smac97

@Analytics (speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : "I am not claiming that physics 'disproves God' in some abstract or unfalsifiable sense." Also Analytics (also speaking of Sean Carroll's scientific conclusions) : "All I claimed is that the supernatural elements of the book are impossible and hence did not happen." "It takes Dr. Carroll several chapters to lay out the framework for how we can and do have positive evidence that these (for lack of a better word) 'supernatural' forms of matter and energy do not exist, rather than merely not being discovered yet. But he does make the case." "I pointed out that we know from Effective Quantum Field Theory that the miracles in and around the Book of Mormon did not happen." "Earlier in this thread, smac97 asked me when, precisely, science proved that spirits don’t exist. The answer to that question is that this knowledge started to emerge in 1989 when the Large Electron-Positron Collider was first fired up." "I've presented evidence from mainstream physics that shows basic truth claims of Mormonism, such as the existence of spirits and revelation, are flatly disproven." "{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science because they make concrete claims about the real world. As I've shown on this thread, the strongest, most robust, most well-tested theory of all of science, the theory that is as strong as a child of the Hulk and Godzilla, proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." "According to the massive experimental evidence supporting it, quantum field theory is true, within its domain of applicability. And if quantum field theory is true, we know there is not a mysterious thing made out of "more fine and pure matter" that connects with the brain in a way that has enough energy to have any effect on how the brain functions." Science (especially physics) cannot definitively prove or disprove God, spirits, or non-falsifiable "supernatural" or miraculous claims. Carroll is a philosophical naturalist expressing a strong opinion that, though grounded in current physics, is not a neutral scientific pronouncement. Science operates, or should operate, under methodological/empirical naturalism, and hence it has epistemic limits. The apparent absence of detectable spirit-forces is not conclusive evidence of absence. Religious experience, historical claims, and philosophy of science provide space for theism. "Science" by design cannot test non-empirical or non-falsifiable claims. A God and spirits that do not produce repeatable, detectable violations of physics are simply outside its jurisdiction. Carroll seems to concede this, but Analytics does not ("{T}hings like spirits, revelation, and priesthood power are within the purview of science..."). Moreover, as I have noted a few times, neither Carroll nor Analytics claim to have a coherent definition of "God" and "spirits." The Book of Mormon does make some historical claims that are susceptible to some empirical testing/evaluation (geography, archaeology). However, miraculous elements (angelic visits, translation via seer stones, etc.) are, by definition, not repeatable lab experiments, nor are they otherwise empirically testable/falsifiable. Physics does not "disprove" a one-time divine act any more than it disproves the Resurrection or any other singular miracle. Carroll is a lucid, careful advocate for naturalism, but he does not deliver the absolute "science has disproved spirits/God" verdict that Analytics attributes to him. My comments pertain to the limits of science, the distinction between methodological and metaphysical naturalism, and the need for epistemic humility. Thanks, -Smac

And the hit parade continues, this time Down Under: Cairns Clinic Scandal: Urgent Call to Halt Child Transition Hmm. I had not heard about this story. Good grief. Thanks, -Smac

I think it would be helpful to create some parameters for the "big tent" / "small tent" concept. I asked Grok: "Help me understand what Latter-day Saint leaders likely mean when they describe the Church as a 'big tent' organization." The response: He was addressing people with doubts, imperfect lives, past mistakes, or weak testimonies — and said the Church still has a place for them. Scriptural “enlarge the tent” imagery Leaders repeatedly quote Isaiah 54:2 (“Enlarge the place of thy tent… lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes”). This is the origin of the word “stake” in the Church. The idea is that the “tent of Zion” is supposed to keep expanding to gather more and more of God’s children from every nation and background. Public messaging During the 2010 “I’m a Mormon” advertising campaign, a Church spokeswoman told reporters the membership is a “big tent” — meaning members look different, come from different cultures, have different jobs and personalities, and are not all the stereotypical image many outsiders have. What It Does NOT Mean It is not a call for doctrinal pluralism (“believe whatever you want and still be fully in good standing”). The tent has firm “poles”: faith in Jesus Christ, the restored gospel, living prophets, temple covenants, the law of chastity, Word of Wisdom, tithing, etc. Leaders have consistently disciplined members who publicly advocate changes to core doctrines (same-sex marriage, women’s ordination, etc.), showing that “big tent” has limits. Summary in Plain Terms When a Latter-day Saint leader says the Church is a “big tent” organization, they almost always mean: “This Church is for everyone who wants to come unto Christ — no matter your race, culture, nationality, personal history, or how strong or shaky your faith feels right now. We are a worldwide family that celebrates that diversity while staying united under the same covenants and standards.” It is an invitational, hopeful description: the Church is large enough and loving enough to include far more people than many assume. At the same time, it is anchored in unchanging gospel truths. That is the consistent message from the leaders who have used or inspired the phrase. Two parts of this stick out to me: The quoted statements from Elder Cook ("big tent for people of all racial and cultural backgrounds"), Pres. Uchtdorf ("Regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church") and Pres. Nelson (urging members to “abandon attitudes and actions of prejudice” and make the Church a place of unity for everyone) seem to capture the essence of what the Church is referencing by "big tent." The "big tent" concept "is not a call for doctrinal pluralism ('believe {EDIT TO ADD} and do} whatever you want and still be fully in good standing')." Next query to Grok: "Now tell me what is likely meant when people, whether in or out of the Church, characterize it as a 'small tent' organization." The response: It's the flip side of the hopeful "big tent" messaging: leaders may aspire to (or claim) a large shelter, but critics say the reality is a smaller, more tightly staked one that prioritizes uniformity over accommodation. The phrase highlights perceived tension between invitation and enforcement. Third query to Grok: The response: "Aspirational sense" of "big tent." That seems about right. We may not yet be as "big tent"-ish as we aspire to be. I hope we are moving in that direction. "{A}nyone can enter who is willing to come unto Christ on His terms." Yep. For a lot of people these days, the Church's teachings on marriage, gender and Law of Chastity seem to create tension with personal worldviews pertaining to these aspects of the human condition. "The tent shelters all who accept those poles." "{S}inners receive healing through Christ, but healing requires following the prescribed treatment (repentance and obedience)." Yep. YMMV. Thanks, -Smac

