Adventist Today editor libels Abigail Shrier but likely has never even read her book

[RonCorson]

Adventist Today editor libels Abigail Shrier but likely has never read her

By Ron Corson

Once again Adventist Today has published an article with an abundance of opinions and little facts. Loren Seibold the editor at Adventist Today wrote an article entitled: On Complete LGBTQ+ Acceptance in the Church. I am not going to respond to the full article I think it would be good for the Adventist denomination to examine these new issues in culture and religion. What I have a problem with is when ignorance pretends to be knowledge. Here is what Loren Seibold wrote:

Quote

“Recently the youth director of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists recommended on social media the book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters. The author, Abigail Shrier, revives the old arguments that were once leveled at lesbian and gay people: that there is an “agenda,” a “movement,” in this case to induce young women into becoming male. This excreta is being pushed from the very top of our denomination. (Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.)”

 

When a person reads that paragraph it somewhat sounds like the author of the article has some knowledge of the work of Abigail Shrier, unless, of course anyone has read the book or listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier. Perhaps just as bad as someone who clearly has not read the book or even listened to an interview with Abigail Shrier, Loren Seibold seems to imply that the youth director of the General Conference has done something horrible by directing people to an important book on social media.

But how can it be an important book if the book is about reviving an old argument that transgenderism of young girls is an agenda or a movement.  Well, it is at this point that we know Loren Seibold knows nothing about the book. It is here that I have to come up to the plate and say Loren Seibold either does not know what he is writing about or is purposely lying to his readers. Whichever answer, it is not good for Adventist Today.  Unless of course the purpose of Loren Siebold is not honest journalism but leftist propaganda, in which case lying for the political cause is part of progressivism.

One thing all readers must learn is to identify fictional material that is attributed to someone else. This is most easily done by checking the sources. Is there a quote given, what is the source and can we read the quote. Is there any context to the quote? Here Loren Siebold gives single word quotes “agenda,” a “movement”. By just using the single out of context quotes the reader is forced to accept Loren Seibold’s explanation.  I am pretty sure he is just passing on what some other unscrupulous writer had written. That is a huge problem if someone cannot even take the time to get some first-hand information what good is their information. It is no better than gossip and in this case it is malicious gossip.

So what is the book about? The reason for the book is set forth in the beginning of Chapter 2 under the title the Puzzle:

Quote

 

“In 2016, Lisa Littman, ob-gyn turned public health researcher and mother of two, was scrolling through social media when she noticed a statistical peculiarity: several adolescents, most of them girls, from her small town in Rhode Island had come out as transgender—all from within the same friend group. “With the first two announcements, I thought, ‘Wow, that’s great,’ ” Dr. Littman said, a light New Jersey accent tweaking her vowels. Then came announcements three, four, five, and six.

 Dr. Littman knew almost nothing about gender dysphoria—her research interests had been confined to reproductive health: abortion stigma and contraception. But she knew enough to recognize that the numbers were much higher than extant prevalence data would have predicted. “I studied epidemiology… and when you see numbers that greatly exceed your expectations, it’s worth it to look at what might be causing it. Maybe it’s a difference of how you’re counting. It could be a lot of things. But you know, those were high numbers.”

 In fact, they turned out to be unprecedented. In America and across the Western world, adolescents were reporting a sudden spike in gender dysphoria—the medical condition associated with the social designation “transgender.” Between 2016 and 2017 the number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled, with biological women suddenly accounting for—as we have seen—70 percent of all gender surgeries.¹

 In 2018, the UK reported a 4,400 percent rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatments.²

 In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria—from predominately preschool-aged boys to predominately adolescent girls.³”

 

Jumping a head a couple of paragraphs:

Quote

 

“If this sudden spike in transgender identification among adolescent girls is a peer contagion, as Dr. Littman hypothesized, then the girls rushing toward “transition” are not getting the treatment they most need. Instead of immediately accommodating every adolescent’s demands for hormones and surgeries, doctors ought to be working to understand what else might be wrong. At best, doctors’ treatments are ineffective; at worst, doctors are administering needless hormonal treatments and irreversible surgeries on patients likely to regret them. Dr. Littman’s theory was more than enough to touch a nerve.

