smac97

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. 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 (a human being saying "I 'identify' as a dog") 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

I think Jacob is making the same mistake as Dan: using the same platform (here, "A Thoughtful Faith") to post social media content about A) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and B) Jacob's personal political views and opinions. I dislike that. A lot. That said, Jacob is not trying to use scholarly bona fides to bolster and lend undue credence to his personal opinions, so there is something of a difference there. Thanks, -Smac

Or perhaps it's just a disagreement. First, I quote Dan and provide links, so the context is there. Second, my critique of Dan's social media content has been going on for a while, so there really isn't "a particular context" in view apart from what I have noted, which is what I take as Dan using his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster and lend credence to his personal opinions on matters well outside of his expertise as a biblical scholar. Third, Turning Point USA is an organization he dislikes on political grounds, so labeling that dislike as a conclusion from “the data” gives it an aura of objectivity it does not possess. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a "false prophet" is not an academic or scholarly inquiry, yet Dan has publicly declared that he has reached an "academic conclusion" that "the data supports the conclusion Smith was a false Prophet." Fourth, I find his references to "the data" about such non-empirical matters to be rhetorically dishonest. I see this as Dan engaging in a sleight-of-hand maneuver, where he posts social media content under the rubric of "Hi, I'm Dan McClellan and I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" and also content which walks and talks in virtually all respects like his "scholarly" videos, but then contain pronouncements about matters that are A) not within his realm of expertise, B) are not empirically testable, and C) reflective of his personal and subjective value judgments, opinions and presuppositions. Both categories of content look virtually alike. Same channel, same guy, same video setup. But while Dan is quite good at marshaling "the data" for matters pertaining to biblical scholarship, his pronouncements about other items (mostly sociopolitical issues he finds significant) are effectively bereft of any showing of "the data." And yet he appeals to "the data" for both categories. Dan has actually declared, publicly and to the entire world, and using the exact same platform as he uses for his pronouncements on biblical scholarship, that "the data indicate" that Joseph Smith "was a false prophet," and that this is his "academic conclusion." I find that problematic. Dan regularly does not cite "the data" he is referencing when he makes pronouncements about what they ("the data") do or do not support relative to his personal opinions on social and political and religious issues (the divinity of Jesus Christ, Joseph as a prophet, Turning Point USA, etc.). He posts both categories of content on the same channel. His videos espousing his personal opinions and sentiments on social/political/moral issues are visually indistinguishable from the videos about biblical scholarship. Fifth, if a scholar is going to make public statements about what "the data" indicate, he ought to present that data for independent evaluation. Dan doesn't do this, and I think it's intentional, and I think it's intentional because he wants to borrower from his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his opinions about matters outside of biblical scholarship. I can appreciate that you are attempting to justify Dan's invocation of a supposed "academic" (!) assessment of "the data" about not-emprically-testable religious claims, but it's not working. That is to say, you are not persuading me to your point of view. Academics and self-declared "scholars" are not, or should not be, in the business of arbitrating prophethood, or making conclusory declarations, based on uncited "data," about not-empirically-testable religious claims. Yes. Alongside his "academic conclusion" about Joseph Smith being a "false prophet." Sure would be nice if he presented "the data." I think you presuppose too many things here. And because their perspective doesn't conform to Dan's "view," ipso facto "people in general matter to Turning Point USA." "The data" = Dan's opinion (outside of biblical scholarship). I find this problematic. I agree. That's why I posted a link to the whole video, and then parsed it out. And you complained. You: "You split someone's essay up so finely that you lose the forest for the trees." Also you: "{Y}ou ignore the context around the statement." Dan’s argument assumes that the only way to “care” about unborn children or gender-distressed youth is to adopt the specific policy conclusions he prefers, and that any disagreement proves bad faith. "The data" as to these matters appears to be just code for "My personal opinion." That is not how care works, and it is not how the evidence works. On the unborn, TPUSA’s position follows from the view that a human organism with a heartbeat, brain activity, and unique DNA is a rights-bearing human being. Restricting elective abortion is therefore an expression of care for that group, not indifference. Claims that restrictions “harm” women rest on selective or contested data (maternal-mortality trends, economic studies, comparisons with countries that have different baselines). Disagreement over the moral status of the fetus and the strength of those studies is not evidence that pro-life advocates do not care about babies. And yet here we are, watching Dan and you declare that "the data" show that pro-life advocates do not care about babies. On transgender-identifying youth, the claim that “the data conclusively show” affirmation is the only caring response is overstated. Major systematic reviews (Cass Review in the UK, and shifts in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and elsewhere) have found the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors to be weak, with significant risks and high rates of co-occurring mental-health conditions. Many who “care” about these young people conclude that caution, therapy addressing underlying issues, and avoiding irreversible interventions is the more protective approach—especially given desistance data from earlier cohorts and the rapid rise in adolescent-onset cases. Preferring that approach is not proof of indifference. People routinely care about the same group while disagreeing on means. Treating policy disagreement as conclusive evidence of bad motives is an unfalsifiable accusation, not an empirical finding. And Dan imputes terrible motives onto other people. All. The. Time. Thanks, -Smac