From The Atlantic (!): The Tide Goes Out on Youth Gender Medicine American doctors are no longer united on the wisdom of medicalizing gender dysphoria in minors. That second link goes to an October 2022 Reuters article with the following parts: I also just came across this excellent article: The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids "{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest." Yep. The entire article is worth a read. The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good. Thanks, -Smac

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/02/waiting-for-the-cascade.php Discusses similarities between so-called "gender-affirming care" and lobotomies. The comparison is troublingly apt. Lobotomy: Surgical intervention to address psychiatric issues. "Gender-affirming care": Surgical intervention to address psychiatric issues. Also discussed is the apparent "preference cascade" happening re: "gender-affirming care" for minors. Thanks, -Smac

All sorts of gossip, hearsay and innuendo in this thread. Nothing specific or documented or verifiable. We as Latter-day Saints are supposed to avoid this stuff. From Pres. Eyring: Have I thought or spoken of human weakness in the people I have pledged to sustain? Have I looked for evidence that the Lord is leading them? Have I conscientiously and loyally followed their leadership? Have I spoken about the evidence I can see that they are God’s servants? Do I pray for them regularly by name and with feelings of love? These are questions each of us should ask of ourselves relative to how we are speaking of Elder Gilbert. Thanks, -Smac

Sounds like it was the bishop who erred (assuming the story is accurate). Thanks, -Smac

And more progressive church leaders don’t? We even had significant numbers imo of members condemning Pres. Nelson as being apostate when he shut down in person services and promoted vaccination and that was hardly progressive. Yes, evil-speaking of the Lord's anointed is not the exclusive province of one side of the sociopolitical spectrum. Yes. Hence the need to set aside ideological differences and sustain Elder Gilbert as an Apostle and Special Witness of Jesus Christ. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, if there were an abuse of power or a policy that was so awful that it would make Elder Gilbert a poor candidate to be an apostle, then I would expect some coconscious objectors. So would I. I suspect we'll hear some such objectors in General Conference (the guys who shout their opposing vote, in contravention of the instructions from the Brethren). Yep. There's been plenty of time to do so, but I haven't heard anything other than vague stuff. A friend of mine once raised her hand to oppose the sustaining of a man in her ward. The bishop spoke with her afterward, and she conveyed what she knew about the man. This isn't common, and perhaps it should be more so, but it does happen (and when it does, it should be handled with decorum, not shouted like what we've been seeing in general conference). Yes, this is the vibe I am getting. An article in the Tribune would be a great way to rake some much against Elder Gilbert. All we're seeing is pouting from people whose sociopolitical viewpoints vary from Elder Gilbert's as to a few topics. That doesn't hold much sway with me. Yep. Online comments as to such matters need to be taken with a handful of salt, not just a pinch. Thanks, -Smac

I don't know what this means. Well, yes. A TR is intended to facilitate entry into the temple. As a lay member, I am free to criticize the Church to a fair extent, as I would be speaking in my own capacity. In contrast, a BYU faculty/admin may face strictures on what they can say while functioning in their representative/paid capacity. See my prior comments about West Point. I think what Elder Gilbert (and, before him, Elder Holland) encountered was members of BYU faculty/admin using their paid position at BYU to speak/act against BYU and/or the Church, to subvert and undermine the faith of students, etc. Assuming, arguendo, that this was happening, would you have been okay with that? Basically, yes. Hasn't this always been the case? I'm skeptical. I think "it" involved a lot more than making a stray comment in Sunday School. A lot. See the January 2025 thread I linked to for examples (e.g., letters from parents alleging faculty at BYU subverting the faith of their children at BYU). I wonder how he knows this. "Very conservative" in what sense? Doctrinal? Political? Sartorial? And others are "majorly bugged" by people who really supportive of "moral relativism and DEI." Can't please everyone. How did "moral relativism and DEI" become unassailable and absolute indicators of moral decency? Is it possible to be "really supportive" of these sociopolitical philosophies and still be a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is it possible to be "really opposed" to these sociopolitical philosophies and still be a disciple of Jesus Christ? Is that within the realm of possibility? Could they be "worldly influences"? Understood. Some of the things you believe don't sit well with me. And yet we are both Latter-day Saints. I would like to hear this from his own words. But in any event, is he wrong? Isn't "racism" condemned by the Church? Don't we all agree it's a bad thing? That it has no place in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ? If so, wouldn't it make sense to categorize it as "worldly"? "DEI," like "feminism" and "human rights" and a host of other labels, often have "eye of the beholder" meanings which can vary a lot from person to person. I have a friend who spent years seeking a position in academia, only to be past over in favor of another candidate not nearly as qualified, except that she was a woman (a member of the selection committee inadvertently admitted to my friend that being of the XX gender was a specific and required, but unstated, qualification for the position). As you can imagine, his perspective on "DEI" and its merits might vary from yours. Not sure these ("doing good" and "being pious") are mutually exclusive. "Doing good" for the wrong reasons can be problematic. Some examples (from Grok) : And, of course, representing oneself as "pious" (to be "seen of men" and all that) is likewise specious. What I think we need to do is embrace the healing power of "and." We ought to be "doing good" because we are "pious" (that is, being deeply religious, devout, or showing sincere reverence for a deity and religious duties"). From Moroni 7: Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo. Roughly translated: "Your motive gives the name to your act." Yes. We should do so for love of God and our fellow man. There can be lesser, more venal motives (fear of punishment, hope of reward), but the highest and best motive is love and obedience. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15.) No. See Moroni 7. See also "The Last Battle" by C.S. Lewis (the character of "Emeth"). And if and when those "values" conflict with the Restored Gospel, the latter ought to predominate over the former. I think it might be better to ask him rather than impute things onto him. Conveniently anonymous, this. Oh, brother. We live in a free market. Nobody is "forced" to work at BYU. I respectfully disagree. I think the Latter-day Saints are, cumulatively, a great group of people. Thanks, -Smac

