruent with the laws of the land. There can, of course, be exceptions. Like most Christian traditions, Latter-day Saint teaching can perhaps accommodate the idea that if a civil law directly conflicts with a clear command of God, God’s command takes precedence (classic biblical examples include Daniel, Shadrach/Meshach/Abednego, and the apostles in Acts 5:29, and then there are the "Jews in the Attic"-style questions). This principle was explicitly invoked during the polygamy period, when Church leaders and members argued that plural marriage was a divine commandment that superseded anti-bigamy statutes until the 1890 Manifesto discontinued the practice. To my knowledge, there is no other comparable episode in which the Church as an institution promulgated or practiced a general divine command for members to disobey civil law. So polygamy was very much an outlier, perhaps comparable to Abraham's Sacrifice. Why not? Isn't this situation a moral dilemma? Obey God or obey the law of the land? If secular law prohibits a moral thing (hiding Jews from the Nazis), or compels an immoral thing (disclosing the whereabouts of Jews to the Nazis), then people of good conscience have and can run into this sort of problem. The Fugitive Slave Act. Jim Crow. Apartheid. Some good historical examples of this. Apart from polygamy, I can't think of a time when this has happened to the Latter-day Saints. Happy to consider examples. I think folks like you and Mustard often impute motives and sentiments onto me which I do not hold or harbor. I think disagreement is often construed as not "listening." I think nuanced answers and assessments are sometimes seen as evasive. Sometimes, though, the question suffers from the "complex question fallacy" (also known as the fallacy of many questions, plurium interrogationum, or a loaded question), which occurs when someone asks a question that builds in an unproven, disputed, or false assumption. A direct "yes" or "no" (or any straightforward reply) forces the respondent to inadvertently agree to the hidden claim. I think I try to answer directly and honestly and clearly in most circumstances. I have attempted that here. Thanks, -Smac

Under our system of laws, no. However, "should have been given" is passive. Who is doing the giving? The citizenry (through their elected representatives)? The U.S. Supreme Court? Questions of First Amendment-based religious liberty were, at the time, in their infancy. Indeed, Reynolds v. United States is a seminal case on this topic. We must assess matters of law, to some extent, by the milieu in which they exist, which makes "should have"-type questions difficult to answer. That said, the SCOTUS reasoning still seems apt (from Wikipedia) : 100+ years later, SCOTUS in Employment Division v. Smith In my view, this element of the law was, and is, correct and necessary. Subjectively, yes. We each must do what we think is right. Yes. I give the same grace to the Saints as I do to the larger populace at the time. They were each doing what they thought was right. Thanks, -Smac

Again, the question is sort of vague. "Wrong or right" in what sense? Legal? Equitable? Moral? God's law? Gut feeling? Legally, the Feds could and did enforce these laws, so that was "right" in a legal sense, but the laws themselves had provisions which I think were fundamentally wrong (disenfranchisement of women's votes) and the enforcement mechanisms were quite punitive (physical mistreatment of my GG-Grandfather), and I see both of these as "wrong." If you are asking me about "right" or "wrong" relative to God's perspective, I don't know that I can speak to that. I believe God commanded the early Saints to practice polygamy, and I also believe that we are "subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law" (AoF 1:12), and also that "no man {should} break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land" (D&C 58:1). In (very) rare circumstances, these two principles can come into conflict. When they do, I'll leave such matters to the Lord. Thanks, -Smac

