smac97

I suppose. I don't know what this means. I don't know what this means, either. Who has to "defend" their sexual behavior? To whom? About what? As a Latter-day Saint, I am - by choice - constrained in my sexual behavior by the Law of Chastity. Those constraints include "heterosexual" ones. No adultery. No fornication. Thanks, -Smac

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). So to clarify, you just answered cb with an extended “No, they don’t tell their kids they don’t care about about the biological sex of their child’s romantic partners as long as no extramarital sex”….which seems to mean they do care if their child ends up in a same sex marriage. Candidly, I don't really know how "most" parents approach this topic. I think most parents, not just those who are Latter-day Saints, anticipate - and perhaps hope - that their children will grow up, get married, and have children. I sense that "heteronormativity" is supposed to have some sort of pejorative connotation, but heterosexual behavior is the only way to procreation. Our bodies are designed for it. Same-sex behavior is biologically incoherent. As humans, then, we can add a moral/religious layer to these matters. I think observant Latter-day Saint parents hope their children will keep the Law of Chastity. I don't think these parents frame this in relation to same-sex behavior in some sort of default sense. This may be changing, though, as some flavor same-sex status is growing at a very advanced rate. But to directly answer your question, I think most observant Latter-day Saints would prefer their children to keep the commandments, which would preclude a same-sex marriage. I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. “If at all” meaning what? They don’t talk about future relationships with their kids or about what the future holds for those with homosexual attractions? Or something else? I don't know how often Latter-day Saint parents presuppose that their child is gay, or how often they approach that notion. By "if at all" I meant to suggest that some parents don't address this point at all. When I think about what I have "hoped" for my children, it has involved them living out the Plan of Salvation. Same-sex marriage is not a part of that Plan, nor is same-sex behavior. Same-sex attraction might be, depending on the individual. Thanks, -Smac

Thus demonstrating the nebulous, amorphous nature of the word. It's changing. It's broad. It's vague. I consider it much less important than the child’s safety and security. Broadly, this is not an either/or situation. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for State actors and strangers to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority, and to do so under pretextual stuff like "the child’s safety and security." This is grooming-style behavior. So if you live your entire life based around a law around sexuality you are going to talk about sex constantly? I do not claim an "identity" based on my sexual orientation or proclivities. I know, you are the default. No. I am speaking for myself. Well, no. The notion of "sexual identity" is quite a new concept and a First World and Western Civ one at that. I think most of humanity is not really occupied with claiming and broadcasting an "identity" pertaining to sexual orientation and proclivity. Yes. I do claim an "identity" as a Latter-day Saint and disciple of Jesus Christ and a son of God. These are the primary ones, really, along with husband and father and son and brother. Next comes American. Any other "identities" are more about convenience and circumstance than substantive meaning and purpose. As for "sexual identity," I reject it altogether (for myself). You throw out these inane analogies all the time and they never work. You taunt and insult and generally fail to meaningfully and substantively contribute to conversations. Not with anyone other than my wife. Whatever "queer" means. And all Latter-day Saints are, I surmise, proscribed from "flirt{ing} in a non-het way." There are all sorts of ways to violate the letter and/or the spirit of the Law of Chastity. I think I am correct. There is only one Law of Chastity, and it applies to everyone in the same ways. Same law, disparate impact. Yes. I am glad we can agree on this point. I agree that parents should not use coercive or other abusive means to influence their children. I don't think it is the place of State actors and strangers to interpose themselves as judge and jury as to what parents do with their children, or to to intentionally and actively and secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. That you think it is all about sex. I don't think that. I think this is mostly about sex. Sex and sexuality are the sine qua non of the "sexual minority" identity. No. Just the ones exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing such things. This, in my view, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. There are plenty of "straight" people that are likewise engaging this in wholly improper and creepy and perverted behavior. The difference, I guess, is that the sexualization in the LGBT community seems to be much more "mainstream," as evidenced by the public events (Pride parades, drag shows, etc.) at which children are being sexualized. I am not sure if you are kidding here. I think these sorts of topics should be discussed with decorum and seriousness. It is not just sexual boundaries that are being enforced. Even so, it is not the province of State actors and strangers to interfere with parental rights, particularly using secretive, subversive, manipulative means to influence minor children. It is hilarious that the state is acting to out queer kids via mandatory reporting and you are whining about the state subverting parental rights when I suggest that state actors should not be policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors. I don't know what you are referencing here. Which "state actors" are "policing kids for non gender conforming behaviors"? Biological males can't go into women's spaces. Is that what you have in mind as a "non gender conforming behavior"? Are there other behaviors you have in mind? Your various denigrating usage of terms like "bigot" and "transphobe" and "nazi" and "fascist" just don't have any impact. Your accusations are fundamentally unserious and irrational and unsubstantiated. Yes, all that great scriptural and prophetic authority. I was under the impression that you are a Latter-day Saint. Is it just a nominal affiliation? A former one? None at all? The Law of Chastity really hasn't changed much. In recent years the Brethren have had to implement a "Circles Are Round"-style clarification that the Law of Chastity presupposes a man-woman relationship. But that's about it. But it doesn’t work. That generally depends on the individual and the way they are facing. There is no compulsion here, so each individual is "free to choose." Nice weasel wording. That could be harmed a lot. They can be abused a lot. "A lot" is within the ambit of "to some extent." Ummm….yes. Huh. Well, I appreciate your candor. Parents of minor children can and should monitor and regulate the behavior of their children. This dissipates as the child nears majority, and thereafter the parents lack legal authority to do so, and should instead stay within an advisory role. I don't know what you mean here. Someone violating all therapeutic standards is not relevant to a discussion of whether the therapeutic standards as they stand work. I think there has been large-scale instances of damaging medical and psychological treatment of children, particularly those induced into profound medical treatments such as hormone therapy, puberty blockers and set trait modifications. These people will be impacted by these misbehaviors for the rest of their lives. Fortunately, these terrible experiments have been, I think relatively short-lived. From Grok: I am glad that "gender-affirming care" is on its way out. I am not sure if you are agreeing with me about that, or if you are acting as if these procedures and this model of care never actually happened. Again, from Grok: Starting around 2010–2015, a new "gender-affirming" model rapidly became dominant in many U.S. pediatric gender clinics. WPATH’s Standards of Care 7 (2011) and especially SOC-8 (2022), along with Endocrine Society and AAP guidelines, began endorsing puberty blockers as early as Tanner Stage 2, followed by hormones and (in some cases) surgeries for adolescents. This represented a profound departure from prior standards. It moved from a cautious, desistance-aware psychological approach to one that prioritizes social transition and medicalization. This sounds about right. I have. CBS Austin: Nearly 14,000 Minors Underwent Sex-Change Procedures in Recent Years, According to New Watchdog Database I am happy to consider any critique you have of these numbers. From the above article: Again, I'm happy to consider whatever resources you have. WRONG! Prove it. Put up or shut up. See here ("28 detransitioner lawsuits are now in different stages of legal proceedings across the US."). This seems like a dodge. Again: The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification (women who "identify" as men), but the other (a boy who "identifies" as a dog) is not. A guy crossdressing is highly sexualized behavior? Ummmmm……you’re weird. Is everything about sex with you? Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Somehow this is a controversial statement. I guess you are being serious here. Again, exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Temporarily, it is unlikely to last. Enjoy it while you can I suppose. We'll see, I guess. So minors who are terrified because they realize they are queer in some way and know their parents will not accept them I think many such minors are feeling "terrified" and alienated from their parents because State actors and strangers are going out of their way to inculcate children with these fears and sentiments. This is not an apt characterization of my position. You are worried about the parents who have most of the power in that relationship. I am disturbed at the notion of self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. I think these kids need help. I don't think this help should come in the form of self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. Yet they are. Routinely. It is pretty much standard. The answer is not to have self-appointed State actors and strangers doing the deeply creepy and subversive things noted above. Yep, all those support hotlines are wrongful and deeply creepy. No. Just the ones that involve State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to interpose themselves as judge and jury of parents, and to substitute their own ideological preferences in the place of the parents', and to scare children, and to alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, and to do these things secretively and/or with the power of the State. This is wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. What you characterize as "being accepting of kids" I see as self-appointed strangers traumatizing children by secretly subverting parental rights and authority, alienating children from their parents and presenting themselves as people children should trust instead (a classic groomer tactic), scaring them with doom-and-gloom stuff, and so on. I was working with kids who had been removed from the care of their parents due to abuse or negligence. Okay. I think it is not the province of self-appointed persons to secretly subvert family relationships. Civil authorities and the courts, yes. Not self-selected ideologues who presume to interfere with familial relationships, particularly in secret. I understand it is a controversial theory, and I think the jury is still out on it. I do think we need to account for the substantial changes noted by Bill Maher. Do you get turned on by Drag Queen Story Hour where a crossdresser reads a cute children’s story? No. I find it creepy and weird and perverted. I likewise find your prurient question creepy and weird and perverted. I think children can become confused and troubled about sexuality. I think this is why groomers groom, so they can manipulate children into viewing sexuality in aberrant and improper ways. Children’s brains and nervous systems are wired for gradual, age-appropriate exposure to sexuality. Premature or intense exposure overwhelms them in several ways: Prefrontal cortex is immature (until mid-20s): Children lack the impulse control, abstract reasoning, and emotional regulation needed to process explicit sexual material. They cannot contextualize or “compartmentalize” what they see the way adults can. Sexualization creates confusion and hyperarousal: Seeing adult sexual behavior (nudity, simulated sex, kink, etc.) floods a child’s developing limbic system with stimuli they are not equipped to handle. This can trigger anxiety, shame, dissociation, or inappropriate sexual curiosity/behavior. Boundary violation: Children rely on adults to maintain safe boundaries. When adults expose them to sexual content or environments, it signals that sexual material is normal and acceptable for them. This erodes their sense of safety and can lead to long-term boundary issues, trust problems, or reenactment of what they witnessed. Desensitization and distorted expectations: Early porn exposure (the most studied form) is linked to viewing sex as transactional, violent, or performative rather than intimate and relational. It distorts healthy sexual development and increases risk of compulsive sexual behavior later. There is substantial clinical and research evidence that exposing children to pornography or highly sexualized adult environments is traumatic and disruptive to normal development. It violates the child’s need for protection, safety, and gradual maturation. The idea that children can “handle” or “benefit from” adult-level sexual content is not supported by developmental science. Responsible adults (parents, educators, event organizers) have an obligation to shield children from this kind of exposure. You seem to be defending these events. I find that deeply troubling. I have come to the conclusion that this whole “the gays are sexualizing our children” I reject this characterization. Most "gays" do not sexualize children. Those who do are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, or endorsing this sort of thing. This seems like an apologetic for grooming behavior. Very troubling. FBI behavioral analysis reports, child-protection studies, and grooming research (e.g., from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children and academic reviews in Child Abuse & Neglect) consistently note that many online and offline groomers describe their actions in ideological or “liberatory” terms. They portray parents as “closed-minded,” “bigoted,” “religious fanatics,” or “transphobic/homophobic” obstacles to the child’s “authentic” sexual or gender exploration. My understand is that this mindset is not representative of the broader LGBTQ+ community or most mental-health professionals. The vast majority of people working with gender-questioning or same-sex-attracted youth are not grooming and genuinely believe they are helping distressed children. However, the “savior from repressive parents” framing does appear in some activist and clinical subcultures, especially when parental rights are framed as inherently oppressive to “queer” or “trans” youth. Grooming literature shows that predators almost never see themselves as villains. They nearly always construct a narrative in which they are the hero, the child is “mature” or “ready,” and the parents are the problem. The sexualization-as-liberation ideology provides a ready-made intellectual framework for that self-deception. Some groomers (and some people who enable boundary violations with minors) do see themselves as saviors freeing children from supposedly repressive parents. This is a well-documented psychological tactic, not a conspiracy theory. It is one of the reasons child-protection experts emphasize the importance of parental involvement and age-appropriate boundaries around sexuality. And want teachers to monitor the kids for deviant behavior! I have not said nor implied that. It is not. I have not said it because I do not think it. Your comments here are coming across as an apologetic for exposing children to highly sexualized events and behaviors. I find that deeply troubling. And already scared kids should not be supported. I don't think State actors and strangers should portray the secretive and subversive efforts I have described as "support." That starts to sound like justification for grooming. I find it deeply weird and creepy that self-appointed strangers feel justified in interfering with familial relationships. If parents are engaging in misconduct, those who know about it should report the matter to civil authorities. The stuff you describe and rationalize is, in my view, deeply wrong. Thanks, -Smac

