Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[mfbukowski]

Error.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Ragerunner]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Seriously, what is the benefit of gossiping about whether a member is leaving or not?

You want to challenge his positions, fine.  Questioning his faithfulness, especially future faithfulness or not is not something other members should be doing.

BINGO!

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. 

Seriously, what is the benefit of gossiping about whether a member is leaving or not?

First, "gossip" is "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true."  My comment was neither casual nor unconstrained.

Second, I qualified my statement.  Repeatedly:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

Third, my comment came late in this thread, notably after I had summarized Dan's comments to John Dehlin (!), in which he (Dehlin) expressed gratitude and "awe" for what Dan is doing, which Dan himself describes as including

A) publicly adopting a "scholarly" approach which involves rejecting the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be,

B) publicly adopting a "scholarly" approach which rejects Jesus Christ for what He claimed to be, 

C) his (Dan's) influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" being - in his words - a "sweet spot,"

D) pretty much affirming Dehlin's speculation about Dan's tenure at BYU being adversely influenced by his (Dan's) conduct (conduct inimical to faith in the Restored Gospel, and incompatible with employment at BYU), and

E) Dan accepting compliments on the foregoing behaviors from John Dehlin, perhaps the most visible and potent opponent of the Church in our day: 

Quote

Dehlin responds: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on."

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

These are all, to me, pretty clear indicia of a person who is either out his way out or PIMO.  I am reading his published-to-the-world statements and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom.

Fourth, you cut off a portion of my comment: 

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw.  I also think it's appropriate that the Latter-day Saints not be deliberately obtuse about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing.  We've seen this play out over and over.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  Natasha Helfer-Parker.  These folks

• A) initially represent themselves and Latter-day Saints speaking to other Latter-day Saints from a faithful and observant perspective;
• B) who are speaking publicly to address this or that issue while also affirming and strengthening the faith of the Saints, but
• C) over time came to have or feel entitled to a sense of influence and authority over other Latter-day Saints; and they
• D) either began to use that influence, or else they had always intended to use that influence, to persuade other Latter-day Saints to listen to them and not to the General Authorities of the Church regarding important social/moral issues (as I put it above: "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren"); and
• E) gradually became more overt and assertive in their efforts, all the while trading on their membership as part of their personal and basis for influence; but
• F) eventually force the hand of their local leaders, resulting in a membership council and a loss of membership; and
• G) they then seize upon that loss of membership to garner even more attention, and to gain even more influence, only now they pivot to being full-throated opponents of the Church.

Wow.  The foregoing almost looks like a chiasmus, with the inflection point being the "voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

Fifth, perhaps one "benefit" is to express the sentiments of "I hope he has a change of heart" and "I wish him the best."  This is not posturing.  I mean it.

Sixth, Dan has made himself a public figure, and in the Dehlin interview he made public statements about matters of faith.  He put those statements out for public attention and consumption.  I didn't hack his emails, nor did I betray any confidences.  I just listened to what he is saying and contrasted it with what prophets and apostles have said (as did this video, which I find pretty well-reasoned).

10 hours ago, Calm said:

You want to challenge his positions, fine.  Questioning his faithfulness, especially future faithfulness or not is not something other members should be doing.

I am not condemning him ("I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best").  I am, instead, reading his published-to-the-world statements, such as these:

Quote

1. "To the degree that faith is evidence of things hoped for and not seen, you should not expect the data to support what you have faith in.  And they don't.  The data point pretty firmly in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon.  That is why I talk about the Book of Mormon as something that is, the data indicate is a product of the nineteenth century. ... That's what I would argue the data indicate."

2. Regarding "a literal Jesus, who died and was resurrected, and was the Son of God," Dan states:

"Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility.  And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't.  It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe.  So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar.  So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data.  The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was probably an apocalyptic itinerant preacher, who probably preached against the Roman Empire, and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God imminently, and was executed because of it.  And then we have Jesus' followers afterwards spreading stories about him coming back to life and ministry before leaving again."

3. Dehlin asks: "Going back to the end of your employment with the Church, I could just see how all sorts of maybe even good or well-intended church leaders would say 'We gotta get Dan out of here because the implications of what he's teaching is not, in the long term, good for orthodox Mormon faith."  Dan responds:

"As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot.  I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful."

Dehlin responds: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on."

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

I claim no stewardship over Dan McClellan.  That said, he published these statements to the world.  He is speaking publicly with the intent of influencing his audience - a substantial portion of which are Latter-day Saints - to his point of view.  I think it unreasonable to willfully blind ourselves to what he is saying, or to not acknowledge that some portions of what he is saying are incompatible with listening to the prophets and apostles. 

Here is what I said previously:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." 

I am not condemning him.  I am not disparaging his character.  But I think he has given strong indications - similar to indicia we've seen from past "influencers" like those noted above (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel) - of taking an incrementally-antagonistic approach that leads to estrangement from the Restored Gospel.  

If I am wrong in this assessment, I will happily eat crow.  But if I'm correct, then a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate.