Any thought about the "violent overthrown" element of communism? In Marxist theory and communist history, violence is not considered an ultimate end or a core philosophical value, but rather an unavoidable, legitimate, and necessary instrument for achieving political and social transformation. Academic analysis and communist texts generally view the role of violence through three distinct phases: the overthrow of the capitalist state, the preservation of the revolution, and the legacy of state terror in practice. Claims akin to “real socialism/communism has never been tried” (or that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. “weren’t really socialist/communist”) are, in my view, reliying on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It redefines the term after the fact to exclude or circumvent historical counterexamples where these ideologies have, when implemented, had horrible results (such as USSR). Such claims are effectively unfalsifiable ("No, I mean real communism..."). The historical regimes - USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. - were not random dictatorships or “state capitalism.” They were explicit, large-scale attempts to implement the core of Marxist-Leninist socialism: collective or state ownership of the means of production, central planning of the economy, suppression of private enterprise and markets, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their leaders, parties, and constitutions described themselves as building socialism and communism. The results—chronic shortages, mass repression, famines, and economic failure—were not accidents. They followed from the incentive and information problems inherent in abolishing private ownership and market prices. If every real-world attempt that matches the theory’s own criteria is dismissed as “not real,” then the theory has no empirical content. No other political or economic system is granted this exemption. Failures of liberal democracy or markets are not waved away by saying “that wasn’t real capitalism.” An ideal that has been pursued for a century under its own name, at the cost of tens of millions of lives, and has consistently produced the same outcomes, cannot be shielded by redefinition. The Amish are often pointed to as a successful small-scale deployment of communitarian living which, I think, is the good faith goal of many folks who endorse socialism. However, I don't think the square peg of the Amish community can be pounded into the round hole of socialism or proto-socialism. These folks are a voluntary, faith-based Christian community that practices mutual aid and separation from modern technology for religious reasons, while retaining private ownership of farms and businesses. Their cooperation is limited, consensual, and rooted in church discipline and personal responsibility. In contrast, socialism/communism is a political-economic system that seeks collective or state ownership of the means of production, central planning, and redistribution enforced by state power—often through coercion and the suppression of private property and markets. The Amish operate small-scale voluntary communities inside a market order; socialism/communism seeks to remake the entire economy through compulsory collective control. Also, I think the Amish can only exist within the U.S. and countries similar to it (like Canada, though that's getting iffy). They depend on a host society that protects religious liberty, private property, and the right to opt out of many state systems (public schooling, military service, certain taxes or regulations). The United States has provided that combination more consistently than almost anywhere else, through constitutional protections and practical legal accommodations. In most other countries—authoritarian regimes, strongly secular welfare states with high conformity pressure, theocracies, or places with weak property rights—such communities are far more vulnerable. Historical European persecution drove many of their ancestors to America. Even in some modern liberal democracies, heavier state involvement in education, welfare, or land use can erode their ability to maintain separation and self-sufficiency. They are not self-sustaining outside a relatively tolerant, rights-based order; they need a surrounding system that leaves them alone. Thanks, -Smac