 Activists stormed the Twitter page of PLoS One, the peer-reviewed scientific journal of the Public Library of Science that had published Dr. Littman’s paper, accusing her of anti-trans bigotry. They claimed that Dr. Littman had deliberately solicited parent reports from conservative, anti-trans parent groups. (In fact, over 85 percent of the parents self-identified as supporting LGBT rights.)” (page 21-22)

 

 

From there the book is a deep dive into research and psychologist data and observations.

Now I don’t expect people to take the time to read her book but this is an important topic. Take the time to listen or watch her Interview with Jorden Peterson. Peterson as a clinical Psychologist is very clearly a deep thinker even if he is not the best at interviews. Please take the time to listen or watch and then see just how much truth there is to Loren Siebold’s statement: “Abigail will make a great deal of money on this book from the many people who love simple answers that blame others for problems they don’t understand.”

You can read articles by Abigail Shrier at: https://muckrack.com/abigailshrier/articles

 

[GHansen]

What puzzles me is why a campaign against AToday is being run on Adventistan? If there is a problem with AToday, it should be resolved with AToday personnel. The regular posters here are fully capable of generating drama. No need to borrow some from other places. 

[RonCorson]

Is there something incorrect in what I have posted? If so deal with that. Is other Adventist media off limits here?  Should all posters have to explain to you when and why they post here? If it is of no interest to you then don't read it. 

I wanted to post an update to the above article.

Here is the Joe Rogan podcast with Abigail Shrier. It is a more conversational program with a bit more on cultural and activists content. Pretty sure that after listening/watching this most people would say that Loren Seibold's paragraph in question above is really activist in nature. https://open.spotify.com/episode/4SIh4Pt39AtGQYzMJMNkv1

[GHansen]

2 hours ago, RonCorson said:

Is there something incorrect in what I have posted? If so deal with that. Is other Adventist media off limits here?  Should all posters have to explain to you when and why they post here? If it is of no interest to you then don't read it. 

There is a Biblical procedure for dealing with issues. The first is to involve the individual with who you have a problem. I'm sure you know the protocol. You assume that Loren has not read the book, then based on that assumption, you attack him. Loren is a very thorough and meticulous individual. I can say that. I'm not sure if there is anything "incorrect" in what you posted. The entire concept of attacking AToday and its editor on a third party website is incorrect. I'm aware of the option to not read what you post. Prior to implementing it, I wanted to protest your actions, which I now have done. 

[Gustave]

The article had some points that were familiar with me, especially the part that talked about getting to know someone and recognizing them for their merits *instead of their buggery*.  I was raised in a very rural environment where sayings that now make me cringe were common place both at school and home. I've been fortunate to get to know some very honorable gay people both in the Army and through work. I NEVER would have believed this was possible given my upbringing and culture. 

While there is no doubt that there is an "agenda" I'd also say that every gay person I've known and counted as a friend was totally ignorant of it. I can't help but think that much of the LGBTQQAA movement whereas religious acceptance is concerned is causing more problems than it solves. Serious or better said conservative Christians will never bless same sex buggery no matter how hard LGBTQQAA's stomp their foot on the ground - its just not going to happen. 

I mean no offense here but I wonder why the SDA Church doesn't just "Big Tent" LGBTQQAA" folks, accept that they live together and do sexual stuff from time to time? If the SDA Church allows open anti-Trinitarianism (members know of other members who reject the Trinity) how come a gay couple can't attend Church or other Church related functions? In a Big Tent system, provided the gays aren't causing problems why can't they be like the ant-Trinitarians and be allowed to participate? 

Just my .02 if it's even worth .02

 

[RonCorson]

17 minutes ago, GHansen said:

There is a Biblical procedure for dealing with issues.