If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by smac97

[rjohnson7]

•  
•  

Posted 17 hours ago

I see that Matt Walsh, who has no education, is opining on trans issues, what his authority on that is who knows so why would anyone should pay any attention to him? It's the same with Ben Shapiro, he's a lawyer, why anyone should take his uneducated opinion on LGBTQ issues is also beyond me. These men aren't educated in LGBTQ issues and so have zero authority but yet they want people to take their opinion seriously. 

 

Does a man or women have to have a education to have a personal opinion of LGBT issues?   Why would anyone put ones faith in the learned?   I have only two years of college and had to quit for personal reasons, since that time I have educated myself in various topics to the degree I can debate the well educated in many different areas.  Chuckle, not all but a many various ones that deal with humanity, religion and politics.    I'm interested in your above opinion and wonder if you can expand... 

 

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

First, "gossip" is "casual or unconstrained conversation or reports about other people, typically involving details that are not confirmed as being true."  My comment was neither casual nor unconstrained.

Second, I qualified my statement.  Repeatedly:

Third, my comment came late in this thread, notably after I had summarized Dan's comments to John Dehlin (!), in which he (Dehlin) expressed gratitude and "awe" for what Dan is doing, which Dan himself describes as including

A) publicly adopting a "scholarly" approach which involves rejecting the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be,

B) publicly adopting a "scholarly" approach which rejects Jesus Christ for what He claimed to be, 

C) his (Dan's) influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" being - in his words - a "sweet spot,"

D) pretty much affirming Dehlin's speculation about Dan's tenure at BYU being adversely influenced by his (Dan's) conduct (conduct inimical to faith in the Restored Gospel, and incompatible with employment at BYU), and

E) Dan accepting compliments on the foregoing behaviors from John Dehlin, perhaps the most visible and potent opponent of the Church in our day: 

These are all, to me, pretty clear indicia of a person who is either out his way out or PIMO.  I am reading his published-to-the-world statements and drawing reasonable inferences therefrom.

Fourth, you cut off a portion of my comment: 

I think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw.  I also think it's appropriate that the Latter-day Saints not be deliberately obtuse about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing.  We've seen this play out over and over.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  Natasha Helfer-Parker.  These folks

• A) initially represent themselves and Latter-day Saints speaking to other Latter-day Saints from a faithful and observant perspective;
• B) who are speaking publicly to address this or that issue while also affirming and strengthening the faith of the Saints, but
• C) over time came to have or feel entitled to a sense of influence and authority over other Latter-day Saints; and they
• D) either began to use that influence, or else they had always intended to use that influence, to persuade other Latter-day Saints to listen to them and not to the General Authorities of the Church regarding important social/moral issues (as I put it above: "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren"); and
• E) gradually became more overt and assertive in their efforts, all the while trading on their membership as part of their personal and basis for influence; but
• F) eventually force the hand of their local leaders, resulting in a membership council and a loss of membership; and
• G) they then seize upon that loss of membership to garner even more attention, and to gain even more influence, only now they pivot to being full-throated opponents of the Church.

Wow.  The foregoing almost looks like a chiasmus, with the inflection point being the "voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

Fifth, Dan has made himself a public figure, and in the Dehlin interview he made public statements about matters of faith.  He put those statements out for public attention and consumption.  I didn't hack his emails, nor did I betray any confidences.  I just listened to what he is saying and contrasted it with what prophets and apostles have said (as did this video, which I find pretty well-reasoned).

I am not condemning him ("I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best").  I am, instead, reading his published-to-the-world statements, such as these:

I claim no stewardship over Dan McClellan.  That said, he published these statements to the world.  He is speaking publicly with the intent of influencing his audience - a substantial portion of which are Latter-day Saints - to his point of view.  I think it unreasonable to willfully blind ourselves to what he is saying, or to not acknowledge that some portions of what he is saying are incompatible with listening to the prophets and apostles. 

Here is what I said previously:

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." 

I am not condemning him.  I am not disparaging his character.  But I think he has given strong indications - similar to indicia we've seen from past "influencers" like those noted above (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel) - of taking an incrementally-antagonistic approach that leads to estrangement from the Restored Gospel.  

If I am wrong in this assessment, I will happily eat crow.  But if I'm correct, then a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate.

If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

 

This is one of the most convincing and compelling posts I’ve ever read on this forum. Taking “tolerance” and “inclusivity” too far is surely one of the ways Satan attempts to lead the saints to first becoming lukewarm and ineffectual, and then further beguiles them until they’re blind to the fact that they’re in a state of apostasy. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

27 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

•  
•  

 

Posted 17 hours ago

I see that Matt Walsh, who has no education, is opining on trans issues, what his authority on that is who knows so why would anyone should pay any attention to him? It's the same with Ben Shapiro, he's a lawyer, why anyone should take his uneducated opinion on LGBTQ issues is also beyond me. These men aren't educated in LGBTQ issues and so have zero authority but yet they want people to take their opinion seriously. 

