All Activity

It makes even more sense why he avoids sharing his personal experiences or placing himself as someone who can show how to maintain faith while studying the Bible critically (in an academic sense). His was an atypical exposure coming to the Church already set in a critical methodology and never was pressured by the Church in his view to change his approach. It seems he doesn’t see his experiences as relating much to most of those who have issues with doubt. And I am guessing he doesn’t want to wing it, he seems too careful in finding evidence/data for his public behaviour. He hasn’t had training as a counselor in faith or anything else, so he refuses to take on that role even when others want him to do that. To me that is respectful. He doesn’t appoint himself an authority even when others are urging him to do so. Very much not subversive or manipulative in my view. And I am glad to see his employers and church leaders understand his choice of boundaries and accept them as a valid position for a faithful member (since he was employed by them) ” I was able to say, "Hey, here are the boundaries of what I'm doing on social media." And this is part of my professional training. This is part of, even to some degree, what I did for the church: critically examine the linguistics and all of this and try to guide translators in interpreting and then translating not just the Book of Mormon, but also the Bible. And so, yes, when people would call in and complain about me and I had to go talk with folks, it was always, "Here are the boundaries." And they said, "Look, as long as you stay within those boundaries, we're good." And because those were the boundaries that I established initially on my own for my channel, I didn't really have any trouble with that. And so, no, I've not faced any kind of ecclesiastical discipline or anything like that. And then also, while I was an employee of the church, I also ran for the state legislature twice as a Democrat, which meant there's an additional dimension in which I'm operating in a kind of parachurch capacity. I'm doing things that normally members of the church are probably not totally comfortable doing. But, you know, if you're running for office, it wouldn't really be above board for a church to be like, "How dare you defend the legality of abortion and things like that?" And so as a biblical scholar, I think I was doing the same. Look, this is my job. BLAIR HODGES: Yeah. DAN MCCLELLAN: This is my side hustle, let's put it that way. But I'm a professional. I need to be able to act as a professional in doing that job. And everybody was okay with that.”

Dan came to the Church as an adult, at the age of 20, then went on a mission. I can see how that could very much influence his approach to his personal faith. https://www.relationscapes.org/p/mcclellan-transcript/ I love that he teaches the Bible this way because he wants to respect its authority. I think he is spot on there. And his comments about his experience in the Church is what I would expect.

From a Mormonstories interview of Dan’s: Smac, do you believe Dan is lying here when he states he has no intent, no “goal” to try and destroy anyone’s faith?

As you know, I think the Bradiah, Mitchill and Anthon visits tell us most of what we need to know. I believe Anthon was at first either 1. fully convinced that the characters were authentic and Smith had successfully (as he words it in his account) "deciphered" some of them without divine assistance, or 2. saw an opportunity to confirm his hypotheses that American Indians were actually Egyptians who migrated across the Pacific ocean, bringing with them the ancient theology of Mercury (Hermes/Enoch). Either way, I think before Anthon became suspicious upon hearing Harris describe the visit of the angel, he had fully shared his erudition, and perhaps details from a textbook on this very topic he was working on at exactly that moment, with Harris about the origins of civilization and religion in the Americas. IMO a watered-down version of Anthon's hypothesis on the origins of theology and civilization in the Americas based on "the profound investigations of [Carl] Ritter" became the foundation of the narrative of the Book of Mormon.