CES is a part of "academia." He very much went against the grain of this larger grouping. He also went against the grain of the subversive/antagonistic elements of BYU faculty/administration. I think it's hard to deny that such elements both existed (as evidenced by comments from Elder Gilbert (making assurances against the "loss of administrative governance" at BYU wouldn't make much sense unless, well, there was a risk of that loss at BYU), Elder Holland (the "muskets" comment), Pres. Reese, etc. I don't see a reason either. Not all academics are self-appointed pundits. But he sure seems to be willing to "do the difficult." He massively downsized Deseret News' staffing and materially modified its approach to news coverage. He really seems to have boosted BYU-PW. And his direct and forceful statements as CES Commissioner were startling. It was only in this last job, though, that I think he became situated to publish broad critiques of academia. And even then, he only did so in the context of BYU working within it. Thanks, -Smac

It takes real guts to go against the grain and act morally Yes, it does. Just look at this and previous threads. He has members of the Church publicly disparaging him. I suspect his efforts as CES Commissioner were undertaken with the understanding that his efforts would yield that result, and he proceeded anyway. Whom did he "root out"? And what evidence exists that he did so because of their "not conforming to orthodoxy"? And what does "not conforming to orthodoxy" mean in the context of BYU faculty/administration? He spoke of working against the "loss of administrative governance" of BYU. Again, I do not think he was tilting at windmills. I think he stopped and rolled back efforts by some at BYU which were calculated to subvert the Church's "administrative governance." I have said previously: And this: I think these issues needed to be addressed, and cannot be reduced or characterized to merely "not conforming to orthodoxy." Yes, he really did. "Conformity" would be kowtowing to trends popular in academia, including having religious schools abandon their religious character and purpose and mandates, and/or allowing elements of BYU faculty/administration subvert the institution or otherwise speak/act against it (and, by extension, the Church), from within. Yes, he really did. Some members of the Church are publicly berating him for not conforming to their sociopolitical preferences and ideologies. "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right. 'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." There are, I think, people in the Church who think "morality" means altering the doctrines of the Church to suit the preferences and dictates of others, particularly doctrines and policies pertaining to marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc. To be sure, the Church can learn, and has learned, some things from "The World." However, "The World" has some things to learn from the Church, such as pertaining to the Law of Chastity and marriage. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if you are still torturing puppies for fun and profit. A loaded question is an informal logical fallacy—specifically a fallacy of presumption or a complex question—that embeds a controversial, unproven assumption (here, Elder Gilbert having a "hatred of BYU" and taking that hatred "out on {BYU} professors") into a query, forcing the respondent to confirm it regardless of their answer. I am sure Elder Gilbert will learn a lot. However, I think he has his head on straight as far as the welfare of the Church, its subordinate institutions (including BYU) and its members. I think he truly loves these things. Sadly, I cannot say the same for those in the Church who seek to subvert, overtly or covertly, the Church's efforts to maintain BYU's religious purposes and mandates. I think it is unfortunate that we have members publicly maligning an Apostle of Jesus Christ as you have done here. I hope you have a change of heart. Thanks, -Smac