 

Does a man or women have to have a education to have a personal opinion of LGBT issues?   Why would anyone put ones faith in the learned?   I have only two years of college and had to quit for personal reasons, since that time I have educated myself in various topics to the degree I can debate the well educated in many different areas.  Chuckle, not all but a many various ones that deal with humanity, religion and politics.    I'm interested in your above opinion and wonder if you can expand... 

 

 

if people want to be taken seriously I think people should educate themselves and with that though someone with a Doctorate or a Med. School degree who works with Trans people and say performs trans' surgery, I think their opinion holds more weight than someone who doesn't even know a trans person. It doesn't have to be anything connected to LGBTQ issues. I brought up Walsh and Shapiro because Smac97 brought up Shapiro and he criticized Neil Degrasse Tyson on his ideas outside the realm of his Astrophysics specialty. Shapiro or Walsh have no education on trans issues, and Shapiro is a lawyer so LGBTQ stuff is outside his realm, unless he works directly with them which I doubt. Smac 97 is dismissive of Dan and Neil for talking outside of their specialties and yet doesn't dismiss Walsh and Shapiro, who also talk outside their specialty. I find that hypocritical and he plays these fallacy games' stuff and try to show off how smart he thinks he is. If he was chocolate he would eat himself

[rjohnson7]

Interesting, so on LGBTQ issues, we should leave all legal, religious and humanistic issues to the elite self proclaimed intellectual society of man?   Are you a member of the LDS religion?  Do you believe in "The New Mormonism" of Lenard Arlington, Richard Bushman and many other BYU scholars and progressives?  

 

At a visit to the Salt Lake public library I was told that the fear of the faithful at being caught reading a “New York” book before knowing what to think about it caused some people to bring their own dust jackets so that apparently they would be carrying out Tarzan of the Apes or Alice in Wonderland....  Samuel Taylor,

[rjohnson7]

Its worse then that, its called apathy... 

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Interesting, so on LGBTQ issues, we should leave all legal, religious and humanistic issues to the elite self proclaimed intellectual society of man?   Are you a member of the LDS religion?  Do you believe in "The New Mormonism" of Lenard Arlington, Richard Bushman and many other BYU scholars and progressives?  

 

At a visit to the Salt Lake public library I was told that the fear of the faithful at being caught reading a “New York” book before knowing what to think about it caused some people to bring their own dust jackets so that apparently they would be carrying out Tarzan of the Apes or Alice in Wonderland....  Samuel Taylor,

Sounds like folklore, why not just bring a bag?  It would cause a lot more attention to be seen putting a dust cover on a book.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[rjohnson7]

Chuckle.  

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

if people want to be taken seriously I think people should educate themselves and with that though someone with a Doctorate or a Med. School degree who works with Trans people and say performs trans' surgery, I think their opinion holds more weight than someone who doesn't even know a trans person.

SNIP

I'll go along with this for a moment.  Last year I came across an interesting article published in the British Medical Journal (one of the most influential medical periodicals in the world): Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions.  In this article the authors were critical of people in medical fields making inquiries about a person's biological sex (“What sex were you assigned at birth, on your original birth certificate?”) and differentiating that from their "gender identity" (“What is your gender identity?”).  The authors seemed to hint that these questions were transphobic:

These questions have the potential to harm patients when they are used as a proxy for the more specific questions about anatomy and hormonal levels required to determine someone’s health needs. Furthermore, they do not inform clinicians about patients’ identities, names, or pronouns, all of which are important for truly inclusive clinical encounters. Instead, they may worsen rapport since sex assigned at birth is a construct that often clashes with the identity of transgender, intersex, and other people.
...
In both clinical and research settings, questions that allow patients to self-identify as transgender are critically important to identify and quantify health disparities and to develop effective interventions to reduce them. Questions about transgender identity should be developed by transgender people and vary according to setting, such as research, clinical practice, and census records. Questions regarding gender, transgender, and other relevant identities should be asked in research settings; in clinical settings, questions about pronouns and anatomy may be more relevant. These questions should be rigorously evaluated in the setting for which they were developed.

Recognising and respecting the gender of another person provides an opportunity to connect in a non-hierarchical manner. More broadly, recognising gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and is key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond.

The "Letter to the Editor" responses to the above article mostly from medical professionals were . . . pretty frank.  Here's an example (emphases added):

Dear editor,

 

We are writing on behalf of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance leadership board and membership. We are an education and advocacy organization for those with gender dysphoria – those who have medically transitioned and those who haven’t.

 

We acknowledge that there is disagreement among transpeople about political and clinical matters. We disagree with the erasure of accurate biological language and realities, for several reasons.

...

We believe it’s highly important for people with GD such as ourselves, whether we medicalize or not, to retain awareness of our biological sex. Because it’s not truly possible to change sex, accepting our full reality as trans people is important for both our psychological and physical well-being.

...

There are healthcare implications and safety concerns if our biological sex isn’t clearly recorded on our medical records to orient care providers to our medical needs.