My guess is most LDS interested in scholarship but who find the faith promoting stuff as important or even more important for some, don’t want only the faith promoting stuff. It’s too easy to ignore scholarship if that is all they want, imo. Why should they bother with it. They want to hear the scholarship along with a heartfelt acceptance of belief in the faith. My husband is one of those. He loves to hear me relate what I have learned about history. I don’t need to tell the faith promoting stuff because he knows I have a solid belief and he knows I often explore possibilities based on faith even when I talk about the warts. However, he didn’t like Rough Stone Rolling. He judged Bushman in this text as trying to be all things to all people, people pleaser in essence. He preferred his earlier book, JS and beginnings of Mormonism and was expecting more of that. Btw, it was his rather conservative father who gave out RSR to all his children (8 of them). I was impressed as previous years it was a Gerald Lund book. However, my husband has never judged even those more critical as “subversive” when they have stated they are members who care about the community. FAIR has gotten trashed a lot for not being faithful enough, for catering to the intellectual crowd, for contributing to people’s loss of belief. I feel bad they can’t see the possibility of being more open about the negatives in history and evidence doesn’t have to be faith demoting and very grateful this doesn’t stop FAIR from putting stuff up, even with warts, to defend the Church. And defending the Church need not include pretending it’s all butterflies and unicorns. Or altering science to fit our preconceptions. One can be a faithful Saint and believe in evolution!!! We are not apostates or sheep in wolves clothing even if there are Saints, probably good, devout Saints (with a rather skewed view of reality in my view 😛 ) proclaiming so. Many others (better informed and reasonable ) have expressed gratitude that we have helped them come to a greater faith, stayed strong in faith even when dear family members have tried to persuade them to doubt. Sounds like the sweet spot to me. I don’t compare Dan’s work to FAIR’s own since our mission is to defend the Church and his is to present the academic scholarship and demonstrate what scripture does and does not say in the context of the the early faith communities. We can take his and other scholars’ work and use it where appropriate to help our own mission (Ben Spackman is a great example of this, imo), but that doesn’t mean he needs to tailor it to our mission or the Church’s any more than a guy who sells cars need to. Keeping to a standard of honesty and a desire to find and teach truth and understanding seems quite sufficient to me. I think he is reaching a much greater audience than FAIR ever will and that is good because he is sharing good information about scripture, helping many desire to study them more deeply. Dan Peterson has said stuff that in my view is along the same lines as DanMcClellan, only it’s God hitting the sweet spot in the evidence he allows for our faith. If it’s okay for God, not sure why it should be an issue for Dan M. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2018/04/evidence-and-proof.html

If you only want to hear stories based on faith, then listen to General Conference, They will tell you if you just pay your tithing, then even though you couldn't afford new shoes when you didn't pay your tithing, you now will be able to because of your faith. But the data doesn't support that. If you want to hear about 3 Nephites that have been alive since the days of Christ, then got to sunday school. But the data doesn't support that possibility. If you want to hear about how the Book of Mormon was an ancient record revealed by magic stones in a hat, then look to the Church. But the data doesn't support that. In essence you seem to be upset because Dan is not giving a sunday school lesson or a conference talk or a faith promoting story about the Book of Mormon. He is giving you a scholarly evaluation of those things. You want him to no longer be a Biblical scholar and only want him to sit in the back of the chapel listening to faith promoting stories. They are two entirely different objectives. Scholars are not in the business of only telling faith promoting stories. They are interested in context and digging into who said what when and why. If you want to just read the scriptures and ask the General Authorities what they mean, listen to conference. If you want to know the context, what the language meant at the time, how that cross references with known historical data of the time, etc, then listen to Dan. Your choice. But don't make Dan out to be a villain for just doing his job.