A few thoughts: We have previously (January 2025) had a thread in which Elder Gilbert was heavily referenced: Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU In that thread (started by me), I quoted a Trib article in which Peggy Fletcher-Stack was sounding the alarm and Elder Gilbert's remarks. The title of her piece: "BYU professors afraid of crackdown on Clark Gilbert’s version of LDS orthodoxy." I'll give this to Peggy: She doesn't bury the lede. "Clark Gilbert's version." Yeesh. I also cited a number of articles about Elder Gilbert: June 5, 2024: Church schools navigate ‘precarious time,’ Elder Gilbert says in Washington, D.C. October 23, 2024: Commissioner of church education: BYU sports can’t drift from core principles January 17, 2025: BYU, other Latter-day Saint schools will not drift from church governance, leader says January 18, 2025: Stewardship to God is a necessary component of religious freedom, Elder Gilbert says January 24, 2025: Religion and church governance will never take a back seat at BYU, pledges LDS education commissioner The third article was perhaps the most potent in explaining Elder Gilbert's perspective, which was to not allow BYU to become "secularized" such as we have seen at so many other institutions founded by religious groups. An excerpt from the thread (discussing the third bulleted article) : “The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” For the run-of-the-mill Latter-day Saint such as myself, the concept of CES maintaining "administrative governance" of BYU and the Church's other educational institutions seems like a truism, as something as axiomatic as "water is wet" or "circles are round." That Elder Gilbert is, nevertheless, going out of his way to publicly declare and explain this is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that BYU has, in recent years, allowed some of its administration and faculty members to go a bit rogue, perhaps even to the point of subversion. That the Tribune and other folks have, for some years now, publishing histrionic commentary about Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc., and the assertion - or re-assertion - of the Church's actual and philosophical and religious authority over BYU (including its hiring practices/requirements) is, for me, also a pretty good indicator that BYU has been going off the rails for a while, such that Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese are now putting it back on track. ... I find this information to be both useful and fascinating. I am also grateful that The Church and BYU are paying attention to this stuff and taking reparative and mitigating measures against the foregoing "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon seen at other colleges and universities. I also note that BYU's capacity for resisting this "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon is heavily reliant on its funding, which in turn comes from its sponsoring institution, which for the last many years has become not only financially stable (in contrast to much of The Church's first 100+ years of existence, during which finances were poor or in disarray), but prosperous and governed by long-term thinking and planning. I felt then, and still now feel, that there was pretty good evidence that BYU needed a course correction, and that Elder Gilbert stepped in and did it. Another of my remarks (this one about the fifth bulleted article, authored by Peggy Fletcher Stack) : ... A recent thread centered on discussion of BYU and its future: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The thread centered on an article written by Peggy Fletcher-Stack and published by the Salt Lake Tribune on January 14, 2024: BYU is at a ‘crossroads’ — Will flagship LDS school be a Notre Dame or a Liberty University? The above article was preceded by this one, published on January 6 (also by Fletcher-Stack) : For a number of faculty members, these are dark days at the church-owned school. Much of the discussion in the previous thread noted above centered on an apparent retrenchment effort at BYU, including quite a bit of hand-wringing on the part of Peggy Fletcher-Stack (via an article published in the Salt Lake Tribune), our @Teancum, and others who speculate about whether BYU will move away from its religious roots and become a heavily secularized school, or whether it will retain its religious roots (and, therefore, deteriorate and lessen itself in reputation and educational excellence). Peggy Fletcher-Stack and the Tribune even created a moody YouTube video (as in dark and washed-out colors, downer music in the background, etc.) about it (the video was posted on January 6, the same day as the "dark days" article above) : Gotta love the title: "BYU professors afraid of crackdown on Clark Gilbert’s version of LDS orthodoxy." So Elder Clark Gilbert, a general authority seventy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and the CES commissioner, presumably appointed by the First Presidency of the Church, is going rogue and crafting his on idiosyncratic "version of LDS orthodoxy" and pushing it on to the faculty and administration at BYU. That's the narrative. The Tribune also followed up with a "Mormon Land" podcast on January 8: What is happening at BYU? Two LDS academics explain. The reaction to the foregoing material has been interesting. Sam Brunson posted an article on By Common Consent on January 7 Clark Gilbert, BYU, and Developing Disciples of Jesus Christ At Public Square Magazine, Carol Rice published this article on January 8: Redefining Higher (and Holier) Education: BYU’s Fusion of Faith and Learning "A Thoughtful Faith" published this on January 7 in response to the Trib's "Dark Days" article: The Salt Lake Tribune’s INSANE Report On BYU And The Church (Interestingly, this video currently has over 71,000 views, in contrast to the Trib's January 6 "Black Box" video, which currently has around 12,000 views.) Meanwhile, the Church seems to be increasingly clear about the direction it intends to take itself and BYU. June 5, 2024: Church schools navigate ‘precarious time,’ Elder Gilbert says in Washington, D.C. An excerpt: "The gospel-centered missions of BYU and BYU–Pathway Worldwide..." Language like this, in 2024, merits some real attention. October 23, 2024: Commissioner of church education: BYU sports can’t drift from core principles January 17, 2025: BYU, other Latter-day Saint schools will not drift from church governance, leader says “The loss of administrative governance will not happen in the Church Educational System of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” For the run-of-the-mill Latter-day Saint such as myself, the concept of CES maintaining "administrative governance" of BYU and the Church's other educational institutions seems like a truism, as something as axiomatic as "water is wet" or "circles are round." That Elder Gilbert is, nevertheless, going out of his way to publicly declare and explain this is, to me, a pretty strong indicator that BYU has, in recent years, allowed some of its administration and faculty members to go a bit rogue, perhaps even to the point of subversion. That the Tribune and other folks have, for some years now, publishing histrionic commentary about Elder Gilbert, Pres. Reese, etc., and the assertion - or re-assertion - of the Church's actual and philosophical and religious authority over BYU (including its hiring practices/requirements) is, for me, also a pretty good indicator that BYU has been going off the rails for a while, such that Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese are now putting it back on track. I am very happy about this. Wow. Wow. Elder Gilbert ain't playing around. I find this information to be both useful and fascinating. I am also grateful that The Church and BYU are paying attention to this stuff and taking reparative and mitigating measures against the foregoing "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon seen at other colleges and universities. I also note that BYU's capacity for resisting this "decoupling" / "disengagement" phenomenon is heavily reliant on its funding, which in turn comes from its sponsoring institution, which for the last many years has become not only financially stable (in contrast to much of The Church's first 100+ years of existence, during which finances were poor or in disarray), but prosperous and governed by long-term thinking and planning. The above article continues: For those who are indifferent to, or even in favor of, the secularization of BYU, the foregoing statements are going to be tough to swallow. For those of us who want BYU to remain, and even enhance and strengthen, its religious moorings and purposes, this is great news. I appreciate that Elder Gilbert is emphasizing the important link between religious liberty and stewardship. Also, his use of phrases like "aligned governance" is, I think, likely intended to clarify things for observers who may prefer for BYU to follow the well-trodden path toward secularization taken by some other formerly "religious" colleges and universities. A significant component of the Church's and BYU's decision to not go down that path is to exercise appropriate stewardship of hiring at BYU. "Aligned governance..." BYU as "the ‘Christ-centered, prophetically directed university of prophecy.’" To paraphrase Mark Twain: "The reports of {the secularization of BYU} are greatly exaggerated." January 18, 2025: Stewardship to God is a necessary component of religious freedom, Elder Gilbert says An excerpt: "'Our growing religious freedom and our aligned governance structure from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and our Church schools provide critical protections for the modern religious university.'" That sure sounds like BYU intends to be a non-secularized "modern religious university," the "governance structure" of which is "aligned" with the Church. Today, the Tribune published this comment by Peggy Fletcher-Stack: Religion and church governance will never take a back seat at BYU, pledges LDS education commissioner "{H}e reaffirmed his insistence on church governance at religious educational institutions." I think . . . not. Elder Gilbert was speaking on behalf of the Church. It is the Church's "insistence" about the Church's "governance." How very cool. I am glad Elder Gilbert is saying these things. "{C}ulture war issues." That is an interesting - and apt - characterization from the Tribune. Some thoughts/observations: 1. Gratitude for BYU and the Church: I attended BYU, and I am grateful for the opportunity to have done so. I received a good education and, through hard work and subsidization via The Widow's Mite, I and my wife graduated debt-free. I am grateful that the Church sponsors BYU, both financially and philosophically. I appreciated BYU's religious atmosphere. It helped me realize that I could be "in the world but not of it." 2. Recent Trends/Developments at BYU: I have, in recent years, become concerned about reports of developments at BYU, particularly as pertaining to faculty and administration speaking/acting against the doctrines and practices of The Church. I have even gone so far as to consider whether there has been some manifestations of a "Long March through the Institutions"-type phenomenon in which some BYU faculty/administration deliberately seek subvert The Church by using their positions to influence and encourage BYU students to stray from the teachings and principles of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, particularly as to matters regarding marriage, sexuality, and CRT. I think the hullabaloo over Elder Holland's 2021 speech (in which he quoted Pres. Oaks, who in turn was quoting Elder Maxwell, re: "muskets" and the Nauvoo temple) was, for me, a pretty clear indicator that my concerns along these lines were justified (along with the more recent hand-wringing and histrionics at the Tribune). 