 

Finally, we believe that the alteration of language and the falsified understanding of biological sex, applied to all people, is the result of extreme activism which is increasing societal hostility towards trans people. We do not wish to participate in that, and we don’t think it’s necessary in order for us to have rights and be integrated into society.

Another (emphasis added):

Dear Editor

 

Alpert and colleagues report in a BMJ Editorial 5th June 2021 that characteristics of external genitalia at birth are 98% accurate in defining sex at birth. They go on to say that these are ‘flawed constructs’ around sex assigned at birth. Never before have I heard of a test with 98% sensitivity being regarded as a ‘fl[aw]ed construct’. Would the authors please explain the reasoning which lead them to this conclusion.

 

Dr Peter Phillips FRCP

Consultant Geriatrician

East Suffolk and North Essex Foundation Trust

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

Sex assigned at birth: the difference between the biological fact and its social interpretation

 

It is good news to find articles like the one by Alpert et al.1 in which, from a multidisciplinary perspective, he studies scientific aspects with a humanistic approach. Thus, the aforementioned work shows great sensitivity to issues, beyond scientific ones, that affect a particularly vulnerable sector of the population.

 

However, there is one aspect of the article that I would like to draw attention to, and on which I would like to contribute another view. I am referring to the risk of confusing biological or physiological data with its meaning or social interpretation. Specifically, I find it worrying that, from a scientific point of view, the fact of sex assigned to a human being at birth is relativized, considering it an irrelevant fact and without any consequence.

 

It is true that different authors, mainly related to the ideology of gender postfeminism and from philosophical dialectics, have been affirming for years that biological sex is an artificial construction that must be discarded. Nonetheless, it is a serious danger that, on a clinical and healthcare level, a piece of data that is biological is relativized. This means being left at the expense of the meaning attributed to sex based on certain interests or feelings.

 

It is false that the sex assigned to a human being at birth is an invention or social construction, devoid of reality. On the contrary, we are facing a verifiable fact, not only by the physiognomy of some genitalia, but also by genetic evidence provided by analytics, etc.

 

This same type of verification is the one carried out with the rest of the animals and is the one that, for example, allows detecting a sex-linked hereditary disease, or indicating to a mother in the delivery room if she has had a son or a daughter. Are we really in reality when we think that a mother can be told that the sex of her newborn is not known and that we will have to wait for the newborn to state it?

 

The sex assigned at birth (derived from the consideration of the genitalia, the proportion of circulating hormones, etc.) is a fact that may have different meanings for different people or for different currents of thought. And that is where, in my opinion, the research and debate on the interpretation of what sex and gender means in society should be based.

 

The work referred to, by Alpert et al., ends up stating that “recognizing gender without reference to flawed constructs around sex assigned at birth allows us all greater personal autonomy and key to eliminating transphobia in medicine and beyond”. I believe that the previous statement, in accordance with what is indicated in the previous paragraphs, can be disputed, since, among other things, it can have effects contrary to those that the author seeks. Precisely, considering the sex assigned at birth as a social construction contradicts the autonomy of the person (based on complete and real information), and also the normalization of trans people. In reality, denying that transgender people have a biological sex at birth is stripping their own requests for gender reassignment of foundations.

 

José López-Guzmán

Professor of Pharmaceutical Humanities

Pharmacy Faculty, University of Navarra

Research Building. University of Navarra. 31000 Pamplona (Spain)

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor,

 

Like some of your other correspondents, I am baffled by the idea of referring to "sex assigned at birth". Sex is an inbuilt biological characteristic, like eye colour, blood group or the number of fingers one has - it is discovered at birth (or, in some cases, prenatally), not "assigned". Its foundation is the individual's chromosome content which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, leads to predictable processes of development in the genitalia and in other bodily areas. The authors seem to be arguing that because biological sex does not tell a doctor everything about a person's health or disease risk, it is of no value - an obvious non sequitur.

 

To take the example given by the authors in reply to an earlier rapid response: the possibility of pregnancy exists for most biological females (including some of those who have transitioned to a male gender role) but is impossible for all biological males, whatever gender role they adopt. Other respondents have already commented on the need to be aware of disease risk relating to cervical or prostate screening and one must also include cardiovascular risk which, though complicated, shows certain clear differences between men and women.

 

Transgender people, like everyone else, deserve to be treated with dignity and respect but this in no way means that downgrading or ignoring sex as a cardinal feature of someone's biology makes any sense.

 

Roger Fisken

Retired consultant physician and endocrinologist

Another:

Dear Editor

 

I am truly baffled that such an esteemed medical journal could publish an article about sex being assigned at birth. Since forever sex has been observed at birth if not already known. The only time it may be considered to be assigned is in the very small percentage of cases of those with a DSD where there is ambiguity.

 

The notion of someone being assigned a sex implies that it may not be correct, but we know no one changes sex, that there are only 2 sexes. Why are you peddling this nonsense? It is making a mockery of the medical profession.