So you can read paper in the bottom of your hat just fine. Its just uncomfortable and difficult to do for long stretches. But I'm wondering, would it even be necessary for him to do over long stretches? I'm reminded of the phenomenon of "fasting girls" and this movie about a girl who claimed to live off spiritual manna, when really she would just pretend not to eat food when people were around, and then her mother would sneak food to her through a goodnight kiss. To determine whether it was a miracle of a trick, the local vicar hired witnesses to observe the girl 24 hours a day. As soon as the witnesses came on the scene full time, the girl (spoiler alert) slowly starved to death because her mom couldn't sneak food to her. Tricks are easy to pull off when noone is looking. And we don't have anything close to a controlled 24/7 translation process. Instead we have a few accounts of people who would look in on occasion, make observations for a brief period and then go back to their homes or carry on with their farm work and lives. We have very little idea what happened when it was just Joseph and Oliver in the room as we don't really have any accounts of what happened from Joseph or Oliver themselves. if there were times when a curtain or blanket was used, or times when Joseph told Oliver not to look or he'd be punished by God. Which does fit with one account given by Josiah Jones from October 1830 (published 1841): "I then asked him if he had ever looked through the stones to see what he could see in them; his reply was that he was not permitted to look into them. I asked him who debarred him from looking into them; he remained sometime in silence; then said that he had so much confidence in his friend Smith, who told him that he must not look into them, that he did not presume to do so lest he should tempt God and be struck dead." It matches what Harris said about the earlier translation of 116. Harris “never dared to look into them by placing them in the hat”, because “we had a command to let no man look into them, except by the command of God, lest he should ‘look aught and perish.’” So the two main scribes both report a death-penalty ban on observing too closely. I dunno, it's suspicious to me that there were even blankets and death penalties at all, ever, in the process. 1. I don't believe God would ever strike anyone dead for being observant about such an important thing, 2. Makes me think the same tactics could have been used at convneient times, and not used at convenient times. So it does appear to me like Smith was telling both his main scribes Harris and Cowdery and perhaps controlling any other observations by telling others not to look too closely at the instruments, or they would be struck dead. By my estimate Mosiah to Moroni, about 75% of the text, was dictated with just Joseph and Oliver and Emma in the house. Emma confirms she was busy with her work during the process. And there were at least two hostile accounts of blankets being hung in the house, one account saying the nails used to hang them remained for years after: “The translating and writing were done in the little low chamber of Joe Smith’s house. The Prophet and his precious trust were screened even from the sight of his clerks by blankets nailed to the walls. The nails remained for many years just as they were driven by the Prophet, and it was not until some repairing was done a short time ago that they were drawn out.” - Sally McKune, a Harmony neighbour 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon, about 25%, was dictated in the crowded house in Fayette, but the work was done upstairs in a bedroom. David and Elizabeth Ann Whitmer say they watched for hours, but it would not have been continuously. And when they did observe for hours it could have been times Joseph allowed them into the room to observe the dictation of memorized sections like Isaiah. Again, you'd only need to memorize enough to convince the people who watch for a few hours at a time. And access to observation could have been controlled by Joseph to sync with the times he'd be dictating memorized material. Entering the room at any other time to observe, could be dangerous to the observer, divine punishments and all. Where did Joseph say the stone was easier than the curtain? afaict he says nothing about the blanket/curtain anywhere. And we cannot know that he didn't use a blanket or curtain in Harmony. Two hostile accounts saying there were blankets between Smith and Cowdery in Harmony. We just don't know what the process was during the bulk of the translation.

"Most" likely? You've mapped out a very neat taxonomy, but a faithful Latter-day Saint doesn't need to pick one model. The Church merely affirms that we have a Heavenly Mother. Modern Latter-day Saint thought is entirely comfortable leaving the exact cosmic origin of the Heavenly Mother as an unrevealed mystery, meaning all four of your models can remain fascinating theological theories without any single one being forced as the answer. However, if you want me be a good sport and play the game, I will argue for the simplest model. Model #4, the Co-Eternal Heavenly Mother, as LDS theology has the internal, scriptural space to accommodate a self-existent, fully divine Mother without getting dragged into either infinite regression nor creationism. D&C 93:29 states, "Intelligence... was not created or made, neither indeed can be." So, it's certainly possible for a core divine identity to be self-existent. If God the Father's core essence/intelligence is uncreated and co-eternal with the universe itself, the same principle would apply to the Heavenly Mother. In this model, she did not "become" a God. God is an uncreated Divine Binary, a fundamental cosmic pairing who together embody the full stature of God. And I do favor Ancient Near Eastern literature, in which the origin stories for gods weren't written to satisfy neither modern philosophical demands nor LDS thoughts like "infinite regression". When you look at Ancient Near Eastern mythology and Israelite religion through modern scholarship (like Margaret Barker, Mark S. Smith, Frank Moore Cross), the concept of a co-eternal divine pair has incredible historical resonance. El and Lady Wisdom (Hokhmah) is portrayed as a primordial pair. So, arguing from silence, and ignoring tradition, #4 is "most" likely.