3. Uniqueness of BYU: BYU was created to be, and should remain, a singular and unique educational institution. ... I have previously compared BYU to West Point. Both are educational institutions with a patron/sponsor that has a very particularized and very specific outlook. I think it would be patently unreasonable to expect West Point to hire and retain a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the United States and its military. There are plenty of other schools that such folks can find work. West Point, meanwhile, has particularized objectives that require a substantial measure of, as Gordon Monson puts it, "conformity." An America-hating faculty member at West Point cannot mouth platitudes - as Gordon Monson does - about "seeking truth" as a means of excusing his dislike of and opposition to the raison d'etre of West Point and its sponsoring institution. So it is, I think, with BYU. I am not sure "conformity is the thing" at BYU, relative to academic inquiry. I think the Nerd Herd over there has plenty of room to explore their respective areas of interest. But if and when "academic freedom" starts being used as a pretext to justify the retention of a faculty member who dislikes and speaks and acts against the Church and its largest educational institution, well, that doesn't quite pass the smell test. ... 4. "Retrenchment" at BYU: If the foregoing concerns are in error, if BYU has, as an institution, not been materially straying from its intended mission and mandates, not been experiencing subversive efforts by some of its faculty and administration, then I will happily stand corrected and breathe a sigh of relief. On the other hand, if the foregoing concerns are valid to some extent, such that there has been some subversion going on at BYU by some of its faculty and administration, then I am relieved and gratified to see Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese - no doubt at the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve - step forward and make necessary and appropriate corrections as to the goings-on at BYU. In 2019, Kathleen Flake made the following observation about then-recent news items about the Church's finances (which matters are currently playing out in various lawsuits against the Church) : I think something similar can be said about recent controversies about BYU's governance, including hiring/retention policies for faculty and administration. To paraphrase Kathleen Flake, I think such matters are "about competing views of what should be done with the Church's doctrines and policies pertaining to marriage, sexuality, abortion, race relations, etc. and who gets to say so." I suspect there have been, and are, members of the faculty and administration at BYU who have "competing views" (that is, "competing" against the Church's position) on certain issues which have both a substantial religious/doctrinal dimension and also get a lot of attention in the sociopolitical and social media spheres. I suspect that some of these folks have attempted, overtly or subversively or both, to speak and act against the Church and its doctrines and practices, to do so by (mis)appropriating their positions of influence over BYU students, and do these things while also drawing a paycheck from BYU. ... I bear no ill will against any BYU faculty/administration who may have, in recent years, been trying to push BYU and BYU students in directions contrary to the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. We live in a pluralistic society, we have extraordinary rights under our system of laws to do as we please, we have the most freedom and the most rights of any people in the history of the world. However, these folks have no right to speak and act against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while drawing a paycheck from the school it sponsors. This is particularly so for those who have done so in a surreptitious, "Long March through the Institutions" sort of way. These folks cannot continue in this way and stay at BYU. I am quite pleased to read about Elder Gilbert and Pres. Reese and what they are doing at BYU. They are preserving its unique character and purpose. 5. Financial Component of BYU's Vitality: As noted above, the Church has identified three reasons other colleges and universities have historically strayed ("disengaged") from their religious roots: Funding sources diversified away from religious sponsors as costs rose. Subsequently, university leaders were selected by new stakeholders unaffiliated with the original sponsoring religions. Specialization of academic disciplines made it difficult for university leadership to review much of the scholarly work of the faculty. The first and second reasons are intertwined, and both relate to funding. Elder Gilbert has publicly stated that (paraphrasing) "[t]he long history of American colleges and universities drifting away from the religions that launched and sponsored them won’t repeat at BYU and its sister schools." I think Elder Gilbert can speak this confidently because the Church has its funding/finances in pretty good order. The Church has spent the last 60 or so years getting out of debt, stabilizing itself financially, living within its means, and building up a robust financial reserve. In the last several years we have seen the Church spend a lot on temples, missionary work, family history, and other mandates. It can do so because it is financially strong. The Church can also maintain BYU's religious mission and mandates and character because the Church is financially strong. I am very happy about this. 6. BYU's Long-term Prospects: Teancum, Fletcher-Stack, and others apparently anticipate that the Church's assertion (re-assertion?) of its authority over BYU will result in a stagnation, or even a regression, of BYU's competency as an educational institution. Their reasoning, it seems, is that BYU remaining (or returning to its prior status as) an overtly religious educational institution will mean that some of the "best and brightest" in the academic world will not want to teach at BYU, or else will leave BYU for greener pastures. I'm not really worried about that. I think BYU has ample momentum in terms of its institutional reputation and standing, which has built up even with BYU's peculiar status as a Latter-day Saint university. I also think the Church's financial strength will mean that BYU will not succumb to the three bullet points above. Technology will also help a lot. But most of all, I think many (most?) people of good will, both in and out of the Church, will respect the Church's and BYU's adherence to religious principles, particularly in the face of what Elder Gilbert describes as "threats {} from secular agendas in the media, regulators and even from peers and other academic contemporaries." In other words, I think BYU has, by these recent efforts, secured for itself some pretty bright prospects. I am very happy about that. Simply put, I do not think Elder Gilbert was tilting at windmills. I think he was changing things at BYU so as to preserve its fundamental character and mandates. His efforts clearly irritated some people. Peggy Fletcher Stack for one. Here's another (published today) : Clark Gilbert Apostle Pick Sparks LDS Church Backlash Ho-hum. Pretty much anything the Church does these days creates a "backlash" from someone. Based on what I have read (much of it linked to and addressed in the above January 2025 thread), "Dissenting opinions" = "Some BYU faculty/administration seeking to subvert the Church from within (that is, using their positions at BYU to influence students and others) by speaking/acting against it as to certain issues (mostly centering on marriage and the Law of Chastity, and on corollary LGBT issues). One of my comments from the January 2025 thread: Back to the article: What "comment" does Newsweek expect to receive from the Church, I wonder. An apostle with a track record of defending the doctrines of the Church. Comme c'est horrible! This is alarming for Newsweek and, perhaps, for Peggy Fletcher Stack and some others. I am quite happy to see General Authorities called who do things like, well, what Elder Gilbert has done and likely will do. "{N}ot safe." Conveniently vague. I suspect this is code for "BYU actually expects its faculty/administration to uphold BYU's religious mission and mandates, and to not use their positions at BYU to subvert BYU and the Church." YMMV. As I noted previously, there are hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities where students can obtain an education that is untethered from any religious/moral mooring. I am glad Bro. Bergman landed on his feet. I am also glad he left BYU if he was not willing to support its intended purpose and mandates. "{H}ow they suffered." Conveniently vague. I suspect this is code for "BYU actually expects/requires its students to abide by the Honor Code as they agreed to do prior to matriculation, including adherence to the Law of Chastity." Every single student who attends BYU knows going in what the the Law of Chastity is, and how it pertains to the Honor Code, and they agree beforehand to live according to both. Again, there are hundreds and hundreds of colleges and universities where students can engage in sexual behaviors incongruent with the teachings of the Church. It is a bit off to suggest that they "suffer" by doing what they promised they would do (live according to the Honor Code) while receiving a top-notch and heavily-subsidized education at an institution that is patently clear regarding its religious mission and behavioral standards. "{F}ear among both students and faculty by punishing their livelihoods for holding dissenting opinions and tightening the vice of authority across the board." It is patently unreasonable for some BYU faculty/admin to expect to use their positions at BYU to influence young Latter-day Saints, to subvert BYU's sponsoring institution, while still drawing a paycheck from that institution. Their protestations are, to me, about as sincere and legitimate as those of John Dehlin, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, etc. who exploited their membership in the Church to speak and act against the Church, and then threw hissy fits when their membership was removed. BYU will not let itself be subverted in its religious purposes and mandates. I am glad of that. "{T}he worst Mormonism has to offer the world." Bald character assassination. Online. Anonymous. This is, to Newsweek, newsworthy. I have seldom had an informed perspective on an apostle prior to his calling into the Quorum. Not so with Elder Gilbert. I think he is much more of a known quantity and quality. I don't know that I agree with him on every jot and tittle, but I am persuaded that he is a disciple of Jesus Christ, that he believes in the Restored Gospel, and that he loves both the institution that houses it and the people who are trying to live according to it. It took real guts for Elder Gilbert to go against the academic grain, and to even critique and speak against some of the problematic aspects of modern academia. I believe and hope and trust that Elder Gilbert, when ordained as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, will do what I have been quoting in my sigline for years: "'Conformity' is doing what everybody else is doing, regardless of what is right. 'Morality' is doing what is right, regardless of what everybody else is doing." Thanks, -Smac