I think most observant Latter-day Saint parents encourage their children to obey the Law of Chastity. I think many/most observant Latter-day Saint parents differentiate between divinely-authorized-and-mandated sexual relations (between husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them) and other forms of sexual behavior (fornication, adultery, same-sex behavior, etc.). I don't know how Latter-day Saint parents are approaching this, if at all. I dislike the coercive element implicit in your statement. I don't think parents should emotionally coerce their children into staying in the Church and keeping the commandments. I also don't think children should emotionally coerce their parents into endorsing/ratifying same-sex relationships if that conflicts with the parents' religious beliefs. I think that in the end we each of us must do what we think is right. For observant Latter-day Saints, that may involve acknowledging, but not agreeing with, the world's re-definition of marriage, and being willing to resist strong social/cultural/political trends and pressures regarding matters of sexuality, and to instead embrace and uphold the Law of Chastity. That may also involve Latter-day Saints preserving relationships without the sort of "my way or the highway" impositions that can come into play from either or both sides. Thanks, -Smac

It is not at all a nebulous concept. "Nebulous" means "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Dictionary.com: "noting or relating to a sexual orientation or gender identity that falls outside the heterosexual mainstream or the gender binary." Does this definition work for you? Columbia Journalism Review: Do you accept the first bolded statement above? The second bolded statement seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." Wikipedia: "Queer" is "an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities." Per https://lgbtqia.fandom.com/wiki/Umbrella_term, "umbrella term" means "a word or a phrase that covers a broad range of related things instead of just one." Such a word or phrase can, in my view, be reasonably characterized as "nebulous." "Queer" is also "alternately used to refer to people who reject sexual and gender norms and share radical politics characterized by solidarity across lines of identity" and is also "a self-identity term for many people (similar to but distinct from gay, lesbian, and bisexual), characterized by rejection or disruption of binary categories of sexual orientation and gender." Do you accept all of these definitions? One? Some? None? As I see it, the Wikipedia article seems to characterize the term as "lacking definite form, shape, or content; vague or amorphous." lgbtqia.fandom.com: Boy, "queer" sure seems to cover a lot of ground. QueerMajority.com (article by David Link) : The bolded parts sure seem to characterize the term as "nebulous." What Does “Queer” Even Mean? (Medium.com article) : This article even uses the word "nebulous" as I did. What Does "Queer" Mean Anyway? Minus18.org article) : That sure sounds "nebulous." Merriam-Webster: The terms sure seems to cover a lot of ground. 9 LGBTQ+ People Explain How They Love, Hate, and Understand the Word "Queer": "A million conflicting meanings for the word." This is a stupid tangent. I think parental rights is an extremely important aspect of this topic. Not exclusively, no. But broadly, people whose life and worldview coheres around sexuality will generally bring "sexual conduct" into the discussion. For my part, I reject the notion of "sexual identity." Although I have never been sexually attracted to men, either categorically or individually, I do not "identify" myself as "straight" or "heterosexual," just as I do not "identify" myself as being right-handed. It's a matter of perspective and emphasis, I guess. If I drive down the road and stay within the speed limit, the police will not stop me for violating the speed limit. If my neighbor drives down the road and exceed the speed limit, the police may stop him for violating the speed limit. Are we "being treated the same"? The answer is "no" insofar as pertains to our respective behaviors, and "yes" insofar as pertains to our compliance with the law. Which leads to the question of why so many want government to enforce their standards for them. Sounds pretty authoritarian. Again, there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. This should include the Church's stance. Do you agree? Which is not what the Church wants or teaches. Yes, I think it is. The Church has, for many years now, taught that same-sex attraction and such is not itself sinful, but that acting on it is. The Church encourages its members to abstain from same-sex behaviors. The Church has never condoned parents doing this, and has instead taught parents to respond with love and patience and compassion and understanding. I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think it does exist. The Law of Chastity pertains to all Latter-day Saints. Same standard, disparate impact. LOL Not really a response. I think parents are generally justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularized sexual boundaries. I think it is quite creepy and wrong for state actors and other actors to actively seek to subvert parents in this regard. Which is not what is being achieved. So if the methods don’t accomplish the goal. I think sex is often treated as an important and sacred topic. I also think sex is treated in much diminished, or even perverted and licentious, ways. The difference arises in which voices are speaking, and to which voices each individual chooses to listen. I am grateful that, as a Latter-day Saint, I have substantial scriptural and prophetic guidance on these important matters. I choose to listen to them more than to voices which profane and distort and diminish and pervert sexuality. No, Thank you for the clarification. I think I previously acknowledged that "talk therapy" to "fix" someone's sexual orientation does not appear to be efficacious. Of course it is doable. It is just very often harmful. Again, I think this depends on which way the individual is facing. If a Latter-day Saint is seeking to discern and follow the will of God, and decides that this includes complying with the Law of Chastity, and if this is all a matter of choice and free will, then such talk therapy may well offer a lot of help. A Latter-day Saint who is not contemplating the foregoing matters and making such determinations, and/or who is being coerced/compelled into such therapy, could very well be harmed to some extent. Which is where the abuse happens which you dismiss. The abuse is a natural byproduct of what you want to do. Pretending that it doesn’t exist is just willful ignorance. Policies impact the real world, not your imagined ideal one where abuse wouldn’t happen for some reason. You seem to presuppose that parents acting in the best interests of their children are committing "abuse" if that involves efforts to dissuade their children away from, say, same-sex behavior, Gender Dysphoria-related behaviors, and so on. If so, I respectfully disagree with that presupposition. You keep pretending this isn’t what it is. Talk therapy for the purpose of conversion of someone’s sexual orientation. I do not think I have advocated for such therapy. I do not support that idea. Ah, whataboutism. We're talking about damaging therapeutic approaches. I think Fox Valerian's experience is a relevant part of the discussion. No, the general consensus is to limit surgical interventions regarding minors until they are of age. Exceptions exist due to extreme distress but they are rare. Use of puberty blockers are sometimes used in cases where dysphoria is acute. If this is the "general consensus," then I am glad to hear it. "If." He was convicted of medical malpractice for what he did. He didn’t follow approved practices. He wasn’t trained to treat transgender patients. And he was far from alone in his therapeutic approach. There are currently dozens of lawsuits against therapists and medical doctors along the same lines as the Fox Valerian lawsuit. We're not speaking of "one rogue doctor." That said, it's fascinating to apparently see WPATH and other endorsers of pediatric sex trait modification characterized as being "rogue." Reasoned and principled disagreement is not a phobia. It's disagreement. This "criminal doctor" did what a lot of doctors did, and what WPATH and many other supposedly "professional" medical associations endorsed and advanced. I agree that this conduct has been very wrong ("criminal," as you put it). I had previously been under the impression that you had generally endorsed and approved of pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, etc. I should stand corrected, then? I don't understand what you are saying here. "Dysphoria" in this context typically means "a state of severe distress or unhappiness caused by feeling that one's gender identity does not match one's sex as registered at birth; gender dysphoria." I don't think anyone is denying the "state of severe distress or unhappiness." Rather, I think the conflict here is about whether or not the "feeling" causing the distress/unhappiness (that a boy can "become" a girl by "identifying" as one, or vice versa) is congruent with reality. I shared the following experience back in 2024 and posed questions about it: I would like to better understand this concept. I have heard it many times, but I do not understand it. To me, this seems Orwellian to the extent it is predicated on a fundamental re-definition of "woman" so as to sever that meaning from biological sex. If "woman" means "an adult biological human female and also anyone who 'identifies' as a woman," then what sort of limiting principle is there? Can "dog" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a dog"? Can "space alien" be re-defined to include "anyone who identifies as a space alien"? Earlier this year I attended visited Encircle House in Provo, Utah. My daughter had asked that I go there and attend meetings wherein trans individuals share their thoughts, experiences, etc. So I went, just to listen to what they have to say. There were four other people in attendance, all (apparently) biological women who "identified" as trans men. We went around the room and introduced ourselves, then each of the other participants spoke for a few minutes, then it concluded. It was not particularly illuminating, as most of their comments seemed to be complaining about mundane stuff (school, work, friends, etc.). Several of them added that these things are harder for trans people, but that was about it as far as "trans"-specific commentary. After the meeting I walked downstairs to the main floor, where I encountered a larger group of mostly teenagers. They were all talking animatedly. Two or three of them were dressed up as "furries." One of them, who was kneeling on the ground with dog ears on his head and a collar around his neck, turned and saw me. He smiled and said "Hi! My name is Jack, and I identify as a dog. Woof!" (I can't remember the name he gave, but it was a generic male name.) I said hello back to him, and asked him about his day. He said it had been fine. As I had already been there for over an hour, I then exited the building and drove home. On the drive home, I wondered about the expectations I had just encountered. The people I had met upstairs all stated that they were "trans men," that is, biological women who "identify" as man. None of them was dressed in any particularly "masculine" way. They all had their hair in unremarkable cuts/styles. None of them had beards, low voices, or anything. All of them appeared to look female in every normative respect ("feminine" facial features, breasts, hips, etc.). And yet each of them stated their identity as a "trans man." And I think they had an expectation for this identity to be acknowledged, accepted, ratified, etc. Then I thought about the teenager I had met downstairs. He specifically said he "identifies" as a dog. Was I supposed to accept that statement as congruent with reality and biological fact? Left to my own devices, I would think not, because notwithstanding how he "identifies," this kid was not a dog. He was a human being. In my brief interaction with him, I treated him with kindness and respect, but I did not acknowledge (or endorse, or ratify, etc.) his self-identification as a dog. It was a passing interaction, so there was no particular need to do so. But if he and his family were to move in next door, and if his parents were to ask me to "respect" his "identity" as a dog, to treat him like a dog, to act as if I think he is actually a dog, etc., should I go along with that? I sure would like to have a reasoned discussion about this, one that doesn't devolve into insults and "Transphobe!" accusations. The women upstairs believed that they are men, but they were not men (unless we radically re-define the term and detach it from its biological moorings, which I am not willing to do). I am nevertheless expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. The young man downstairs believed that he is a dog, but he was not a dog. And I am not expected to ratify and affirm this incongruent-with-reality self-perception. I genuinely do not understand how the one incongruent-with-reality notion is acceptable for ratification, but the other is not. Or perhaps the ideologies and philosophies of men which conflict with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ are the problem. It depends, I think, on what the perspective of the individual is. Sexualizing children? Yes. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. I think both public consensus and the law are substantially changing and firming up in opposition to children undergoing pediatric sex trait modification procedures, hormone therapy, puberty blockers, etc. And by soberness and moderation you mean banning everything and making sure trans kids are alone, afraid, and can’t access any help because there is a small chance the help might hurt them or a doctor might violate standards of care and give improper treatment. No, I do not mean that. I mean soberness and moderation. We need to avoid histrionics and polarizing emotionalisms such as what you are demonstrating here. I love how not behaving in a ‘correctly gendered way’ is considered to be a crucial element of a child’s welfare. This seems like a dodge. Again, State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children is about as creepy as you can get. You have previously demonstrated a propensity for putting horrible labels on people who diverge from your point of view. "Nazi." "Fascist." "Bigot." And now, "abusive parents." Nobody wants to enable or endorse abusive parenting, including me. But that does not justify State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of minor children, which is about as creepy as you can get. I am skeptical of this claim. Can you provide references for it? I asked Grok: "Are there any laws in the U.S. which prohibit a suicide hotline from talking to a minor unless they have parental consent?" The response: FWIW. Including their parents? Definitely don’t trust their parents. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. This messaging ("trans kids ... had better keep their heads down and they must TRUST NO ONE" and should "definitely" not "trust their parents") is quite troubling. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to use such messaging to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. Kids struggling with this stuff should seek help from appropriate sources, and should not be subjected to secretive State actors and strangers who are actively seeking to scare them, alienate them from their parents, and subvert parental authority. I am sorry to hear that. Nobody should be treated this way. Someone in their early 20s is no longer a child. Self-appointed State actors and strangers assigning to themselves the right to decide what "abuse" means, and to scare children, and to secretively alienate children from their parents, and to seek to actively subvert parental rights, are engaging in wrongful and deeply creepy behavior. So we are going to pretend that the majority religion in Idaho is somehow not (directly or indirectly) leading politicians to vote this way. Again, if you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. You’re wrong. DEAD WRONG. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I hope you did not secretively seek to scare children, to alienate them from their parents, and to subvert parental rights and authority. All sorts of reasons. Self-validation. Perpetuation of the ideology,. Animus against diverging/conflicting points of view. Broadly speaking, I think much (most?) of the "sexual minority" community is not self-perpetuating. Same-sex behavior by design does not result in children. Hormone therapy and puberty blockers and sex trait modification procedures impair or destroy fertility and sexual function. Sex is more about "identity" and validation and community and such, rather than about procreation. The ideology and the "community" housing it cannot sustain itself by having children, so they have to go proselytize the children of other people. I copied the previous paragraph into Grok. The response: FWIW. "Trans identification, however, is different. It has risen dramatically in youth cohorts (especially adolescent females) over the last 15 years. This is well-documented in multiple countries (U.S., UK, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands). The increase is far too rapid to be explained solely by reduced stigma or better diagnostics. Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression). This is not 'proselytizing' in the conspiratorial sense, but it is real social/ideological transmission among adolescents." (Emphasis added.) "Studies and clinical data (e.g., Littman’s rapid-onset gender dysphoria hypothesis, Tavistock whistleblower reports, Cass Review in the UK, Swedish and Finnish policy reversals) show strong evidence of social contagion, peer influence, social media exposure, and co-occurring mental health issues (autism, trauma, eating disorders, depression)." An unsubstantiated charge An apparent and clearly accurate charge. Exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on, constitutes the sexualization of children and is wholly improper. And creepy. And perverted. Nope. Just the ones that are exposing children to highly sexualized behavior at Pride parades, Drag Queen Story Hour, drag shows, and in literature, and so on. Parents are not angels sent from heaven with a divine mandate. I reject the notion that State actors and self-appointed strangers should go around actively seeking to alienate minor children from their parents, and/or subvert parental authority. If a specific parent is engaging in abusive behavior, the matter should be referred to law enforcement. I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority. Of course this is the opposite of what is happening. I asked Grok: "Are there any jurisdictions which authorize (or require) State actors (such as school teachers) to not disclose (hide) information about a child from their parents?" The response: I don't think State actors and strangers should be trying to scare kids, alienate them from their parents, or subvert parental authority, or withhold information about children in State supervision (such as in school) from their parents. This would be the one part of queer focused research you would accept and then completely misunderstand. Well, I am willing to listen to what you have to say. I have been influenced by, inter alia, this 2018 article: "Previous research has suggested that women’s sexuality can change throughout their life between lesbian, straight and bisexual." I think it may be possible that social/cultural influences can play about in these changes. The transcript: I find this clip to be interesting, both because he is citing statistics that do not appear to be in dispute, and because those statistics show a remarkable and abrupt increase in "self-identification as LGBTQ," and because Maher, though addressing a serious topic, approaches it with a bit of a sardonic edge, and because the audience laughs and claps. I think this is a valid point. And perhaps they should be allowed to pose questions without being endlessly shouted down with accusations and insults. Bolded parts are worth some evaluation. Thanks, -Smac