I had long ago realized the issue with reading modern day family relationships into ancient scriptures and not just because they were willing to have laws stoning their children for disrespecting even if they didn’t use them much or at all. Also community needs and endurance over the individual needs. But the client-patron relationship I hadn’t factored in and certainly don’t have the background or depth needed to do that decently. Had quite a few aha moments over what was being said about God with that.

No, the low light isn't the biggest problem. It is the amount of text possible to be read easily without needing to be switched. That to me is the biggest problem. He can't just put a normal size piece of paper in there. He would have had to written out on smaller paper sizes and then he would have to switch the paper in the hat every 10-20 minutes. He has to do that for hours each day for months on end. That increase the number of times that the paper could be seen at the bottom of the hat and just makes this scenario very unlikely. I could read in low light (dark walled room, no artificial light, no direct sunlight, 2 windows, and cloud cover) but it was painful to me and those I had test. Reading like that for longer than an hour would have been very unpleasant and I have a hard time imagining someone doing that every day for months. And it makes me wonder why Joseph would say that the stone in the hat method was easier compared to reading behind a curtain. If I was doing this magic trick, I would keep the curtain the entire time. The hat I have is a white wool felt tophat. I'm not sure age would have much impact. Here's a picture of an actual ~1830 hat - https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/112652. That actually has more fur covering than the one I have. I would consider that an old hat because of how ratty it looks. But I would also expect that to let in roughly the same amount of light because it is the stiff, structural part of the hat that is the densest part. And if his hat is completely floppy, I would expect that would be worse for reading as it no longer would have a flat bottom. Even in the best lighting (full sun), if there was a crease in the paper, it made it harder to read. I tried with candles. It is evening here so I can't really compare it to natural light, so I first tried with a pitch black room to see how helpful a candle would be (I'll test tomorrow to see how much a candle helps with natural daylight). In my test, the candle really didn't help all that much. Having the hat directly above the candle required me to get really close to the candle to the point I worried I would start a fire. If I put the candle to the side of the hat, I could read but only on that one side (and my hand would get uncomfortably hot). I would have needed at least 2 and probably 3-4 candles to read. I suspect that when I test it tomorrow, I'll find the natural light to be brighter than the candle and not help all that much. Also, when I say low light, I mean just natural light with cloud covering in a room that has dark walls and windows that don't face the sun directly. In that light, I can easily read a book, write stuff, do everything I would normally do. I don't need artificial lighting turned on. I would expect this is the normal amount of light that Joseph would work under. It isn't night time or twilight. I wouldn't expect the scribes to have a candle.

Could be. Indeed, could very well be. For what it's worth, I value our friendship (cyber-friendship though it is) highly. Thanks. A Brother in Christ, Ken

You have mentioned low light being the biggest problem in your experiment. If Joseph had been in a room with low light, they would have candles around so the scribe could see his papers. I wonder if a candle placed next to your hat, or underneath, would the candle light illuminate the inside of the hat? What color and material is your hat? Harris said it was an old white hat, which would scatter more light inside than a new black hat. Also the material would make a difference, and thickness of the material. A flimsy and well worn old white felt hat would let far more light in than a high-quality and expensive black wool or beaver fur hat.

Reading the book Misreading Scripture Through Western Eyes opened my eyes to this need. How can you really hold to the teachings of a book if you don't understand what the author means? Obviously, Dan doesn't know it all and probably has some things wrong, but he could be one of the tools people use to gain understanding.