I think it is a reasonable inference.

American Medical Assoc. Retreats on Trans Surgery for Kids After Years of Embracing Mutilation - 5 Days After $2 Million Judgment Against 2 Docs Huh. I wonder if this "split the difference" approach (no on surgical intervention, yes on puberty blockers) will stand the test of time. If the AMA previously postulated that "the evidence" supported surgical intervention, and is now backtracking, will it do the same - eventually - with endocrine treatments? Huh. Once lawsuits become successful, the AMA changes what @Analytics characterized as its "evidence-based" position on surgical intervention for minors. Huh. If the AMA had changed its stance based on evidence, principles, etc., I would appreciate and respect that. But I don't think that is what happened. I think the AMA was ideologically compromised in its prior position, and it is now reversing course because of the lawsuit. American Medical Association now opposes gender surgery for minors Huh. Was the evidence also "insufficient" five years ago, when the AMA specifically ratified and endorsed "gender-affirming surgeries"? Again, I'll be curious if the AMA eventually changes course on this as well. Another Major Medical Group Reverses Course On Trans Surgeries For Minors Ideologically compromised. I think that is what happened in the AMA. It probably still is compromised, but just cravenly bowing to reality. First major medical org comes out against trans surgeries for minors Interesting stuff. Shocking Details Emerge In Landmark $2 Million ‘Trans’ Malpractice Judgment Tough reading, this. This last bolded part has been a very common element justifying medical interventions. AFAICS, in no other circumstance do doctors justify medical intervention on an "otherwise the patient will kill herself" basis. Frankly, that's a small judgment given what she went through and will endure for the rest of her life. I would not be surprised to see future judgments of a substantially larger amount. Thanks, -Smac

I am a civil litigation attorney. I am perhaps overly-accustomed to speaking plainly in an adversarial setting, and therefore potentially somewhat desensitized to how my comments can come across in an informal setting such as this one.