 

Helen Bailey

Client services coordinator

Hampshire

Another:

Dear Editor

 

There is no such thing as "sex-assigned-at-birth". Sex is not assigned at birth. Publishing this nonsense diminishes the reputation of your journal.

 

Prof David Curtis MD PhD FRCPsych

Honorary Professor

UCL Genetics Institute

Another (emphases added):

Dear Editor

 

This editorial appears to argue against the use of clear language to describe biological sex in medicine. The authors seem to take a rather myopic view of this issue, framing it as one rooted in transgender rights and who holds power in “assigning sex,” instead of basic principles.

 

Human beings, of course, reproduced sexually long before modern medicine, birth certificates, or the word “transgender” first came to be. The truth of the sex binary is anchored in the mechanism that brings every human into existence.[1] Humans have two different types of gametes, two types of reproductive systems, two discrete reproductive roles: two sexes. As a result, we have given these two sexes different names: female and male. These will exist whether or not the clinician writes them down, or asks a transgender patient “what is your sex?” The fact that 0.02% of babies[2] have differences in sex development that cause the usually easy identification of sex to become a more complex affair, does not invalidate sex as one of the most clinically useful categorisations in medicine. To suggest that it does, and therefore sex should not be recorded, is absurd. If the accuracy of observable sex is claimed not to be good enough for doctors to record or rely on in medical practice, this would logically put doctors in a position where any data they have would need to reach an accuracy threshold far exceeding most tests. Even by the authors’ own statistic of 98%, it sets an impossibly high bar.

 

...

 

No rational argument appears to be made as to why doctors should avoid admitting that the patients who had hysterectomies are biologically female, and those who had orchiectomies male. Surgery on reproductive organs does not render sex obsolete. A lobectomy does not make the respiratory system redundant. While the authors dismiss information gained from knowledge of biological sex as “shorthand,” knowledge of the two types of reproductive systems, and being able to name them, is important. This holds true for gender clinicians, too. The patient referral form for the Gender Identity Clinic in London asks for “sex assigned at birth.”[8] It seems strange to suggest medicine should have no names for the distinctions between the people at risk of testicular torsion versus cervical cancer. Communication skills usually advise against reducing people to their organs, to avoid saying “the pancreas in room 7,” but even if some form of organ-inventory system were proposed, it seems likely the basic template would come in two distinct types.

 

Gender identity information can be valuable to help guide the clinical encounter, respect the transgender patient’s sense of self and gain a fuller picture as to healthcare needs. But gender identity should be recorded in addition to, not act as a replacement for, biological sex. If an unknown patient comes in to A&E, unaccompanied and unconscious, their gender identity would not be ascertainable. However, their sex would remain observable, and would make a difference to that patient’s care.

 

Healthcare cannot collectively discard words for the two biological sexes. Awareness of the importance of clinical research into sex differences in medicine, especially for the female sex[9], has just been highlighted by the pandemic. How would such work be done if the sexes cannot be named?

 

Clear language on sex is vital in medicine, science, and public health education.

 

It is surprising these words should need to be typed in a Rapid Response to the BMJ.

 

Sara Dahlen

MSc Student, Bioethics and Society

King's College London

London

Much of the foregoing commentary seems to contravene some of the most foundational precepts in popular and trendy narratives about "trans" ideology.  And the people speaking here have all sorts of medical credentials after their names.  And what they are saying seems to jibe quite well with what the uncredentialed Matt Walsh has been saying.  So the legitimacy of opinions about trans issues doesn't seem to be wholly contingent on academic or professional credentials/training.

 

I think it is important to address these things.  We can, and should, be respectful and kind to trans people without denying reality and scientific/biological fact.  And we ought to be able to have these discussions without accusations or acrimony.

 

As you may know, I work as an attorney, and I have often brought that training and experience to bear in discussions on this board.  Some aspects of some arguments/discussions center on legal technicalities, and in such circumstances the neophytes can indeed overstep and embarrass themselves by speaking from ignorance about how these things actually work.  However, I think many (most?) legal issues leave plenty of room for people not formally trained/experienced in the law to nevertheless have a principled and well-reasoned opinion about broader, substantive, non-technical questions about how that law works and how it should work.

 

In other words, you don't have to be a lawyer to have a meaningful, thoughtful, well-informed opinion on laws regulating abortion, or affirmative action, or religious liberty, or legal protections for gays and lesbians, or biological men in women's spaces (sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc.), and so on.

 

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

It doesn't have to be anything connected to LGBTQ issues. I brought up Walsh and Shapiro because Smac97 brought up Shapiro and he criticized Neil Degrasse Tyson on his ideas outside the realm of his Astrophysics specialty.

With respect, I reject the notion that there is a "specialty" about "LGBTW issues" that is at all akin to Tyson's "specialty" in astrophysics.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Shapiro or Walsh have no education on trans issues,

Do you?  I am curious if you apply your reasoning to yourself in the same way you apply it to Walsh and Shapiro.  Do you have a PhD in biology, or else a "Doctorate," or do you have "a Med. School degree" and do you "work with Trans people"?  I ask because you apparently feel free to share your opinions and thoughts about "LGBTQ issues," yet you also seem to object to Walsh and Shapiro doing so because they lack credentials.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

and Shapiro is a lawyer so LGBTQ stuff is outside his realm, unless he works directly with them which I doubt.