That simply isn't true. I think it's manifestly true. I think the more we learn about the history of the Americas, the more plausible the book's claims are. What's interesting about our utterly divergent claims is that I can review extensive scholarly literature that substantiates the point I make above, whereas you have been reduced to vague notions of supposed "Bayesian methodological empiricism" culminating in your declaration that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "demaons" are "more likely" explanations for the text as compared to Joseph's narrative, which is "just not possible." You have this exactly backwards. I don't think I do. Well, no. Obfuscation would have involved not showing the Plates to anyone, and not publishing the purported translation to the world. Joseph did both of these things. Yes. "If." But Joseph said he was commanded to give the Plates back to Moroni, and he did. We deal with the evidence we have, not what we would like to have. Yes. "{T}hey" were also shown to the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. And Joseph then published the translated text to the world. Says the guy who thinks that "space aliens" are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon. Says the guy who unequivocally accepts the late, biased, questionable historical sources describing the death of Caesar. You have never accounted for the witness statements, you just dismiss them as having been "curated." That conclusory stuff works for you, but not for me. Your studied lack of curiosity about the witnesses is another point of interest for me. Meanwhile, the "unofficial" witnesses are also here for us to examine, and they aren't "curated" in any sense, and you haven't addressed them either. And then there's the text... Says who? What metric are you using here? You're just making this up. You have "Special Pleading" poured all over your analysis. You accept weak tea evidence for Caesar, but disregard far stronger evidence as to The Book of Mormon. And your expectation of empirical analysis is just silly. Do you go about tut-tutting belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ because His resurrected body was not "examined by somebody impartial" and "qualified"? What sort of experts do you imagine were around Jerusalem 2,000 years ago? And if Jesus Christ really is the Son of God, is it possible that the absence of empirical evidence is part of the plan? That we are supposed to take these things on faith? Why is that not extendable to The Book of Mormon? Do you negate all religions' truth claims on this unreasonable expectation of empirical verification of miraculous events? I appreciate you saying it isn't dispositive. The fact remains that we don't know what the real nature of the plates were, because they were deliberately withheld from the scrutiny of anybody that was qualified to authenticate them. "The fact remains that we don't know what the real nature of the {resurrected body of Jesus Christ was, because it was} He only showed himself to his Disciples, and not to CSI-Jerusalem, the only experts in Judea at the time who were qualified to authenticate {His resurrection}." Do you find that statement reasonable? That is because Joseph Smith deliberately chose to withhold the evidence from anybody who was qualified to evaluate it. Well, no. He was commanded to return the Plates to Moroni, and he did. Meanwhile, Joseph sent Martin Harris to have some of the characters evaluated by experts. Joseph also showed the Plates to the Three Witnesses. Joseph also showed the Plates to the Eight Witnesses. Joseph also published the translated work to the entire world. Joseph left us lots to work with. Not to your satisfaction, I get that. But you are not the arbiter of such things. We have an extraordinary amount of evidence, given what is being examined. Yes, we know. 200 years of anti-mormonism, and the most you have to offer is "tin" and "space aliens." Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate? Why isn't "character evidence" relevant to our inquiry as to the credibility and probative value of statements made by these folks? Wouldn't a person of stellar reputation and character be presumptively more credible than someone with a long history of dishonest/dissolute behavior? I'm not sure I understand your point here. There are dishonest people out there tricking people, including experts. What does that have to do with Joseph Smith and the Witnesses? Okay. This seems to presuppose, rather than demonstrate, that the Plates were "a 'con job.'" Thanks, -Smac

