All Activity

"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, that we are the spirit offspring of divine parents. 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, perhaps, the unexpected 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, uncreated, and without beginning. 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 your philosophical demands nor "infinite regression". So, 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

And yet here you are, speaking for him, telling us what you see him really believing, even editing his quotes so they say something they don’t say in their original form. And that doesn’t remind you of anything? C’mon, Smac! You can see it when others do it. Wake up, please.

Why do Latter-day Saints need to publicly declare we are Christians? Because some segments of society go out of their way to speak for us, rather than let us speak for ourselves. That's not the case with Dan, who has every opportunity to speak for himself. In so speaking, he seems to be giving some (many?) people the impression that he is an atheist. I can go along with that. I'm not sure it applies here, where Dan has said things that a regular person can reasonably construe as being incongruent with accepting the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes, this can happen. For some, though, Dan's behavior is open to interpretation (such that it does not "only mean certain things"). I allow the possibility that Dan "has actual faith." Much of what he says, though, seems to give the impression that he does not have faith. Hence his need to produce social media content to explain to his listeners that he is not an atheist. Also, I think Dan is doing a lot more than just "approaching scripture publicly with academic methodology." I also think Dan often uses pretensions about "the data" to smuggle in and bolster his personal opinions and presuppositions and ideological commitments. I still watch some of Dan's content, but his social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. That is sort of the risk you take when you make yourself a social media content creator. Clicks count. Edgy and provocative stuff gets clicks. Thanks, -Smac

I don’t need to reconcile it since I don’t remove context, his own words, that tells me he is not trying to persuade people to alter their faith positions, whether they believe or don’t believe. Ripping off Seeking’s effort to provide fuller context: I am not someone who feels we should be wearing our missionary tags 24/7 even if we need to be Saints every second we exists. That’s not the calling every Saint holds, imo. Our faith has multiple missions of caring for others. At times that means proselytizing. At times it means redemption of the dead. At times it means looking out for others’ physical and emotional welfare. At all times it should mean caring and compassion and valuing truth. Valuing truth in all the fields it exists in is part of perfecting the Saints imo. I believe Dan is doing this by sharing what he has learned through his academic studies. I think he has chosen to exclude public declaration of his personal faith in his public teaching so as to make this scholarship accessible to the most people and to try to avoid as much as possible his work being used to hurt and control others. Not possible to stop that from happening, even Jesus’ efforts have gotten weaponized to the extreme by many, justifying what is actually greed and arrogance by clothing it in piety, something he spoke directly against.

Maybe for the same thing I cheer about Dan, his efforts to try and teach what scripture actually meant to those who wrote it. Just because someone is a critic of the Church doesn’t mean they can’t love scholarship because they love learning. Not every critic or follower of Dehlin has an agenda where everything they do with religious study is for the purpose of destroying the Church or people’s acceptance of it. I don’t think that is even Dehlin’s purpose. I see his purpose as primarily fame and fortune, criticizing the Church is a vehicle he has chosen. I could be wrong, I am heavily biased in his case and not because he is a critic. I know what scripture means to me, I know quite a bit of what it means to people in the here and now. I don’t need more lessons on those, not from someone who doesn’t hold those beliefs…I don’t need a LDS telling me what Catholics or Protestants get out of the Bible, even if they are a scholar. Otoh, I need scholars desperately if I want to attempt to know what it meant back when the original of these words were shared in that ancient faith community. Scholars are more likely to approach those beliefs given their ability to better understand the original language and context. Hardly a perfect system, but better imo than believing we can get there by reading and interpreting with our own biases a modern translation. Dan makes that study very accessible. And he is good at pointing out where people are claiming to be doing that, but aren’t. Not the part of his work I am interested in, but I think it has great value in this political environment. We should be questioning why others are promoting their positions. We should be especially questioning why we promote our own and dumping false justifications. True agency requires awareness of why we make the choices we do. IMO, this is the primary lesson we are here in mortality to learn.

Which is most likely for you? For me, #1 seems most probable. In that model, our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother would themselves be the children of an earlier Heavenly Father and Mother, who in turn had divine Parents, and so forth – an infinite regression of Gods. [1] Daughter of an Exalted God and Goddess She was the spirit offspring of an earlier Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother. Born into a previous generation of divine parents, she eventually progressed through mortality and exaltation, becoming a Goddess and the eternal companion of the Heavenly Father of Earth. [2] Created by Her Future Husband Heavenly Mother was created or formed by the God who would later become her eternal husband. She was made in his image but was not his literal spirit offspring. Her existence therefore originated through divine creation rather than genealogical parentage. [3] Daughter of a God from an Earlier Creation Her father was an exalted God who presided over an earlier creation or inhabited world. She may have been associated with his divine household without being his literal spirit offspring. After entering into an eternal marriage with the Heavenly Father of Earth, she progressed through mortality and exaltation. In this scenario, she may or may not have shared the same divine parentage as her future husband. [4] An Eternal, Rather Than Genealogical, Origin Heavenly Mother has always existed as a divine being. She did not originate as the offspring or creation of another God, nor did she progress from mortality to godhood. Her divine status is therefore eternal rather than the result of genealogical descent or exaltation. One conceptual distinction I'd make is that #1 is genealogical, #2 is creative, #3 is genealogical or familial but not necessarily biological, and #4 is eternal. That gives you four genuinely different models rather than four variations of the same parentage theory.

Over the last couple of years. I have managed to catch up on the Star Trek movies, original cast/next generation/modern revamp. For myself, I still prefer the movies with the original cast.

Why do Latter-day Saints need to publicly declare we are Christians? Because people infer all sorts of things when others don’t follow the same rules they do. They often never question the assumptions they bring to the world, so others’ behaviour can only mean certain things to them. And in Dan’s case, this often means they refuse to allow the possibility he has actual faith while approaching scripture publicly with academic methodology.

Well stated, I agree.