Respectfully, I reject the premise. I am looking at the totality of the video I am critiquing, and then parsing it out to explain which portions of it I find to be problematic and why. Yes. You'd think you would be acclimated to my writing style by now. You frequently inject ad hominem digs into your posts. I'm used to that. I don't think so. I have received a number of messages thanking me for my thoroughness. There are people who like my writing style, and people who do not. I'm okay with that. I don't really think much of your writing style, with its frequent and pervasive ad hominem digs, but I think others like what you say and how. I think that's more about preference than substance. De gustibus non disputandum est. I like some of Dan's content in the video, and I dislike some of it. I parsed out the two categories and explained the basis for the parsing. I have. I'm at ease with how I write. I dislike your ad hominem-laden content. That might merit some introspection, but I'll leave that to you. Thanks, -Smac

I agree, but it's art about a sacred topic, so responses to it may be understandably disproportionate, and perhaps not altogether reasonable. By way of example, I have read a number of narratives about people who, having left the Church, cite as evidence of the Church's terribleness its occasional use of artistic depictions of Joseph Smith reading directly from the Plates: For my part, I think artistic license should have a lot of sway. I remember seeing this as a child: I thought "Wow, Joseph Smith wore a cape? Like Batman? Cool!" Upon further reflection, and now that I'm in my 50s, I doubt Joseph wore a cape to his interview with Moroni as depicted in this image. I think that's okay, as it is ancillary to the main idea being conveyed. Same here. Thanks, -Smac

Just going to respond to this one point. Sounds good. None of us is obligated to respond more than we prefer. Actually, that was the part of Dan's video that I found to be pretty compelling. But that's not the "data" associated with Dan's pronouncement that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." Again: This is the sort of stuff Dan does with "the data" which I find quite problematic coming from a purported "data > dogma"-focused scholar. He provides no dataset, study, survey, or operational definition. “People in general matter” is not a measurable claim that can be tested against a body of evidence; it is a moral evaluation of motives. By attaching the word “data” to it, he converts a political judgment into something that sounds like an empirical finding. It's not an empirical finding about whether "people in general matter to Turning Point USA." Would you agree with that? I haven't parsed out his data on these points. I previously took them at face value, but then I saw what I took to be "playing fast and loose" with citations to published scholarship about trans issues. As I noted previously: This video is, upon further reflection, pretty discouraging as far as assessing Dan's reliability as a purveyor of "scholarship." I suppose he is reliable as to matters within his purview (biblical scholarship), but he then goes well outside of his domain and uses the same presentation techniques (screen caps of articles, quotes, etc.) to use studies that favor his perspective. I'll pretty much defer to Dan's citations to biblical scholarship as a matter of course. Whatever flaws I see in his social media content, I don't think he would mischaracterize or misstate or misrepresent scholarly materials within his realm of expertise. Otherwise, though, my survey of Dan's citated materials which touch on topics outside of biblical scholarship have left me hesitant to trust him about those materials. Meanwhile, he provided no data whatsoever when he said that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." He is, of course, free to step in and out of his stature as a scholar, but I think doing so in the ways I am seeing are problematic. He said that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." He did not provide "the data" referenced here, which is the same thing he has done in making conclusory pronouncements about other obviously-not-empirically-testable-or-within-the-realm-of-biblical-scholarship topics, such as Joseph Smith being a "false prophet." No data, and I have drawn some conclusions as to why. He presented no data to support his claim that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." And his presentation of "the data" as to trans issues was, in my mind, materially deficient. Thanks, -Smac