It certainly can be and I say this as the sister-in-law of a psychologist who has specialized in adult clients who wish to change sexual behaviour they see as dysfunctional, disrupting their lives. Pretty much any human endeavor can be be distorted and misused. Hence my comment about "per se 'twisted.'" So the results have been . . . mixed? Not "per se 'twisted'"? Does that include "gender-affirming" therapy? Is it also possible that therapists and parents (like Claire Deacon, see above) are doing damage by pushing children into medical treatments that end up being harmful? That's an odd scenario. Do you think Claire Deacon did that? That may be so. I think it is okay for people to find homosexual behavior sinful, unhealthy, wrong, etc. Same goes for believing that sex should be limited to between a husband and wife. Is it also possible that "gender affirming care" as gone wrong in some instances? Fox Varian, for example? Would that reasoning also apply to therapists advancing "gender affirming care" techniques? I think "talk only"-type jobs are hard to regulate without running afoul of the First Amendment. What sort of training? Should bishops receive training to encourage minors to obey the Law of Chastity? Isn't that already part of the gig? If a teen is encountering mental health difficulties, I think they should seek reputable therapy and medical options. A bishop can be a part of the process, but he would need to stay in his lane. Thanks, -Smac

The desire for the child to not be queer. Could you elaborate? "Queer" being such a nebulous concept these days, I don't know what you are saying here. Also, "for the child to be queer" seems somewhat opaque. Can parents legitimately hope that their children will refrain from certain types of sexual behaviors, without being denigrated as "twisted"? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from underage sex? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their teen children to abstain from sexual relationships with someone with a significant age difference? Can parents legitimately and reasonably encourage their minor children to abstain from sexual behaviors that fall outside a particular moral/religious framework (such as the one espoused by the Church)? It seems like there should be a fairly broad spectrum of socially acceptable stances on matters of sexuality. What about subduing "their queerness" (still not sure what that means), at least as regarding sexual behaviors? If the parents of non-"queer" children are justified in exhorting their children to stay within particularizes sexual boundaries, why can't they do the same for "queer" children? I agree that "scaring" children about sex is, in the main, a bad idea. But then, so are laissez-faire attitudes in this increasingly sexualized world. I think sex is an important and sacred topic, and should be treated as such. Nobody is talking about or condoning "abuse." Are you suggesting that "talk only" therapy calculated to dissuade a minor away from sexual behavior is wholly improper? Yes, because this scenario you present is incredible naive and unrealistic. I am not persuaded this is so. Talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" seems eminently doable. I would not be in favor of coercion. That said, I think parents have parental authority precisely because minors are not yet situated to wholly govern themselves, particularly in relation to matters of sexual behavior and gender identity. I have difficulty with this characterization. Nothing new here. The parameters of parental authority are fairly well-established in the law. Yes, they have substantial, though not plenary, decision-making authority for their minor children. I have difficulty with this characterization. Talk therapy as per se harmful and unethical? I think not. For my part, I think therapists who are actively encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria run a very real risk of doing harm, even if the therapy is "just talk." We saw this play out just a few weeks ago: This landmark ruling could change the future of gender-related treatments for minors My sense is that you are, or might be, ideologically predisposed to, and in support of, therapists who are encouraging minors with Gender Dysphoria to undergo medical treatments such as hormone therapy, sex trait modification surgery, etc. Is that accurate? "{The plaintiff and her mother testified that} Varian’s psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, was an 'enabler,' who assured Varian that the mastectomy would improve her mental health, and said that he 'browbeat' Deacon into consenting to the irreversible surgery so Varian wouldn’t take her life." To paraphrase a guy: "Pretending {so-called 'gender-affirming care'} is always harmless because it is ‘just talk’ is ridiculous." This young woman had a doctor cut off her healthy breasts. She will never be the same. Yes, that would be problematic. That said, I see a world of difference between a A) therapist trying to lure a minor away from his/her religious beliefs and B) a therapist pressuring a young woman with Gender Dysphoria to have her healthy breasts cut off. We don’t have a broad spectrum of equally valid viewpoints. I didn't say they were "equally valid." I think I would agree with you that the spectrum would entail a hierarchy, with some viewpoints more reasoned and principled than others. For example, I think that viewpoints endorsing things like the sexualization of children, justifying hugely impactful medical treatments for minors based on "If we don't do it they'll kill themselves" rationale, alienating children from their parents, subverting parental authority, unelected persons using the power of the State to do these things, etc., are all problematic and less valid than viewpoints opposed to these things. No, I don't think we do. In fact, I find this to be a substantially factually erroneous assertion. 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: The Turning Tide on Medicalized Gender Interventions for Kids "{W}idely touted 'Standards of Care' were infected by political pressure and conflicts of interest." The entire article is worth a read. The section entitled "The Discredited Standards of Care" is particularly good. Ah, okay. I think this does seem to be largely beyond dispute (far less so for "gender affirming care" stuff). That said, I found this interesting: What Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Change: Evidence From a United States Sample of 72 Exposed Men This topic is hugely politicized, so soberness and moderation should hold real sway. And others will say that much of gender-affirming care for minors is, or can be, "intrusive and creepy." Not sure what that has to do with the Church. And I find the notion that state actors subverting parental decision-making as to their minor children to be hugely creepy and wrong. Indeed, it is stuff like this that I think has causes large swathes of the general public to turn against the "trans" movement. State actors keeping secrets from parents about the welfare of their minor children is about as creepy as you can get. Including their parents? I think alienating trans kids from their parents, and subverting parental rights relative to their children, and using the organs of the State to do these things, is very problematic. If you have evidence of the Church weighing in on this law, I'd be happy to consider it. I think there are segments of the "trans" community that are targeting children for ideological purposes (rather than the welfare of the kids), with a primary vector being to scare and alienate this kids from their own parents. Again, I think it stuff like this that is turning people away from "trans" ideology. Sexualizing children. Subverting parents. Using the organs of the State to do this. Creepy as all get-out. Visceral. I think trans ideologues are doing far more damage to their movement by doing this stuff than any outside opposition. Anyway, I have, for some time now, been trending toward a notion of "sexual fluidity," which per this article posits that "people’s sexual attractions, behaviors, and identities can shift over time," and that such shifting is or can be "bi-directional (i.e. toward and away from LGB+ identities)." I frame this issue in as pertaining to sexual attraction/orientation, not "identity," and to behavior (not a state of being). Thanks, -Smac