No there is no Biblical procedure to deal with the issue of publications posting lies and distorted facts. 

 

Quote

15If your brother sins against you,c go and confront him privately. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d 17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, regard him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

When Loren Seibold lied about the book, I do say lied because anyone who actually read the book or listened to her would not write what he did, he did not sin against me and it was not something that having been published on their website is only between the two of us.  I have emailed and through chat pointed  out problems with Loren Seibold on other issues of the publication of false information and it is resulted in nothing, so no he has not been won over. But I don't plan on making a trip with two or 3 others to visit his home, as I don't think that is appropriate. So I feel that it is time to take the information to the church. 

If you think that my pointing out factual information about Loren Seibold is attacking him, or that it is an assumption what do you think he was doing to Abigail? He never said he read the book or listened to any interviews the assumption is that he is pretending he knows anything about her book. That is a pretty sound assumption not only because what he says about the book is wrong but because he never made any claims to having read the book. I do wish Loren Seibold was a thorough and meticulous person, But as the years have shown me I have no reason to believe he is.

37 minutes ago, GHansen said:

The entire concept of attacking AToday and its editor on a third party website is incorrect.

You keep using the word attack. If pointing out errors and false information is an attack then that old childhood saying of cheaters never prosper is going to never come true. All the liars have to do is say, stop attacking me. Flat earthers will declare stop telling us the earth is round, quit attacking us. As some lawyers say the truth is your best defense. You may call it an attack but I don't accept your definition of an attack because all discussion would end. 

Now there used to be a very robust comment section run on the AToday site. It left several years ago and they moved over to facebook comments where they can simply block someone by name. Several others on this site have like me been blocked from facebook comments. So putting my articles here is simply an attempt to let other Adventists know that many of the things posted on Adventist Today are factually wrong. Many are wrong opinions as well but proving an opinion is wrong is pretty hard and as the saying goes about opinions everyone has them. 

Your protest is noted. If I may say however those who sit around and do nothing as they are lied to deserve what they get...which will always be more lies. When people have no standards of truth, no accountability I say they have nothing of value to say. Whatever they say can't be trusted. I think Christians have a higher standard to truth, if we lose that than I don't see much value in being a Christian in the world today. 

[RonCorson]

9 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I can't help but think that much of the LGBTQQAA movement whereas religious acceptance is concerned is causing more problems than it solves

While the overall topic of his AToday article is not really the subject of my article, I think using the whole LGBTalphebet can never work. What will the church do with the 2 spirit folk? That kind of gets to the churches actual spiritual belief system. The LGBTalphebet is about getting as large of a group together as possible grouping them all together even though many have little similarities, I was going to say aside from not being heterosexual, but bi sort of even ruins that one:)

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The official position of the SDA church includes the following, in relation to homosexual people:

*  They are to be welcomed to attend SDA services.  Reality being what it is, I have to assume that in some congregations they would not be welcomed.

*  They are to be celibate, if they want to become a member.  Again, reality being what it is, some SDA congregations have members who are not celibate homosexuals.

*  SDA Clergy are not to perform marriages of homosexual couples.  This is strictly enforced.

*  Non-celibate homosexuals are not to be baptized.  A violation would be taken seriously.

*  They are, other than the above, to be provided with pastoral care.

 

 

[Gustave]

11 hours ago, RonCorson said:

While the overall topic of his AToday article is not really the subject of my article, I think using the whole LGBTalphebet can never work. What will the church do with the 2 spirit folk? That kind of gets to the churches actual spiritual belief system. The LGBTalphebet is about getting as large of a group together as possible grouping them all together even though many have little similarities, I was going to say aside from not being heterosexual, but bi sort of even ruins that one:)

 

I'll admit it turns my stomach as well. Especially the "AA". which stands for Animal Attracted. I kind of view Church as the dispenser of medicine for sinners so in that way I think LGBTQAA would benefit as much as I do from Church. All of us have pet sins and I don't think mine would be any less offensive to God than a Buggerite's would be. I wouldn't expect to remain in Church or made to feel welcome if I "SPREAD" my pet sins around the Church community nor should LGBTQQAA. 