Three word responses do not do much to advance the discussion. Thanks, -Smac

I am critiquing Dan as a scholar, and his social media content about his personal opinions and politics, which matters he appears to be bolstering by mimicking his "scholarly" presentation about biblical scholarship. This just shows your own bias. Wanting to see "the data" that Dan uses to make pronouncements about the divinity of Jesus Christ, the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith, the authorship and origins of The Book of Mormon, etc. is not a matter of bias. It's just a basic thing that I would expect a scholar to produce. Notably, Dan regularly does this - very much to his credit - by providing citations to published scholarship for his pronouncements about biblical scholarship. Also notably, though, is that Dan regularly does not do this when he makes pronouncements about what "the data" do or do not support relative to his personal opinions on social and political and religious issues (the divinity of Jesus Christ, Joseph as a prophet, etc.). He posts both categories of content on the same channel. His videos espousing his personal opinions and sentiments on social/political/moral issues are visually indistinguishable from the videos about biblical scholarship. If a scholar is going to make public statements about what "the data" indicate, he ought to present that data for independent evaluation. Dan doesn't do this, and I think it's intentional, and I think it's intentional because he wants to borrower from his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his opinions about matters outside of biblical scholarship. 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 am perfectly willing to listen to what you have to say about "the data." Please provide it. I agree. I sure would like to see non-faith-based "data" that you and Dan have in mind as pertaining to Joseph Smith being a prophet. I don't see that as anything like a point that can be empirically evaluated by looking as "data." I think Dan vaguely point to "the data." Again, I would like to see the dataset Dan used to reach his "academic conclusion" (!) that "{Joseph} Smith was a false prophet,," and also the datasets on which his pronouncements about The Book of Mormon are based. That he has notably not provided these data despite supposedly making "scholarly" ("academic conclusion") assessments about it (!) is, I think, illuminating. Next up: Dan makes "academic conclusion"-style public pronouncements about what "the data" indicate about Mohammed being a prophet and the Koran having supernatural origins, and what "the data" indicate about whether Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment, and so on. I won't hold my breath. I agree. I think we should discuss them. Too bad we can't get any of "the data" Dan is referencing. He isn't providing any. As I see it, archaeologists do not regularly treat religious texts as authoritative guides for research or excavation. They may consult historical or religious texts (including parts of the Bible, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Maya writings) as potential sources of hypotheses or place names when those texts have some independent corroboration or fit known cultural contexts. Material evidence—artifacts, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, genetics, etc.—is primary. Claims in a text that lack supporting material culture, or that conflict with it, are not used to direct fieldwork or accepted as history. Religious texts function, at most, as secondary, critically evaluated sources rather than research blueprints. So I think your comment here is something of a non sequitur. Thanks, -Smac

I don't see careful analysis as "a problem." I don't think so. I still appreciate those elements of Dan's content that speak objectively to biblical scholarship. But I do see him using his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his personal opinions and politics. Dan quotes a rep from Turning Point USA and then states: "The data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." Again: This is the sort of stuff Dan does with "the data" which I find quite problematic coming from a purported "data > dogma"-focused scholar. He provides no dataset, study, survey, or operational definition. “People in general matter” is not a measurable claim that can be tested against a body of evidence; it is a moral evaluation of motives. By attaching the word “data” to it, he converts a political judgment into something that sounds like an empirical finding. Again: By Dan "I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" McClellan attaching the word “data” to it, he converts a political judgment into something that sounds like an empirical finding. I disagree with Dan's usage of the studies (which, in and of themselves, are pretty weak tea, as are virtually all the "studies" I have reviewed in favor of medical intervention on youth for "trans" ideations). The "context" is that Dan cites to and quotes from these studies, but does so by omitting a fair amount of relevant information and even mischaracterizing the findings in these studies. I find that troubling. And this is not resolved by "context." Thanks, -Smac

From X (in response to "Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Prove me wrong") : The "don't waste my time" bit is the sort of stuff that I think is, or should be, beneath Dan as a scholar. A follow-up: In the comments and responding to a question "So aren't you a Mormon?": And another (in response to "@maklelan saying 'the data supports the conclusion Smith was a false Prophet' IS a religious opinion. It's why Dehlin said his audience agrees with your opinions and why you said you support Dehlin's project of carving out a space for atheist Mormons.") : Sure would like to see the dataset Dan used to reach his "academic conclusion" (!) that "{Joseph} Smith was a false prophet." Same goes for the datasets on which his pronouncements about The Book of Mormon are based. Thanks, -Smac