I do not know what this means.  What is "LGBTQ stuff," and why does Shapiro's lack of a PhD in biology place that topic "outside his realm"?

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

Smac97 is dismissive of Dan and Neil for talking outside of their specialties and yet doesn't dismiss Walsh and Shapiro, who also talk outside their specialty.

I differentiated Walsh/Shapiro from McClellan/Tyson this way: "Matt Walsh is not positioning himself as an expert or authority on any particular issue, nor is he attempting to leverage his status as an expert on X so as to bolster his credibility to speak on Y."

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

I find that hypocritical

I don't follow.  What have I done that is hypocritical (that is, "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" or "characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel" or "of the nature of hypocrisy, or pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess")?

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

and he plays these fallacy games' stuff and try to show off how smart he thinks he is.

I am neither playing games nor trying to show off.

Logical fallacies are inherently problematic, and arguments based on them are therefore flawed.

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

If he was chocolate he would eat himself

This is weird.  And you seem to be headed into ad hominem territory, which is yet another logical fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2023 by smac97

[rjohnson7]

Posted 35 minutes ago (edited)

  40 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Interesting, so on LGBTQ issues, we should leave all legal, religious and humanistic issues to the elite self proclaimed intellectual society of man?   Are you a member of the LDS religion?  Do you believe in "The New Mormonism" of Lenard Arlington, Richard Bushman and many other BYU scholars and progressives?  

 

At a visit to the Salt Lake public library I was told that the fear of the faithful at being caught reading a “New York” book before knowing what to think about it caused some people to bring their own dust jackets so that apparently they would be carrying out Tarzan of the Apes or Alice in Wonderland....  Samuel Taylor,

Sounds like folklore, why not just bring a bag?  It would cause a lot more attention to be seen putting a dust cover on a book.

 

So might I assume you are a progressive and also maybe not a member? 

 

 

 

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Interesting, so on LGBTQ issues, we should leave all legal, religious and humanistic issues to the elite self proclaimed intellectual society of man?   Are you a member of the LDS religion?  Do you believe in "The New Mormonism" of Lenard Arlington, Richard Bushman and many other BYU scholars and progressives?  

I would encourage you to be cautious in attributing "New Mormonism" to Richard L. Bushman. 

First, he's not at BYU. 

Second, "New Mormonism" seems to be a construct (and/or epithet) created by critics of the Church.  I don't think we ought to let them define the Restored Gospel in any material respect.

Third, Richard L. Bushman has had his comments about the history of the Church seriously distorted in the last several years, both online (by, among others, John Dehlin) and even in a legal setting (in the Gaddy lawsuit).  It has gotten bad enough that he has made public statements to correct and clarify his stance on the Restored Gospel.  I encourage you to read a summary I posted in November 2022 here.

Fourth, the substance of the misunderstanding about Bro. Bushman (which misunderstanding has, to an extent, been intentionally crafted by opponents of the Church such as Dehlin) is based on comments he made in 2016 about how the Church needs to “reconstruct the narrative” of the history of the Church.  This has been (mis)construed as Bushman casting doubt on the veracity of the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  However, letting Bro. Bushman speak for himself nullifies this claim.  From the above link (quoting a statement from Bro. Bushman) :

Quote

Thanks for coming to my rescue Dan.  I had begun to pick up indications of these exchanges a few days ago.  I have been using the phrase “reconstruct the narrative” in recent talks because that is exactly what the Church is doing right now.  The Joseph Smith Papers offer a reconstructed narrative, so do some of the “Gospel Topics” essays.  The short First Vision film in the Church Museum of History mentions six accounts of Joseph’s experience and draws on all of them.  That is all reconstructing the narrative.  I got the phrase from a young woman who reported that she and her husband had both been through faith crises.  She had come back; he had remained alienated.  But both of them had to reconstruct the narrative.  We have to include, for example, the fact that that the first words to Joseph in the First Vision were:  “Your sins are forgiven.”  That makes us look again at his life and realize how important a part forgiveness played.  Similarly, we now have assimilated seer stones into the translation story.  A picture of a seer stone now appears in the Church History Museum display.  That would not have happened even five years ago.  The list goes on and on.

I consider Rough Stone Rolling a reconstructed narrative.  It was shocking to some people.  They could not bear to have the old story disrupted in any way.  What I was getting at in the quoted passage is that we must be willing to modify the account according to newly authenticated facts.  If we don’t we will weaken our position.  Unfortunately, not everyone can adjust to this new material.  Many think they were deceived and the church was lying.  That is not a fair judgment in my opinion.  The whole church, from top to bottom, has had to adjust to the findings of our historians.  We are all having to reconstruct.   In my opinion, nothing in the new material overturns the basic thrust of the story.  I still believe in gold plates.  I don’t think Joseph Smith could have dictated the Book of Mormon text without inspiration.  I think he was sincere in saying he saw God.  The glimpse Joseph Smith gives us of divine interest in humankind is still a source of hope in an unbelieving world.