[RonCorson]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I wouldn't expect to remain in Church or made to feel welcome if I "SPREAD" my pet sins around the Church community nor should LGBTQQAA. 

I think that is the real problem that needs to be addressed, not should the alphabet be in church but does the church need to embrace it as good. The easiest example is gay pride. I understand the idea behind gay pride for those who are gay but should that be the position of the church. And of course you could go down the whole alphabet line with that. I am all for the discussion and opinions on the topic, But as in any discussion when we can we should use facts and not made up facts.

[bonnie]

1 minute ago, RonCorson said:

I think that is the real problem that needs to be addressed, not should the alphabet be in church but does the church need to embrace it as good. The easiest example is gay pride. I understand the idea behind gay pride for those who are gay but should that be the position of the church. And of course you could go down the whole alphabet line with that. I am all for the discussion and opinions on the topic, But as in any discussion when we can we should use facts and not made up facts.

 

8 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I I wouldn't expect to remain in Church or made to feel welcome if I "SPREAD" my pet sins around the Church community nor should LGBTQQAA. 

The difference is you are not trying to make your pet sins the law of the land

[Gregory Matthews]

The Seventh-day Adventist Chruch has published much material on this subject.

A relatively recent, comprehensive book on this subject is:

Roy E. Gane, Nicholas P Miller H. Peter Swanson, Editors; Homosexuality, Marriage, and the Chruch: Biblical, Counseling and Religious Liberty Issues. Andrews University Press, 2012, 578 pages.

A recent pastoral approach to this issue is:

Guiding Families of LGBT+ Loved ones:  Adventist Edition.  2018, 71 pages. 

NOTE:

*  The above is available on a limited basis from the North American Division.

*  The above is adapted from material first published by Bill Henson of Lead Them Home (http://leadtheemhome.org.)  The Adventist edition includes some additional Adventist material and an official statement from the NAD.

[phkrause]

On 9/29/2021 at 9:28 PM, RonCorson said:

When Loren Seibold lied about the book, I do say lied

So you did call him out on that? Right??

[RonCorson]

1 hour ago, phkrause said:

So you did call him out on that? Right??

Yes I think that is what my article does. In the world of publications sometimes the only option is to point out the false information by another form of publication. sadly there is a thing called confirmation bias. That is when a person only hears the things they want to hear and they avoid information counter to their belief. It is often very hard to get by that. Only people that have a high view of truth are able to overcome the confirmation bias. One of the best ways to do that is open conversation with those that disagree with you. It also sharpens the arguments as well on both or most sides of an issue. Now a person could always send a personal letter or email to an author or politician etc. that publicizes a false statement and hope that the person who offered the false information will correct a statement. But pretty much they hardly ever do that. So getting the truth out there is often the very best that one can do to counter a lie.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

A falsehood may not be a lie.

A falsehood is simply false.

A lie requires that a person knows it to be false, and therefore attempts to deceive another.

One who claims that another person lied, is alleging that the person knew something to be false and knowingly attempted to deceive.

If Ron Corson wants to claim that Loren made a false statement, he has every right to do so, whether correct or not.

But, for Ron Corson to claim that he knows the mind of Loren enough to charge him with knowingly attempting to deceive us, goes beyond my belief in the ability of Ron to know the mind of Loren.

By the way.  Loren is not always accurate in what he says.  I recently brought to his attention a factual error in what he said in print and he thanked me for the correction.  But it should be noted, I did not just express an opinion.  I gave him the data and the proof of what I said.

[GHansen]

54 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I gave him the data and the proof of what I said.

I found Loren to be a thorough and fastidious fact checker  on some work with which he helped me.