Could you elaborate? What sort of motives and objectives would you see as defining what makes parents "twisted?" The SCOTUS decision addresses only "talk only" therapy. From the article: Are you saying that talk therapy for youth who want to "reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors or grow in the experience of harmony with [their] physical bodies" is "twisted?" More: I appreciate that we currently have a broad spectrum of viewpoints regarding fundamental elements of Gender Dysphoria and sexual orientation/behavior. It just seems odd to me that "talk only" therapy geared based on one area of that spectrum is per se "twisted." I think that area of the spectrum is entitled to the same sort of legal treatment as most other areas of the spectrum. What are your thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

This? Thanks, -Smac

From Mormonr: Thanks, -Smac

Which evidences are not necessarily the ones needed for evidence of fraud… Again, the critics have the same evidences we do, the same access to the historical record. Based on that evidence, their proffered alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon is . . . what? Do we have any evidence of such manuscripts? Or that they did exist but were destroyed? A conniving person would indeed to all he could to hide his tracks, to make the fraud difficult or impossible to detect. Joseph did not do this. Instead, he showed the Plates to two different groups (of the Eight, there were five he hardly knew). And he translated the text and had it published to the world. He did not show the public the Plates, but he has a plausible explanation for that. Thanks, -Smac

This is fascinating stuff. Do you have formal training in this area? Or are you just an enthusiastic and well-read sort of fellow? Thanks, -Smac

I agree with this to a certain extent (not familiar enough with all the critics’ efforts to be draw a definite conclusion), but see it as expected whether or not the text is what it claims to be or a fraud. Therefore, while interesting, it’s not particularly meaningful. I'm okay with that. I think the Church has, in 200 years, come up with an impressive array of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. Our critics have not made nearly as much progress in those 200 years. I have focused principally on the Plates and the Witnesses. Our critics have access to the same evidences we do. As for difficulty in "finding evidence" of "fraud," I'm not sure what you mean. In my view, falsehoods are far more difficult to maintain than truths. If Joseph came up with fraudulent plates, I think the falsities would be much more apparent. Recanting witnesses (or even no witnesses at all), co-conspirators fessing up, plausible alternative candidates for authorship, etc. As it is, the arguments against the Book of Mormon are falling by the wayside as time goes by. Thanks, -Smac

Can I offer you a fourth?? Well, ok . . . I will anyway. Here goes: 4. The historicity of the plates doesn't matter. It is the shed blood of Christ on our behalf that matters. I wonder why, then, Joseph and the Lord went to such efforts to clarify and establish historicity (in such a way as does not undermine individual agency). What's the point of the Three Witnesses, for example? Within the Latter-day Saint paradigm, I struggle to read these things and reconcile them with "{t}he historicity of the plates doesn't matter." He may well do that. He might also not ask you what you believed about the Bible. I am undecided on some of the particulars of the biblical narrative, but I accept it broadly. Thanks, -Smac

I am glad to hear it. I find that position logically incoherent, but I reasonable minds can disagree about such things. I don't think we'll ever see that, so it's all conjecture. As I said here (emphasis added): I am glad to hear that some Latter-day Saints can maintain their faith in the Restored Gospel while rejecting the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be, what Joseph claimed it to be, what all the prophets and apostles have said about it, and so on. If they can make that position work with continued activity and fellowship in the Church, then I am happy to hear it. Not everyone is as fortunate. Yes. Belief in a "fictional" Christ would not inspire much in the way of devotion, consecration, and enduring discipleship. Belief in a "fictional" Book of Mormon is, for me, likewise problematic. As Elder Oaks put it: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." And Kent P. Jackson: And then, of course, there are the Witnesses. Nothing definitive, no. But I think we will find further evidences to add to what we have, which let themselves to plausibility. I think that's about as far as we Latter-day Saints want to go. I am reminded of these 2017 remarks by Elder Holland: The Greatness of the Evidence A good read. Some excerpts: I find this last bit, the bolded part, compelling. Again, the bolded part. The next bit is interesting: I think we'll get a panoply of such evidences, both spiritual and secondary/supplemental. I think this thread has been just such a "religious investigation and sectarian debate." I have asked our critics to formulate a coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, using whatever "persuasive vocabulary" and evidences and reasoning as they see fit. Their inability (or, if you prefer, unwillingness) to provide one is, to me, quite interesting. Wonderful stuff, this. What are your thoughts about then-Elder Oaks comment: "The argument that it makes no difference whether the Book of Mormon is fact or fable is surely a sibling to the argument that it makes no difference whether Jesus Christ ever lived." The Church's exclusivistic truth claims pertain to priesthood authority and its attendant ramifications (living prophets and apostles, an open canon, etc.). We don't claim a monopoly on discipleship. Far from it. Isn't this your choice, though? You don't want to join the Church. I respect that. The Latter-day Saints have treated you in this way? Might the Latter-day Saints be respecting the boundaries you have set up and maintain for yourself? I've lost count of how many "Why I Left" narratives about how church members are nosy, intrusive, bothersome, etc. And other narratives say we are standoffish, aloof, tribalistic. We're in a heads-we-lose, tails-we-lose situation. That would be between you and the Lord. And to you! Thanks, -Smac

A fair point. I think the premise, though, is that the Latter-day Saints have, for lack of a better term, presented a "prima facie case" for the Plates and the Witnesses. Not to exacting legal standards (which would never be appropriately applied in this context anyway), but we have Joseph's narrative (JS-H, etc.), The Statement of the Three Witnesses, The Statement of the Eight Witnesses, The "unofficial" witnesses (Emma, Mary Whitmer, etc.), Fairly extensive historical evidence as to the background and character and credibility of the Witnesses, The absence of recantings from the Three/Eight Witnesses, Extensive re-affirmations of from the Witnesses, including those who became estranged from Joseph (David Whitmer in particular), Fairly extensive descriptions of the Plates, and associated evidence of their historical antecedents and general plausibility (e.g., tumbaga), The text itself and all its various indicia of sophistication and complexity (internal chronological and geospatial consistency, Hebraisms, Chiasmus, etc.), Fairly extensive historical evidence as to Joseph's education (strongly indicating he lacked the capacity to produce the text), Fairly extensive historical evidence as to Joseph's sincerity (e.g., his personal writings give no indication of connivance or ill motive), Fairly extensive historical evidence as to the circumstances of the dictation of the text (short timeframe, no corrections, Joseph picking up where he left off with no prompting, etc.), and so on. All of this is secondary and supplemental to personal revelation per Moroni 10:3-5. But as far as "evidence" regarding religious truth claims, the reality of the Plates is, in my view, effectively beyond reasonable dispute. Even our most ardent and well-informed critics (Vogel, Analytics) concede this point. What we're left with, then, is effectively three options: The "Plates" were a cheap, cobbled-together sham object fabricated by Joseph Smith (or involving him); or The "Plates" were a sophisticated and convincing sham artifact, enough to dupe the Witnesses; or The Plates were an authentically ancient artifact and substantially as described by the Witnesses. Options 1 and 2 have been under discussion. The results of critics' efforts to reconcile one or the other of these with the extant evidence have been fairly unimpressive. Quite so. @Analytics started this thread based on some questions I had posed. I have since stated, many times over, what I would like to see from critics, and it is not an argument to "disprove" the Church's narrative, but rather an alternative theory about the Book of Mormon. Anti-Mormons have had nearly 200 years to formulate a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, and have been overwhelmingly unable to do so, is interesting to me (not dispositive, just interesting). I'm not asking critics to disprove what we believe about the Plates. I am asking them to explain and defend what they believe about the Plates. Well, no. The Book of Mormon stands without any coherent alternative explanation for its origins. The Latter-day Saints are not looking to "prove" the origins of the Book of Mormon on empirical or historical evidences. These are secondary and supplemental to Moroni 10:3-5. Instead, I think the Latter-day Saints are saying, in essence, "Hey, it's plausible. It could have happened, and we believe it did. We invite you to read read it, ponder its message, and pray to God and ask if it is what it claims to be." Plausibility, not proof. I think that's an important difference here. I don't see much symmetry here. The Latter-day Saints have a pretty solid basis for their perspective on the origins of the Book of Mormon. Critics and skeptics have conclusory, a priori assertions and guesswork, but nothing coherent and evidence-based. I dunno. I think a lot of people who read the Book of Mormon with an open mind and a seed of faith come can come away with a decision that puts them at odds with their current belief system. Atheists and agnostics such as our @Analytics will dislike having "faith" attributed to their position on the Book of Mormon, and they will also dislike the notion that their perspective is based on things other than "facts." I'm not sure about that. We aren't looking to "win." We are looking to present a case for plausibility, and then we let individual discovery and Moroni 10:3-5 do the rest. Critics and skeptics, meanwhile, have been unable to articulate a coherent, evidence-based alternative explanation. Thanks, -Smac