If anyone has questions about what I believe, I would be happy to hear from him or her.  I believe pretty much the same things I did sixty years ago when I was a missionary.

Fifth, the Church has, in many ways, embraced the "reconstruct the narrative" recommendation from Bro. Bushman.  As I summed up in the above link:

Quote

So to sum up, Bushman - who seems to have started the whole "reconstruct the dominant narrative" thing back in 2016 - has stated that

1. the rumors that he had renounced his faith in the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel are false,
2. he remains "on the side of the believers in inspiration and divine happenings—in angels, plates, translations, revelations,."
3. "the Church was lying {about its history}" claim being bandied about is "not a fair judgment,"
4. his "dominant narrative" comment is being inaccurately construed as him admitting that he has lost confidence in the basic history of the Church,
5. what he had meant was that some errors had crept into our popularized accounts of the early history of the Church, and that these errors should be straightened out,
6. the entirety of the Church, "from top to bottom," has needed to "reconstruct" our historical narrative so as to "adjust to the findings of our historians," and
7. the Church has done what he had been proposing, that it has produced a "reconstructed narrative" of the history of the Church by publishing Saints, the Joseph Smith Papers project, the Gospel Topics Essays, and so on.

Based on this, I must respectfully disagree somewhat with your comment that "{w}here the improvements are really needed are in Church," and that "unless the average member goes looking for the scholarship the problem of an uninformed membership remains."  I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history.  The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online.  Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative:

• Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting)
• Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants)
• Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants")
• Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers")
• Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes)
• First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision)
• Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church)
• Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items)
• Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.)
• Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally)
• Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world)
• At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women")
• The First Fifty Years of Relief Society
• Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society")

Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more:

• The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents")
• Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world)
• Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry)
• The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.)
• Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.")
• Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")
• Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum)
• Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources)
• Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.")
• Church Historic Sites

Way back in the 1990s, I returned from my mission and found that my dad had purchased "LDS Infobases," a collection of Church history/doctrine publications and materials originally published in 1993 (with perhaps other iterations published earlier than that).  I was amazed at having access to something like 1,800 books on these discs, all searchable!  Back then individual members really did have to go "looking for scholarship," but for the last many decades there has been a huge improvement in readily-available resources, including various free resources published by the Church which - as Bushman put it - "reconstruct" and improve past recitations of our history.

Sixth, as regarding Leonard Arrington, I would encourage you to do some further research into him as well.  See, for example, this assessment from Daniel C. Peterson:

Quote

And here are a pair of quotations about the 1978 revelation on priesthood from Adventures of a Church Historian, the memoirs of the late Dr. Leonard J. Arrington, who is often (justly) considered the father of modern professional Latter-day Saint historiography:

“Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve—at least two who have said so publicly—were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church . . . smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowledged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, ‘through the still, small voice.’ The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding.

“At the end of the heavenly manifestation, Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the [other members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve], many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God—an ineffable experience.

“Two of the apostles present described the experience as a ‘day of Pentecost’ similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.”[1]

He went on to say that

“It is a common regret among Latter-day Saints that general authorities do not speak openly about their remarkable spiritual experiences in the way Joseph Smith and other early prophets used to do. Although they unquestionably do have such experiences, they have said little about this one.”[2]

Professor Arrington, who was himself a committed and believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, termed this revelation “indisputable evidence of God’s presence and direction in these latter days—divine reaffirmation of the faith and values of our church.”[3]

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I think you are in the thrall of an ideology that pretty much prohibits - even punishes - independent thought and inquiry.  

This Ike saying “no offense, but..” then offending the person.

"With respect" you are a blind puppet...Nice! 

Let's all do better at keeping political ideology wars out of these bords please.  This is way divisive and overgeneralizes people into 2 extreme camps. 

Edited August 29, 2023 by pogi

[Smiley McGee]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Should your logic be affected by emotions?

I don’t know whether emotions should affect reasoning, but I am convinced that they do and that we take for granted how motivated we are in our reasoning. 

[Smiley McGee]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying no one points out errors of logic in conclusions they like or are neutral on

Generally yes. We act as defense attorneys for beliefs we like and prosecutors for ideas that contradict our beliefs. I don’t think we’re wired to act as an impartial juror in these matters.

[Smiley McGee]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

FWIW,  I am not in support of logical fallacies regardless of which side is presenting them.

 

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you saying no one points out errors of logic in conclusions they like or are neutral on (if so, I strongly disagree) or are you saying no one uses the language “you are committing the logical fallacy xyz, which is….” unless they are trying to discredit the argument?

In a few weeks, I’ll look to you two to provide an unbiased critique of the logical errors heard in general conference.