[phkrause]

13 hours ago, RonCorson said:

Yes I think that is what my article does.

I didn't think so!!

[RonCorson]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

But, for Ron Corson to claim that he knows the mind of Loren enough to charge him with knowingly attempting to deceive us, goes beyond my belief in the ability of Ron to know the mind of Loren.

That would only be the case if your definition of a lie were true. However it is not true here is the definition of lie:

1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive She was lying when she said she didn't break the vase. He lied about his past experience.

2: to create a false or misleading impression Statistics sometimes lie. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

 

When you look at what many of the activists have done to this book and author, Loren is very consistent with their lies. Now he may just be repeating their lies but I don't think just because he repeats lies and he has not bothered to research the information, that the lies cease to be lies.

 

Further as the editor of ATODAY after the publication of the Lindsey Painter completely inaccurate statement about the new Abortion law in Texas the idea that he is a thorough and fastidious fact checker does not hold up at all.

2 hours ago, GHansen said:

thorough and fastidious fact checker

https://adventistan.com/forums/topic/80935-when-truth-is-the-last-thing-you-want-to-report/

 

 

[phkrause]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

A falsehood may not be a lie.

A falsehood is simply false.

A lie requires that a person knows it to be false, and therefore attempts to deceive another.

One who claims that another person lied, is alleging that the person knew something to be false and knowingly attempted to deceive.

If Ron Corson wants to claim that Loren made a false statement, he has every right to do so, whether correct or not.

But, for Ron Corson to claim that he knows the mind of Loren enough to charge him with knowingly attempting to deceive us, goes beyond my belief in the ability of Ron to know the mind of Loren.

By the way.  Loren is not always accurate in what he says.  I recently brought to his attention a factual error in what he said in print and he thanked me for the correction.  But it should be noted, I did not just express an opinion.  I gave him the data and the proof of what I said.

Exactly!! That is the way it should be, instead of just posting somewhere, where that other person doesn't even get to read it, so they can respond to it!!

[RonCorson]

3 minutes ago, phkrause said:

I didn't think so!!

I am not sure what you mean by that. You didn't think I called him out. No not personally, you can, the false information is directed as much at you as it is at me. So if you think he will correct it go ahead and send him a message.

[RonCorson]

1 minute ago, phkrause said:

Exactly!! That is the way it should be, instead of just posting somewhere, where that other person doesn't even get to read it, so they can respond to it!!

Please send him a message then. or post it on the comments. I can't like numerous others who are blocked from Facebook comments.

[phkrause]

1 minute ago, RonCorson said:

Please send him a message then. or post it on the comments. I can't like numerous others who are blocked from Facebook comments.

What does FB have to do with your comments about Loren?? You made your comments right here on this forum!! Loren as far as I know doesn't belong to this forum??????

[RonCorson]

1 minute ago, phkrause said:

What does FB have to do with your comments about Loren?? You made your comments right here on this forum!! Loren as far as I know doesn't belong to this forum??????

Facebook comments is the only way to comment on Adventist Today articles.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, Facebook is the only way to comment on AT articles, if you want your comment to be a public comment.

 

However, if you want to send him a private message, you can always send an e-mail to   adventisttoday@gmail.com

So, what do you really want to do?

 

[RonCorson]

On 10/1/2021 at 12:10 PM, Gregory Matthews said:

So, what do you really want to do?

I don't think the question is so much what I want to do as what will those who read Adventist Today or this site or my blog do. I presented the information and provided evidence as to why what was stated was false (on my blog more examples are given also). It may be with recent trends in media false information is just something that everyone expects and if they are of your tribe than you ignore the falsehoods. My article pointed out the false information and also tried to encourage people to actually pay attention to an important book. I would also like to support that youth department person of the GC who is portrayed as some kind of Neanderthal who thinks that the book is important. In the big picture readers of Adventist Today may simply judge any youth department person who suggests there is a problem going on with our daughters as they are just homophobic or something after being swayed by false statements.