I don't know. It's a "they're no longer legally minors" age. The 19-25 age range encompasses the back end of an individual's transition into individual autonomy. Even as an adult, some rights and privileges are not immediately bestowed at 18, and are instead rolled out in the ensuing years. Alcohol and tobacco and marijuana purchase/use. Handguns and concealed carry permits. CDLs. Car rentals. Perhaps the ASPS still facing some ongoing ideological/political pressure to keep the age limitation as limited as possible. That's just conjecture on my part. Well, no and yes. My personal reputation matters to me. I'll own that. I didn't see this board as much of a threat against it, but I felt it appropriate to "finish the circle" in this thread and about this topic, given that my position on pediatric sex trait modifications - often slammed on this board as bigoted/hateful - is presently being vindicated. I am gratified about that, as it is a serious topic and I had hoped my prior assessment was correct. I also wanted to continue defending my good name, such as is possible in online fora such as this. So the "venting," to the extent that characterization works here (not well, IMO), it centers on me defending my name and reputation. I think that's generally a worthwhile endeavor, particularly when the denigrations are patently inaccurate and unfair. Well, it matters to me whether I am right or wrong. If I am wrong, I hope to find that out, either through my personal efforts or via scrutiny and critique of my positions/ideas by those who disagree with them. My utilization of this board for that purpose has, apart from this thread/topic, run its course. I was not intending to rub people's faces in it, but to rebut specific arguments made previously and now upended. @Analytics went to great pains to present a "the expert consensus hath spoken" argument. I had previously argued that there was ample grounds in the past to disagree with this supposed "consensus," and am now noting that the "consensus" itself seems to be unraveling. This is far from the only time Analytics has declared things to be X, and definitively so, only for X to be pretty wobbly. In 2019 Analytics flagrantly and publicly mischaracterized statements made by Terryl Givens, and he this in a way that, unsurprisingly, cast the Church in the worst possible light. See here and here. In 2021 Analytics substantially exaggerated and mischaracterized a purportedly "scientific" claim that a "science-based argument" exists which "proves that spirits and revelation don't exist." Except, well, the person making that argument was considerably more constrained in what he was arguing. See here and here and here. In 2023, Analytics really wanted the SEC order against the Church (consisting of the unproven, untested, unadjudicated, and unadmitted-to-by-the-Church findings of the SEC investigation) to be construed as "the facts" of the matter (see, e.g., here, and my response here). He even went so far as to declare that the SEC "was in fact the prosecutor, judge, and jury" and that it "sincerely wanted the Church's side of the story." In 2024 Analytics publicly branded me a "bigot" for disagreeing with some tenets of trans ideology. See here. None of these claims by Analytics was substantively true or accurate, not then and not now. Falsehoods and mischaracterizations needs to be treated as such. Analytics has said all of these things publicly. On a message board viewable by the entire world. And he said these things with a specific intent of rebutting or subverting the truth claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and, perhaps, religionists in general). His comments, having been published to the world, are likewise susceptible to public critique. That is what I have done. Stylistically, you may have a point. Substantively, though, I think it is important to rebut the inaccurate / misleading / falsified arguments @Analytics and people like him have made regarding pediatric sex trait modification (and other topics relating to the Church and its doctrines). This is an important topic, and deserved more attention and critique than the "When the AMA has spoken, the thinking has been done" crowd would have had us think. My comments in this thread are not really directed at Analytics (though I have tagged him so that he is notified of my posts mentioning him). I don't really have any expectation of him changing his views. Rather, my comments in this thread are directed at other people on this board who may have been persuaded by Analytics' "consensus" declarations. I just don't think he's a very good or trustworthy guide on topics pertaining to or touching on the Church and its doctrines. The above examples are just the ones that immediately came to mind. We'll see, I suppose. I have, over the years, received quite a few private messages thanking me for being willing to post on this board and defend the Restored Gospel. Alas, this board isn't really what is used to be. In the end, this is just one thread, and the only one in which I am participating. I have a 20-year catalog of 19,000+ posts that rather extensively document my views on the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Church that houses it, and the topics that are discussed in relation to it. Thanks, -Smac

Well. That did not take long. The AMA is (partially) modifying its position to accord with the one announced by the ASPS. First Major Medical Org Comes Out Against Trans Surgeries for Minors (last paragraph): Our @Analytics has previously pointed to professional medical associations and their ratification of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions for minors as being "evidence-based care": The last two paragraphs of Roger's 2024 comments here are, in my view, noteworthy. He scoffed a the idea of "ideological/sociopolitical pressure" having influenced the assessments of professional medical organizations. Now, in 2026, the AMA "agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood." The AMA does not address endocrine interventions, so we'll see how that goes. In 2024 I responded to Analytics, including a fairly vigorous critique of the AMA's position: Question: You previously said that, you "want to turn to organizations of doctors who have a vested interest in the wellbeing of their patients." Well, so do I. But I assume we would also want to know if these organizations are ideologically or otherwise compromised. Do you see any possibility that this is happening? Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here, that the APA and APA "are committed to an ideology," affect your assessment of their objectivity and competence when evaluating these issues? ... Question: Are the positions taken by the AMA and APA susceptible to criticisms of those organizations having "{prioritized} ideology over science"? Question: Do you have evidence to contradict Dr. McHugh's statement here? That "no longitudinal, controlled studies support gender-affirming treatments for gender dysphoria"? Question: Does Dr. McHugh's assessment here - that "ideology rather than science is driving the {AMA's and APA's} support" for these treatments - carry any weight with you? If not, why not? Question: The Endocrine Society was one of the other medical organizations you cite as endorsing "gender-affirming interventions." If that organization really did, in creating its guidelines, "included only those who supported the emerging practices," and if that organization "{muted} attempts by many of the endocrinologists present to raise concerns," does that affect your assessment of this organization's endorsement of these interventions? If not, why not? The compromised (even corrupted) position taken by the AMA was, for me, persuasively laid out in Dr. McHugh's brief. And it looks like the AMA is now radically changing its tune, though apparently not until it was compelled to do so. It looks like malpractice lawsuits that imperil the financial aspect of practicing medicine are overriding ideological/political influences that have previously molded the AMA's position. Funny how that works. A jury figured out what the AMA could not: that pediatric sex trait modifications are, broadly, not proper medical care for minors suffering from gender dysphoria. Analytics responded in 2024 in part: And here: Regarding medical organizations being subjected to sociopolitical pressures, this WSJ commentary deserves some attention: Medical Journal’s False Consensus on ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ ... Here is an article by the BMJ that may be one of those referenced here: Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement And here: You said this immediately after quoting a bunch of these organizations: To me, this looks like you really really want to declare that there is a clear consensus on pediatric sex trait modification treatments. I think there is ample evidence demonstrating that no such consensus exists. I have provided extensive resources demonstrating this lack of consensus, as well as pretty strong evidence that these professional organizations are, to some extent, compromised in their assessment. Again, I think my 2024 assessment has been grimly vindicated. I expect to see many more malpractice judgments arising from procedures which these medical professional organizations previously blessed and endorsed. Thanks, -Smac

More: Anticipating that it will be criticized for taking such a strong position without the usual amount of medical evidence, the society preemptively countered by saying in its statement, “ASPS acknowledges that many plastic surgical clinical recommendations and standards rely on lower levels of evidence compared to those of other medical specialties. However, ethical decision-making in medicine does not depend on evidence quality alone, but on the relationship between evidence uncertainty, anticipated benefit, potential harm, and patient vulnerability.” In other words, when it comes to minors, who are very vulnerable and at risk of irreversible lifetime damage, it’s most ethical to consider the uncertainty of the evidence itself as compounding the risk. Thanks, -Smac