I think I have been very clear what my issue is with your approach in the last several posts. I have focused on one instance to avoid confusion and the need or inclination to fill in gaps. Maybe I will put it through Chat when I get home since you seem comfortable with it. But since I am waiting in a doctor’s office, I will resort to a math analogy for now. Dan says something (see the full quote) that could be framed as -1 + +1, where negative 1 is the fact that there are those who see his stuff as supporting lack of faith and positive 1 is for those who see his stuff as supporting their faith. (This is obvious with the premise faith is positive, which is not the precise premise I work with but seems to be the one you are using, feel free to correct me if I misunderstood and you do not see a loss of faith as a negative without much nuance.) Taken together, such an equation results in a balance, a neutral position. But if someone removes the -1 from the full equation and points to that as if it exists independently of the other half of the equation, people would assume the equation total is -1, where the negative is only supports loss of faith. But is that an accurate portrayal of the actual equation of -1 + +1 in your view?

It wasn’t my favorite, but definitely worth it. So glad they dumped the relationship between Neelix and Kes and altered his personality to something less aggressive. Always wanted to fast forward over those parts, lol. While there’s the idea we shouldn’t judge alien races by human standards, get real, they aren’t alien, Kes even looked and acted very young human at that stage of her life. How she acted is more about who she was than a comparative biological age (20 iirc, Neelix feels middle aged, even older to me, but the actor was mid 30s and supposedly his race had similar life spans). She acted more like a teenager to me, just coming of age. Mostly concerned with the writers who chose the big romance to begin with to be between a young, very unexperienced female and much older and experienced and somewhat aggressive male. The show explored different aspects of humanity by dressing them up as aliens. And then they showed human reactions to them. Justifying jealousy and paranoia, domination because it’s the norm for an alien race supposedly…yeah, doesn’t work for me in this case. They were too human.

Only part of them. Oh, brother. I provide links, Cal. You and others have complained that I am too verbose, and here you are complaining that I am not including enough content. Because that is the half I find problematic. For the umpteenth time, I continue to listen to Dan, as I think he has some useful things to day. That said, I also think he is seeking to subvert the Church's efforts. Which you support by showing the trimmed quote. Again, I frequently provide links. I am quoting those things he has said which I find problematic. I haven't done that either. That you can’t see it here when I see you recognizing it in others is troubling to me. Ah. The "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you" approach. Feel free to present evidence that I have misrepresented Dan. Again, I am willing to listen. Please compare what you quoted when asking me to what Seeking quoted when providing context. I can't read your mind, Cal. If you have a complaint, lay it out. I have no doubt this is true. But it doesn’t mean you aren’t trimming a quote which changes its meaning, Please show me where. Oi. I suspect that you are equating A) disagreement with you to B) me not "seeing" what I am doing. It may well be that I am not misrepresenting Dan. I am, however, willing to listen to what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

I forgot about Deep Space, until you reminded me. Very good show, I managed to watch reruns of Star Trek; Voyager, I enjoyed that. Never got to see it first time around.

Maybe for the same thing I cheer about Dan, his efforts to try and teach what scripture actually meant to those who wrote it. Only if you ignore the context: Dehlin seems to have made the same inferences I have. Quit a non sequitur you have there. Quite a mischaracterization. Another non sequitur. I am not speaking of "every critic." I am speaking of Dan McClellan. I think it is incumbent upon faithful and observant Latter-day Saints to not offer reasons to other Latter-day Saints for them to abandon their faith. That is how Dan has characterized his work, and he seems to be quite proud of it ("sweet spot," "doing something right"). I do. I think we ought to embrace the healing power of "and." He is actively working against the Church, and he enjoys the money and notoriety that he is generating along the way. I continue to listen to Dan's content for this reason. I think our purpose is to exercise our agency to make good choices, choices congruent with God's will. Dan McClellan has publicly and repeatedly made statements describing himself as providing "reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - for him - the "sweet spot" and evidence that he is "probably doing something right?" I don't think that is congruent with God's will. Thanks, -Smac