Your question was somewhat vague. Except there was a law against polygamy. It was legislated, signed into law, and later ruled constitutional. Social norms are uneven as far as whether they reflect "right" and "wrong." Broadly they do, but I think there are a lot of exceptions. I think we need to address the situation as it existed, rather than through some hypothetical. The interactions between Federal actors and the Church and its members were, after all, based on the law. A summary from Grok (in response to "The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were passed for what purpose(s)?") : As a produce of its time, I can understand why this law was passed. I don't have a solid sense of how much of the anti-Mormon sentiment at the time arose from matters other than polygamy, but I think most of the animus arose from that. This would have been proper. The Supremacy Clause and all that. I think this was more problematic, as it was directed more at the institution and less at the individuals participating in polygamy. And these measures were As a Latter-day Saint, I view the federal anti-polygamy statutes (the Morrill Act of 1862, the Edmunds Act of 1882, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act of 1887) as lawfully enacted and upheld as constitutional by the courts of their day. Whether the same results would obtain under contemporary free-exercise doctrine is an open question (there were a lot of rumors about the Mormons back then, and distances and communication limitations and whatnot created a pretty nasty rumor mill back east), but evaluating historical legislation solely by present standards risks the presentism fallacy. I have substantial reservations about the extent to which these laws sought not merely to prohibit plural marriage but to punish or dismantle the institutional Church itself. At the same time, the practice of polygamy was genuinely and deeply repugnant to the broader American society of the nineteenth century. To the degree the laws were motivated by religious animus rather than neutral public-policy concerns, their legitimacy is, in my view, diminished. Nevertheless, a functioning society cannot rest on individual “only if I agree” compliance with the law. Absent truly extreme circumstances, citizens are generally obligated to obey the law of the land. I therefore distinguish between de jure and de facto assessments. As a matter of law, the statutes were valid enactments, though certain enforcement mechanisms—test oaths, wholesale disenfranchisement, and related disabilities—were themselves wrongful. As a matter of fact, many of the measures taken under these laws were unduly punitive and harsh. See, for example, this information (compiled by my dad about my great-great grandfather, Alexander F. Macdonald) : Clearly, Alexander was not threatened although he was treated cruelly by his 7th Regiment captors. Thomas Ackley, another military officer recorded in his journal how Alexander Macdonald, sleeping in the guard house hall, exhausted after the long march from Provo, was nearly murdered by an imprisoned soldier. Walking into the room with his ball and chain, “One of these fellows let his iron ball drop, . . . intending for it to strike the Mormon in the head, and would have killed him had it not been that he threw up his arm to save himself, but broke his arm.” (The diarist later identifies the injured man as Alexander Macdonald who was denied medical treatment for his broken arm.) Ackley later expressed amusement at observing Macdonald and other prisoners working “. . . with large sacks of sand tied to them, others with large logs of wood strapped to their backs for punishment. . . . .” Later Alexander was confined to small adobe room, barely large enough for him to stand, and with only a small pile of straw as bathroom facilities. A frantic Elizabeth tried to visit him and bring him bedding and food, but she was turned away. One of the officers had Macdonald brought to his quarters at night to secretly teach him the doctrines of Mormonism. Alexander later told his wife that the young captain believed the teachings but feared that joining the church would jeopardize his military career. Eventually the Army was embarrassed into releasing A.F. Macdonald and he returned to his wife and sons in Springville. Hard to characterize this form of enforcement of the law as "right." Contemporary accounts, such as the above account (arbitrary arrest, prolonged imprisonment under armed guard, physical abuse resulting in a broken arm, and degrading confinement), illustrate excesses that rendered substantial portions of the enforcement morally wrong. Thanks, -Smac

Under the laws of the land in place at that time, the actions against the Church were broadly lawful. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act (1862), the Edmunds Act (1882) and the Edmunds-Tucker Act (1887) were all valid federal laws at the time and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. That said, my understanding is that the general current and retrospective consensus describes the anti-polygamy campaign of the 1880s as a form of religious persecution that used Congress’s territorial power to force a minority faith to renounce a distinctive practice as the price of institutional survival and political normalization. So that is fairly problematic. Also, some of the enforcement measures were selective and extreme, and that is also problematic. Thanks, -Smac

From the article: The link takes you to this article: Inside a ‘radical’ 20-person polyamorous relationship where wild sex is always on tap Some excerpts: Promiscuity can be an element of these arrangements. “It’s chosen family … just a little kinkier.” This arrangement appears to contemplate a lack of commitment. Yes, children will likely pay a steep price for this sort of thing. Thanks, -Smac

From this blog: Then a link: California city makes history allowing throuples, foursomes to legally register as partners I think this will end up as an incremental step toward full legal recognition of group marriages. If "marriage" can be redefined to remove gender as an element, and if that redefinition is constitutionally required, then I'm not sure I see a constraint against redefining marriage again to remove number as an element, also as a constitutional requirement. Boy, divorce and child custody and asset division and whatnot will be brutal. "{T}his law is just the beginning. Yes, I think that is right. I asked Grok to outline some potential/likely outcomes: Marriage has always been centered on procreation and the rearing of children. That's gone now. Across the great majority of recorded human societies, marriage has functioned primarily as a sexual and economic union that regulates reproduction, establishes paternity, and creates a relatively stable setting for the rearing of children. While the precise rules vary (monogamy, polygyny, etc.), the institution is nearly universal and is tightly linked to the production and socialization of offspring. Sexual access outside marriage has typically been restricted precisely because of its consequences for children and inheritance. Decoupling marriage from procreation is a recent development, largely confined to the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in a subset of wealthy Western societies. Changes in contraception, no-fault divorce, prioritizing romantic companionship over reproductive partnership, and the legalization of same-sex marriage have, I think, contributed to a legal and cultural redefinition in which the rearing of children is no longer a necessary or even expected feature of the institution. That shift is historically anomalous rather than the long-standing norm. I don't think it will end well. So not very good for women, either. This is the sort of stuff that has made polygamy one of the few aspects of the Restored Gospel which I find troubling, as not intuitively "good." My acceptance of the principle is abstract, as is acceptance of past requirements for animal sacrifice. And not very good for a lot of men, either. Divorce lawyers who specialize in addressing the dissolution of group marriages may end up making a lot of money. We need to see what the long-term data indicates. I suspect it will not be good. Hmm. Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate on what "trans occurrences" means? Do you agree or disagree that DSDs are developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female, and that there is no third sex? So are space aliens. So are dragons. And there are people who "identify" as these things. But these folks are humans, not space aliens or dragons or dogs or whatever, which means that their incongruent-with-reality notions are a manifestation of mental illness. Some may be faking it, I suppose, but I don't see how to reconcile someone sincerely declaring "My name is John Crenshaw, and I 'identify' as a Alsatian Husky. Woof!" with good mental health. If John is saying this and expecting others to take it seriously, then I think he is mentally ill. I assume you concur with the foregoing, is that right? If so, what differentiates one form of what I see as incongruent-with-reality thinking (John's self-identity) with another incongruent-with-reality thinking (an adult male saying "I 'identify' as a woman")? Why is the former rejected and the latter embraced and ratified and endorses. Both are incongruent with reality, AFAICS. If you disagree, I would like to listen to what you have to say. You are free to respond as much or as little as you like. Thanks, -Smac