Another: Other stories followed in the New York Post, Fox News, the Christian Post, the Washington Times, The National Review, Unherd. I have, for quite a while now, expressed concerns about pediatric sex trait modification procedures, including "informed consent" (it being lacking), compromised assessments of the best interests of the child, ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care, and so on. I feel my assessment has been grimly vindicated. I wish we had seen this before "thousands of minors {} underwent gender-transition surgery over the past decade." I wonder if these "adults," and those who have cheered them on, will ever truly recognize and regret their error. "{I}nsufficient evidence demonstrating a favorable risk-benefit ratio for the pathway of gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents." Or, as I have been saying for years, "Longitudinal studies essentially absent" and "Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child" and "Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care." Back in 2024, I quoted a Tribune opinion piece by Patrick Hardy, who said: I noted at the time: I think much of the medical establishment has, for some years now, been materially compromised in their professional assessment of "gender-related endocrine and surgical interventions in children and adolescents." The ASPS is, as noted above, apparently the first professional medical organization to publicly speak against these procedures. I anticipate that more will follow. The previous "consensus" favoring/justifying these procedures was, I submit, based on ideological and political and financial and other untoward considerations. And not on "the science" or the best interests of the patient. Thanks, -Smac

This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors I think these lawsuits will be coming sooner rather than later, as they need to be filed within the applicable statute of frauds. The "We have to cut off healthy body parts or else she'll kill herself" argument. How often does this originate with the therapist/psychologist? Interestingly, Einhort does not presently advertise himself as treating gender identity issues. Huh. I suspect "both health care providers" were not able to document these "outspoken" comments. ‘Detransitioner’ Wins $2 Million Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit The surgeon and psychologist "skipped important steps when evaluating whether she should go forward with the surgery." I think this finding will be found in quite a few of these lawsuits. The case did not challenge the general propriety of such “care” of minors with gender dysphoria, but alleged it was not appropriate in Fox’s particular case. This verdict is an important development in the great cause of protecting gender-confused minors from being subjected to irreversible procedures from which they can never be made whole. Why? Trial lawyers! I know this community well. Hell, I was one! Most are liberal politically, but if they smell money in the water, they will sue the “gender-affirming” care industry into the ground just as they do other business sectors with deep pockets. I have been predicting this for a while. Thanks, -Smac

October 2024: Hmm. "{T}he Transgender Center could have continued to prescribe puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to current patients. However, it decided to back away from these interventions altogether." This seems to vindicate at least a substantial portion of Reed's concerns. We'll see, I suppose. I suspect the lawsuits about this will be legion. I suspect a lot of issues in my list of bullet points will be heavily litigated (centering on "Informed Consent" about the other bulleted items not being sufficiently disclosed/addressed) : Comorbidities. Informed consent. Compromised assessments of the best interests of the child. Irreversibility. Sterilization. Cutting off healthy body parts. Longitudinal studies essentially absent. Lifelong medical regimens. Massive ideological/sociopolitical influences/pressures on medical care. Massive social contagion risks. Massive risk of financial devastation for the individual (and burden on society). I noted: "I suspect the lawsuits about [pediatric sex trait modification treatments] will be legion." I think this is starting to gain steam. From December 2024: I suspect there will be more, likely many more. We'll see. The above lawsuit was dismissed in November 2025 (see also here). Not on its merits, but because it was filed after the applicable statute of limitations. The article mentions an intent to appeal. Not sure if that has happened. January 2026: Jury Awards Detransitioner $2 Million in Historic Medical-Malpractice Lawsuit I think this will be the first of many lawsuits. Some will fail due to statute of limitations and other legal impediments, but I think a lot will succeed. "This man was just so emphatic, and pushing and pushing . . . I think it was a scare tactic." Yes, I think it was too. I think we will be seeing similar stories emerge from these lawsuits. "{A}nd was even at risk of suicide should she not receive a mastectomy." What other medical/surgical interventions are based on such reasoning? Any? From that last link: See also here. From the comments: Litigation and constraints on insurance will kill this industry. And good riddance to bad rubbish. Thanks, -Smac

Just came across this video: A Grok summary: I think the perspective of this person, who is a "trans man," is interesting. Thanks, -Smac

I appreciate the acknowledgment. I think this is an important point, and I am glad we are more or less in agreement about it. I am not sure what you mean by "anti-trans" sentiments. Could you clarify what you mean? I also am not sure what you mean by "trans people don't exist." Is this a rhetorical or substantive point? For example, a person who goes by "Lia Thomas" exists. That person, formerly known as "William Thomas," clearly "exists," and he purports to "identify" as a "trans woman." So in that sense, "trans people" do "exist." On the other hand, this person is biologically male, and will always be so. Putting on cosmetic affectations to approximate the appearance of a woman, or even undergoing some medical/surgical interventions, will not make him a woman. There is no way for a human to "transition" from male to female, or vice versa. Calling this person a "trans person" might, for some, involve making an implicit concession that is contrary to reality (that a person can "transition" from one sex to the other). So in that sense, some folks might subscribe to the sentiment that "trans people" do not "exist." This would be in the same sense as declining to acknowledge someone as a "trans racial" (Rachel Dolezal) or "trans species" (Eva Tiamat Medusa) or "trans disabled" (the British woman who wants to have a doctor sever her spinal cord). Subjective self-identification, no matter how intensely felt, cannot supersede reality and biology. I appreciate you bringing this up, particularly in tandem with the "trans people don't exist" concept. You seem to be interpreting these sentiments substantively/literally (e.g., "Lia Thomas," a self-described "trans woman," literally does not exist), whereas I think the sentiment is intended in another way (e.g., the biological male f/k/a William Thomas n/k/a Lia Thomas is not, and never will be, a "woman," as there is no such thing as a human being who can "transition" from one sex to another). Elder Bednar was, I think it must be acknowledged, speaking in the latter sense. See, e.g., here: What the Media Got Wrong About Elder Bednar's Comments on Gay Members And yet Elder Bednar is still being criticized for his comment. I think those who have trumpeted Elder Bednar's decontextualized remark are indeed hoping to elicit "emotional, negative reactions." I think Elder Bednar is declining to go along with the notion of "sexual identity" in the modern sense (gay, bi, etc.). He is not alone. I think more and more people are declining to be "defined by sexual behavior" for themselves, and decline to view others through that lens. I think that is a reasonable position to take. I like the bolded part. I think it is a fair and accurate characterization of Elder Bednar's position. The context here really helps clarify what Elder Bednar meant. I think the foregoing sentiments, particularly the bolded part, bear frequent emphasis and repetition. I can and do identify nuance. For example, an appropriate and fair interpretation of Elder Bednar's comments requires some measure of nuance. Thanks, -Smac