Only part of them. Why do you only offer up and ask me the question with half of what he says? Which you support by showing the trimmed quote. That you can’t see it here when I see you recognizing it in others is troubling to me. Please compare what you quoted when asking me to what Seeking quoted when providing context. I have no doubt this is true. But it doesn’t mean you aren’t trimming a quote which changes its meaning, leaving out half of the equation. I don’t know why you are doing this, I just see it happening.

Yes, the membership withdrawal is multifunctional, serving more than one purpose. It feels short on details for me….but at least he is making an effort and I applaud that. I could have written things for FAIR over and over again and besides once way back when with other women, I have only done so in private ways. It’s somewhat hypocritical for me to complain and nitpick when I choose not to do it myself.

And yet here you are, speaking for him, I am not. I am quoting him, verbatim, frequently, with links, and then I am responding to his quotes. I am letting him speak for himself. I have not imputed to him admissions that he is subverting the Church's efforts. That is my own conclusion. Not sure I have done that. I haven't done that either. I'm happy to listen to what you have to say. I can't do much with unsubstantiated assertions. I think some Latter-day Saints are listening to Dan, and he is saying that he is offering them reasons to abandon their faith. Ipso facto, I think Dan's conduct along these lines is subversive. I have explained in some detail why I have reached this conclusion, much of which includes hyperlinks and verbatim quotations. I have also explained, many times, that I hope that I am wrong. I don't begrudge anyone their right to free speech. Dan is perfectly at liberty to say what he likes. And his audience is likewise at perfect liberty to listen to what he has to say and draw inferences therefrom. Some apparently have concluded, based on his social media content, that he is an atheist. I have found some of that content to be subversive relative to the Church and its efforts. I may well be wrong. I hope I am. If I'm right, though, I think that needs to be addressed by those having authority and stewardship. Thanks, -Smac

It’s a different vibe. (I seem to be using this word everywhere lately, need to find some other options that feel they fit as well, lol). I like both. I think I liked Deep Space Nine the most, probably because it got complicated, multidimensional (in multiple senses ).

The immediate thing that popped into my mind reading the statement you responded to was, "If he is an advocate against faith, why would he publicly pronounce he's a person of faith"? I think a lot of the angst comes from the difficulty we all have compartmentalizing when a consensus/expert opinion doesn't match our own personal opinion -- so when we see someone else compartmentalizing those things (particularly, publicly), it seems unnatural and off-putting. Which naturally brings out that rascally fundamental attribution error. I think we all like to convince ourselves that we live our lives as "black and white" as possible, but ultimately, we're all just getting crotchety because someone is inhabiting different shades of grey than we do.

I don't do that either. I have considered his comments in context, and find that he is subversive, in ways similar to how Dehlin behaved prior to his loss of membership. I have quoted this, and more. Here. Here. Here. I don't know that this context improves or clarifies what he seems to be bragging about, namely, that he is "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful." He said that on Dehlin's podcast, and now has said it on Rogan's podcast. I don't know what you mean by "missionary tags 24/7." And while "wearing our missionary tags 24/7" is one thing, Dan publicly - and repeatedly - bragging about "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and calling this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right," is quite another. I am thinking of Mosiah 18: I don't think I have ever given someone the impression that I am an atheist. I think Dan has. Apparently quite a lot. Enough that he has to produce social media content to explain that he is not. You really think that Dan going on Dehlin's and Rogan's podcasts and talking about how he is "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and calling this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right," is one of the "multiple missions" of the Latter-day Saints? Yes, that is possible. I don't know what you mean here. Dan has repeatedly and publicly spoken about the "reasons" he is "offering" to other Latter-day Saints "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. He has called what he is doing a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right." Thanks, -Smac