I'm not seeing this. Verses 6-11: Where in there are angels "question{ing} Job's loyalty"? Not sure about this either: What am I missing? Okay. My question is not about whether angels can kill. Let's assume they can. My question is are they just free agents? Angelic mercenaries running around doing whatever they want? Or would it rather be, I think, that angels are sent by God to perform particular tasks, and they do do. The clip from the sneak peak, though, seems to treat the three angels as acting independent of God's will, like they are getting ready to string down those confronting Jesus, and would have done so had Jesus not looked at them and shaken his head. Ah. This is a good one: The verses describe the Lord sending a pestilence that kills 70,000 men, then stopping the destroying angel at Jerusalem when it is “enough.” The LDS edition of the Bible includes a Joseph Smith Translation note on verse 16: " the Lord said unto him, Stay now thine hand, it is enough; for the people repented, and the Lord stayed the hand of the angel, that he destroyed not the people …" This seems to shift emphasis slightly toward the people’s repentance as the occasion for the mercy, consistent with LDS teachings that divine judgments can be stayed or softened by repentance. In other words, the angel could be seen to be acting in perfect conformity with God's will, not a mercenary doing his own thing. What are your thoughts? Okay, but I'm not sure Eliphaz's statement reflects the mind and will of God, or the correct state of things as between God and His angels. Church educational materials treat the friends’ speeches as well-intentioned but fundamentally mistaken. They assume a strict retribution theology (the righteous prosper, the wicked suffer) that the prologue of Job has already shown to be inadequate. Job is blameless, yet he suffers. The friends’ counsel, including this appeal to angelic imperfection, is therefore not presented as authoritative revelation. Hmm. I've never heard that before. I'll think on it. Thank you for sharing. In some traditions this may be so. I'm not really seeing it in the Biblical references you have provided though, and certainly not in the paradigm of the Restored Gospel. Still, interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac

That's interesting. Could you give some examples? Would also like to better understand this. Thanks, -Smac

For my part, I don't care for the subtext, namely, that in the Celestial economy of God there are angels running around half-cocked, ready to slay, but are then warned off by the Son of God. God's house is a "house of order" (D&C 88:119, 109:8 and132:8). But oh well. It's a TV show. Thanks, -Smac

This video is, upon further reflection, pretty discouraging as far as assessing Dan's reliability as a purveyor of "scholarship." I suppose he is reliable as to matters within his purview (biblical scholarship), but he then goes well outside of his domain and uses the same presentation techniques (screen caps of articles, quotes, etc.) to use studies that favor his perspective. Across the four studies examined (by Grok) above, McClellan’s pattern is consistent: he selects directional findings that align with a political conclusion, presents them as decisive “data,” and omits or minimizes the methodological limitations the authors themselves emphasize. In each case the underlying paper is real and reports associations. In each case McClellan converts qualified, low-certainty, or purely descriptive findings into stronger causal and policy claims than the studies support. The rhetorical effect is to make contested political judgments appear as straightforward conclusions from “the data.” That is the consistent feature of his citations in this video. Disappointing. But for Grok (and my ability to use it to quickly survey and summarize the various articles Dan cites, and also critique Dan's use of the articles' content), I probably would have taken Dan's assessment of these articles at face value. I think a lot of his audience do that. I think that reliance is, here, misplaced. Dan's conclusion (from the YouTube transcript) : I asked Grok if Dan has ever addressed the Cass Report (the conclusions of which go very much in the opposite direction of what Dan is saying about "the research"). The response: In substance, I think Dan's citation to articles amounts to a contradiction between his findings on what "the research" shows versus what Hillary Cass found. A Grok summary: Kinda hard to square this with Dan's professed devotion to data > dogma, where the "dogma" in view is his personal opinions about transgender issues. He cherry-picks a few articles that favor his presuppositions, presents them in the same format as he does with scholarship about biblical studies (screen cap of the first page, then quotes from the article), overstates or misstates or mischaracterizes their findings, does not give his audience much of any indication of this, and then sums them up as "the research." And he does this while seemingly ignoring the entirety of the Cass Report, perhaps the single most important piece of literature on the subject. And his statement of what "the research" shows conflicts with the Cass Report. Thanks, -Smac

Another article Dan cites: Dopp AR, Peipert A, Buss J, et al. Interventions for Gender Dysphoria and Related Health Problems in Transgender and Gender-Expansive Youth: A Systematic Review of Benefits and Risks to Inform Practice, Policy, and Research. RAND Corporation, 2024 (also summarized in RAND Health Quarterly). The Grok critique of Dan's use of this article: Thanks, -Smac

Another article Dan cites: Bird K, Arcelus J, Matsagoura L, O’Shea B, Townsend E. Risk and protective factors for self-harm thoughts and behaviours in transgender and gender diverse people: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2024;10(5):e26074. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26074. A Grok critique of Dan's use of this article: Thanks, -Smac

Dan also cites to another article: Campbell T, Mann S, van der Meulen Rodgers Y, Tran NM. Mental Health of Transgender Youth Following Gender Identity Milestones by Level of Family Support. JAMA Pediatrics. 2024;178(9):870–878. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2035. A Grok critique of Dan's usage of this article: Thanks,, -Smac