I think the critique is that we we do not appear to have any record or evidence of the ancient Egyptians having transoceanic capacity. I'm not sure this is accurate. The Ra II experiment showed transoceanic travel was possible, but not that the ancient Egyptians actually had this capacity. This is where your argument is stronger. The analogs of sweet potatoes and chicken are useful. A fair point. The idea that we have anything close to a comprehensive history and evidentiary record of the ancients (Egypt, Phoenecians), or that we can speak definitively about transoceanic contact, is not well-founded. Conversely, the "positive" evidence of transoceanic contact is, overall, pretty slim. Enough so that we have more than conjecture, but not a smoking gun either. You are persuading me. I'd like to do some further reading. Thanks, -Smac

The Church has a fairly sensible approach to "Conversion Therapy." "Abusive practices" is key. From October 2019: February 2019 Statement as Utah Legislature Introduced House Bill 399 “The Church denounces any therapy, including conversion and reparative therapies, that subject an individual to abusive practices, not only in Utah, but throughout the world.” March 2016 First Presidency Statement “The Church denounces any therapy that subjects an individual to abusive practices.” October 15, 2019 Original Statement Issued October 15, 2019 The Church has released the following statement in connection with comments filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Family Services regarding a proposed professional licensing rule governing sexual orientation and gender identity change efforts. The Church hopes that those who experience same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria find compassion and understanding from family members, Church leaders and members, and professional counselors. The Church denounces any abusive professional practice or treatment. We teach the right of individuals to self-determination and the right of parents to guide the development of their children. We also believe faith-based perspectives have an important and ethically appropriate role in professional counseling. As detailed in the comments submitted by Family Services, the Church is concerned that the proposed professional licensing rule is ambiguous in key areas and overreaches in others. For example, it fails to protect individual religious beliefs and does not account for important realities of gender identity in the development of children. We therefore oppose the proposed rule in its current form and respectfully request that it be appropriately amended to address the concerns raised in Family Services’ comments, or that Utah’s lawmakers provide statutory guidance on this important issue. Today: Supreme Court rules against Colorado's conversion therapy ban on First Amendment grounds A Grok summary: I will be curious as to how this ruling shakes out in the real world. Candidly, I think the effect will not be substantial. I think "conversion therapy" will now be absent from therapeutic practices due to de facto, rather than de jure, considerations. So the case really isn't over. The lower courts now have to re-do the constitutional analysis. Beautiful words. I am grateful for the First Amendment. The pushback continues apace. Thoughts? "Including talk therapy." Yes, the asymmetry sure is glaring. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, parsimony would generally allow a prosecutor to raise that point as a presumption ("that the person with the DNA in your custody was there"). However, it is a rebuttable presumption, such that the defense would then present evidence that the crime scene had been contaminated, that there are plausible and non-nefarious explanations for the presence of DNA, or some other plausible defense (rather than fantastic, e.g., "person with identical DNA"). Occam's Razor is, or should be, a starting point, not an end unto itself. Moreover, modern DNA is high-confidence, unambiguous, and replicated under strict chain-of-custody conditions. The mummy alkaloids are trace-level, from 1990s-era radioimmunoassay/GC-MS methods that have faced replication issues and contamination critiques. Seen by modern science, yes. Is it possible that Africa could have had a plant answering to the forensic evidence at hand? Silphium disappeared despite being amply attested to. Is it possible that other plants could have been found/cultivated that disappeared and not attested to (except for what we now have in the "Cocaine Mummies")? It is pure biogeographical speculation. Your friend is right that it conveniently produces the exact same complex alkaloid (cocaine) as the two known South American species. This is the weakest link in the skeptical literature, and it does smell like special pleading when contrasted with the chemical data actually recovered from the mummies. That said, is it plausible? Meanwhile, what of the blue water Egyptian boats that traversed the Atlantic? They have "never been seen" either, but they are required for the "transoceanic contact" theory to work. It seems like both claims to parsimony are working against assumptions about things we have not seen. Would fossils leave behind chemical indicators? I must defer to you here. Do the traces found in the "Cocaine Mummies" have "the exact same complex alkaloid" as the American plants? I think the argument is that we have to assume the idea of unidentified and undetected seafaring ships. Hence the "middleman" theory. So it's plausible that "middlemen" existed such as could have facilitating the transportation of Cocaine and Tobacco to Egypt, even though we do not have the particulars. Such a notion is not farfetched because we have ample examples of transoceanic voyages, including those which transferred a plant from the Americas (sweet potatoes). I am liking this. Yes. Grok is acknowledging this now (though framing it as an argument someone other that it raised). Kinda funny. The accepted Polynesian–South American contact (sweet potato and chickens) does show that pre-Columbian transoceanic exchange can be real with very little in the way of shipwrecks, ports, or conventional trade records. I appreciate you working with me and my neophyte perspective in better understanding your argument (I repose little trust in Grok, but he can get the ball rolling). Thanks, -Smac

I went back to Grok about its "parsimony" assessment above. My prompt: Grok's response: The "impossible" think doesn't really work for me. Thor Heyerdahl's Kon-Tiki expedition comes to mind. Thanks, -Smac