Edited August 29, 2023 by Smiley McGee

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Come General conference time in a few weeks, I’ll look to you two to provide an unbiased critique of the logical errors heard during the conference.

No need to wait.  If you are truly interested in this, feel free to peruse past General Conference talks and point some "logical errors" out.

And where did you obtain your expectation of me to be "unbiased" in my critiques of arguments pertaining to my faith?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 29, 2023 by smac97

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

This Ike saying “no offense, but..” then offending the person.

"With respect" you are a blind puppet...Nice! 

Let's all do better at keeping political ideology wars out of these bords please.  This is way divisive and overgeneralizes people into 2 extreme camps. 

Fair enough.  I have edited my post and apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

 

In a few weeks, I’ll look to you two to provide an unbiased critique of the logical errors heard in general conference.

If one of the speakers shows up here and wants to explore their own arguments to see how well they work, sure.

I never claimed to be unbiased what gave you that idea?

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Generally yes. We act as defense attorneys for beliefs we like and prosecutors for ideas that contradict our beliefs. I don’t think we’re wired to act as an impartial juror in these matters.

Huh…I look at the world differently than you do, I guess.  I like to dissect almost any idea and see its strengths and weaknesses.  I don’t see where the impartiality is getting brought in though.  I might have missed part of the conversation…

Edited August 29, 2023 by Calm

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Interesting, so on LGBTQ issues, we should leave all legal, religious and humanistic issues to the elite self proclaimed intellectual society of man?   Are you a member of the LDS religion?  Do you believe in "The New Mormonism" of Lenard Arlington, Richard Bushman and many other BYU scholars and progressives?  

 

At a visit to the Salt Lake public library I was told that the fear of the faithful at being caught reading a “New York” book before knowing what to think about it caused some people to bring their own dust jackets so that apparently they would be carrying out Tarzan of the Apes or Alice in Wonderland....  Samuel Taylor,

I am a member of the LDS religion, although what that has to do with the "intellectual society of man", I have no idea. It isn't self proclaimed, my dentist is proclaimed by her Dental society and not by herself. I have never heard of "New Mormonism" and I don't know what Leonard Arrington or Richard Bushman, who are historians, have to do with anything. History is just one angle on the church FWIW

[rjohnson7]

45 minutes ago, Duncan said:

I am a member of the LDS religion, although what that has to do with the "intellectual society of man", I have no idea. It isn't self proclaimed, my dentist is proclaimed by her Dental society and not by herself. I have never heard of "New Mormonism" and I don't know what Leonard Arrington or Richard Bushman, who are historians, have to do with anything. History is just one angle on the church FWIW

I understand, this is okay and you have never looked into "The New Mormonism" which is very far reaching and accuses the Church of hiding its history and lying... not important! 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would encourage you to be cautious in attributing "New Mormonism" to Richard L. Bushman. 

First, he's not at BYU. 

Second, "New Mormonism" seems to be a construct (and/or epithet) created by critics of the Church.  I don't think we ought to let them define the Restored Gospel in any material respect.

Third, Richard L. Bushman has had his comments about the history of the Church seriously distorted in the last several years, both online (by, among others, John Dehlin) and even in a legal setting (in the Gaddy lawsuit).  It has gotten bad enough that he has made public statements to correct and clarify his stance on the Restored Gospel.  I encourage you to read a summary I posted in November 2022 here.

Fourth, the substance of the misunderstanding about Bro. Bushman (which misunderstanding has, to an extent, been intentionally crafted by opponents of the Church such as Dehlin) is based on comments he made in 2016 about how the Church needs to “reconstruct the narrative” of the history of the Church.  This has been (mis)construed as Bushman casting doubt on the veracity of the foundational truth claims of the Restored Gospel.  However, letting Bro. Bushman speak for himself nullifies this claim.  From the above link (quoting a statement from Bro. Bushman) :

Fifth, the Church has, in many ways, embraced the "reconstruct the narrative" recommendation from Bro. Bushman.  As I summed up in the above link:

Sixth, as regarding Leonard Arrington, I would encourage you to do some further research into him as well.  See, for example, this assessment from Daniel C. Peterson:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thx, I have read Bushman and completely disagree on his progressive mormonism... he in a subtle way without accusing the church of lying or hiding its history does exactly that.   New Mormonism is more than a construct, these are intellectuals who are very much in to Church History.   Some of it as you might not know deals with the Church and LGBT and marriage.   You need to be alarmed and aware, if not then you can't help those going through faith crisis for reasons you have not studied it. 

I have read much about Arrington to know he was even in the Churches cross hair and needed to go... they transferred him back to BYU. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

I don’t know whether emotions should affect reasoning, but I am convinced that they do and that we take for granted how motivated we are in our reasoning. 

I do not believe there is a definable difference.

Yet again I see both as tools evolved/designed and/or created to keep us alive.

Both have their functions IF they are they can be defined exclusively as two separate... what ?... "things" ?

Where IS color?  In our heads or in "the world"?  How we separate reason from emotions?

I don't see a way.