None of these links negate the sexual binary. They describe developmental variations and disorders within the binary system of male and female. In humans (as in other mammals), sex is binary because there are two gametes—sperm and ova—and two corresponding developmental pathways organized around the production of one or the other. This is the definition used in evolutionary biology and developmental biology. Chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy are mechanisms that implement that binary; they are not the definition itself. There is no third sex, nor is there a "spectrum" of sexes, and DSDs are not outside the sexual binary. They are, instead, disorders or variations in the development of the male or female pathway. Individuals with these conditions are still male or female (or, in rare ambiguous cases, have mixed or incomplete development of one of the two pathways). They do not produce a third type of gamete or open a third developmental trajectory. The Scientific American piece and the ASRM sheet make a rhetorical move, not a biological one. Both emphasize complexity, overlaps, and rare developmental disorders, then treat that complexity as if it invalidates the binary. Complexity in the mechanisms of sexual differentiation does not abolish the binary outcome those mechanisms are organized to produce. The same articles note that medicine and law continue to classify people as male or female because that classification tracks the underlying reproductive reality. Calling the binary “overly simplistic” is a value judgment about how much weight to give rare edge cases, not a demonstration that the edge cases constitute additional sexes. The neurobiology paper (Roselli) is about gender identity and sexual orientation, not about the definition of biological sex. It discusses prenatal hormonal influences on brain development and behavior. It does not claim that biological sex itself is a spectrum or that DSDs create new sexes. Conflating questions about identity or orientation with the definition of sex is, in my view, a category error. On the "Unicorn" comment, I find it interesting that describing people who "identify" as one is "insulting," but noting that some people "identify" as a space alien, or as a wolf, or as being nine feet tall, or as being the son of Elon Musk, or as being a child, is not insulting. Could you elaborate? How is "I am a woman because I 'identify' as one" distinguishable from "I am a dog because I 'identify' as one"? Why is the latter not taken literally by people like you (I assume) but the former is taken literally? 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. 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

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'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

Corrected. Thx.

Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is an informal logical fallacy that claims an idea, belief, or action is true, right, or good simply because a majority of people (or a large number of people) accept, support, or practice it. Your comment here is, I think, a good illustration of this fallacy. I think you misunderstand the argument. The truth of the book of Mormon or Joseph's prophetic call isn't determined by how many people believe it. You: "Latter-day saints make up around 1 of every 1,000 people in the world. That's because the data don't support Joseph being a prophet." Also you: "The truth of the book of Mormon or Joseph's prophetic call isn't determined by how many people believe it." These don't seem compatible. You seemed to be saying that there are very few Latter-day Saints in the world "because the data don't support Joseph being a prophet." The "because" bit seems incompatible with "the truth ... isn't determined by how many people believe it." What am I missing? I guess you are going with something like "there are few Latter-day Saints in the world because most of humanity have not been persuaded by 'the data' about the Restored Gospel." Am I on track? If so, that still feels like the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Okay. I think I understand your point. I'll give it consideration. I think very few people make decisions about religious sentiments based on "academic non-faith based data." I would want to see "the data." I'm not sure the Shinto belief is empirically testable, and it's not really something that falls within his "scholar of the Bible and religion" purview. I would concur with him about the Muhammad thing, as I think that is empirically testable. I had thought that scholars generally bracket religious truth claims. I think, as a general rule, religious truth claims are not empirically testable, which is one of the reasons scholars typically bracket them. That said, yes, I think my faith is "special" insofar as it has something that is, to an extent, empirically testable: The Gold Plates and the text of The Book of Mormon. I think most explanations filter down into three categories: A) Joseph Smith fabricated the text of The Book of Mormon consequent to a profound mental illness; B) Joseph Smith fabricated the text of The Book of Mormon consequent to him being a big fat liar; and C) Joseph Smith did not fabricate the text, which instead was and is what he said it was and what it purports to be. I would really like to see empirical data for A and B. I went the rounds with Analytics about this a little while back, but I don't think it went anywhere (except that he felt "space aliens" or "satan" were a more likely explanation for Joseph's story than what Joseph said). The Book of Mormon is "special." If it is not what it claims to be, what Joseph said it was, then I think the text needs to be accounted for ("need" in a limited, logical sense, not scientific or legal or anything). But as soon as A or B is examined, it falls apart. That's what I've concluded, anyway. I would really like to see some substantive alternative explanations for the text. Thanks, -Smac