Huh. So surface sprinkling of tobacco dust (a real 19th-century conservation practice) or museum handling cannot explain how cotinine, being a liver metabolite of nicotine produced only in a living body, was found inside tissues, hair, or bone. That leaves the "local plant" theory: Thank you for sharing this. Seems like the advocates of the “local plant” defense are relying on special pleading or untested assumptions. That leaves the "ghost plant" theory: This theory, then, is speculative and untestable. No one has ever identified such a plant in the archaeological or botanical record, so the theory feels like an ad-hoc rescue hypothesis. Neither article discusses "Egyptian beetles and the pathogens in Peruvian mummies." Are you bringing those two data points in as a "all things considered" kind of way? Let me play Devil's Advocate here (honest, as I am very much a neophyte on this topic). Based on the two articles I read, and a few others, it seems like parsimony is being claimed by both sides. With the help of Grok: The articles' arguments for parsimony: Local African plants + contamination + known Egyptian practices require fewer new assumptions than positing transatlantic voyages: Nicotine: Real, documented African species (Nicotiana africana, native to Namibia) contains nicotine (≈2% of alkaloids) and could have been used medicinally. No new continent-spanning trade needed. Cocaine: The Erythroxylum genus (coca family) originated in Africa/Madagascar; an extinct or undiscovered African species that once produced cocaine is plausible biogeographically. Alternatively, modern/post-excavation contamination (19th-century tobacco dust, museum handling, or lab pollutants). THC: Cannabis was already well-known and used in ancient Egypt (texts, seeds, residues). Overall parsimony argument: “The one that requires the fewest new assumptions” (Feagans’ exact words). We don’t have to invent Egyptian ships capable of repeated Atlantic crossings, sustained trade networks, or cultural exchange—none of which left any archaeological, genetic, textual, or iconographic trace. Contamination + local/possible plants fits the existing evidence with minimal invention. Your argument for parsimony: A single limited trade route from the Americas to Egypt is more parsimonious because it explains the full chemical profile (cocaine + nicotine + cotinine) with one mechanism. Cotinine proves ingestion (only a living liver produces it), so surface contamination or sprinkling tobacco dust fails. Alkaloid profile matches American Nicotiana tabacum far better than African N. africana (which is nornicotine-dominant). The “extinct African coca plant” is an untestable ghost hypothesis with zero evidence. One trade route neatly accounts for two American-only metabolites appearing together in the same bodies (plus possible supporting clues like beetles/pathogens, though not in the articles). Listing multiple contradictory mundane theories (contamination OR local plant OR extinct plant) is hedging and therefore unparsimonious—like Schrödinger’s cat explanations. Seems like each argument relies on an unverified point ("an extinct or undiscovered African species" for the article, "Egyptian ships capable of repeated Atlantic crossings, sustained trade networks, or cultural exchange" for you). Is that a fair assessment? For me, I think the "sustained trade networks" and "cultural exchange" expectations to be pretty weak. There are all sorts of ways evidence of trade could not been lost through the centuries. As for "Egyptian ships," that seems to be a more potent objection to your theory. Is it possible that there was an intermediary? A non-Egyptian, old-world trader that could have had, or facilitated trade between, Egypt and the Americas? I asked Grok about this. The response: So far, this analysis seems to make facial sense. What do you think? I'm not sure about this. You are arguing that we do have "some evidence" of American plants in the Old World. Its not a lot of evidence, largely because most things occurring in antiquity do not survive the long passage of time. But some do, such as the data points you are referencing. These data points were found only incident to arduous preservation techniques relating to mummies. I doubt Phoenician/Carthaginian traders were at all interested in preserving their efforts. What are your thoughts here? This sounds more difficult than it really is. I don't think your theory requires that all Phoenicians/Carthaginians had transatlantic contact. A relative few, servicing Egyptian elites, may have been enough to account for both the presence of the forensics and the difficulty of transatlantic travel. Not sure about this, either. We are, after all, talking about plants. Is it possible that Phoenicians/Carthaginians instigated the trade, and that the Egyptians cultivated the plants in some very limited form (again, just for the elites)? This sounds like special pleading, of the "Sheer speculation about ghost plants is parsimonious, but semi-vindicated speculation about transatlantic trading (presence of America-only plants in Egypt) is not" variety. It also assumes a bit much about "mainstream archaeology" being more empirically-minded than it actually is. How much of its skepticism is rooted in dispassionate empirical analysis, and how much in community-wide inertia and resistance to finds that substantially alter the status quo? Thoughts here? I appreciate your input. Thanks, -Smac

Ancient Egyptian Mummies with American Only Drugs As always, AI doesn't know everything at all times, you have to tell it almost exactly what it should search for, or it won't know or bother to look. it will simply provide the most conservative archaeological view from off the top of its head. The evidence isn't a secret, it’s been causing a massive stir in the scientific community over the last 30 years. The "Cocaine Mummies" is the most famous piece of evidence of the 1992 Balabanova Study. Dr. Svetlana Balabanova, a German forensic toxicologist, tested the remains of several Egyptian mummies. She found significant traces of American only plants like cocaine and nicotine in the hair, soft tissue, and bones. The mainstream skeptics claimed it must be contamination, but the tests found metabolites (benzoylecgonine and cotinine). These chemicals are only produced when a living body processes the drug. You cannot "contaminate" a mummy with metabolites, the person had to have ingested the plant while they were alive. Since Coca and Tobacco are New World plants. They did not exist in Egypt. Their presence in the internal organs of mummies is strong evidence for trans-oceanic trade with Egypt. Peruvian Mummies with Egyptian Beetles and Eastern Hemispheric Diseases AI will likely tell you that Europeans brought TB to the Americas. Yet, there are Peruvian mummies that clearly died from TB based on the x-rays. DNA sequencing in 1994, researchers at the University of Minnesota and the University of Chicago extracted DNA from the lungs. The DNA was a 100% match for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. This proved TB was somehow crossed the ocean to the Americas long before Columbus. Though the conservative answer is the bacteria had to have "hitchhiked" on animals, like seals from Africa or Middle East. But strains in Peruvian mummies require prolonged human-to-human contact to jump and mutate the way they did. Seals didn't spend enough time hanging out with ancient Peruvians to facilitate a massive cross-continental jump of a specifically human-adapted pathogen. A merchant ship, however, is a floating petri dish. The Lasioderma serricorne is known as the "tobacco beetle" is native to Egypt. Archaeologists have found these specific beetles inside the wrappings and cranial cavities of these pre-Columbian Peruvian mummies. Beetles don't fly across the ocean. They travel in stored grain, dried plants, or textiles. If an Egyptian beetle is found inside a Peruvian mummy, it means there was an Egyptian product physically present in Peru. If ChatGPT has a better explanation for how an ancient Egyptian ended up with metabolized South American cocaine in her liver, or how Egyptian pests and bacteria got inside an ancient Peruvian, other than from global trade, I’d love to hear it. As I see it, there seems to have been an Egyptian diffusion in the Americas (1 Nephi 1:2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3pH3YWiXJ4 I'm of a "The Jury Is Still Out" way of thinking on this topic. I found this article interesting: What Were Cocaine, THC, And Nicotine Doing On Ancient Egyptian Mummies? An excerpt: And here: New World Drugs in Old World Mummies? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_transoceanic_contact_theories Great summary of all the various theories. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. We have a lot of people saying some pretty negative stuff about it, and about those who lead the Church that houses it, and even the members themselves. @Analytics ostensibly started this thread to address points I had raised in this other thread pertaining to how critics, despite having 200 years to do so, have been unable to articulate a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And as we've seen, they can't do it. And apparently the best they can do is suggest that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" an/or "demons" are a "more likely" explanation for the text as compared to Joseph's narrative, which is "just not possible." Such are the not-particularly-impressive fruits of Anti-Mormonism. Meanwhile, the Latter-day Saints have done the hard work and, I think, have created a substantial basis for arguing "plausibility." I think that's as far as we should go, and otherwise rely on Moroni 10:3-5. Otherwise, we run the risk of the former overshadowing the latter. Nor even a plausible complex answer. Yep. It has been an interesting journey for me, as an attorney, to watch the extant evidence ostensibly for Joseph's narrative to pull double duty, with the second being a substantial foil and frustration to naturalistic counter-theories. Thanks, -Smac