All Activity

"Before Abraham was, I AM." The truth exists. We cannot own the truth like a possession. Can we conform our minds to things that are true, and have by faith a level of dark understanding about supernatural reality? I think you would grant that through the light of reason we can conform our minds to demonstrable truths about natural reality with much greater certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, as they say in the courtroom? You have written a lot about this and have given it more thought than I have. I am interested to know if you find it problematic to understand truth in the way I have described?

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any. Can you help in this regard? They were married as husband and wife. Totally justified in having sex and also, who would go around bragging about it or making statements. He was hiding all his marriages from Emma. That right there is not only scandalous but indicative of horrible behavior. If it was so honorable to have a bunch of wives (even little girls) why not be open about it??? Probably because it was not only illegal, but he was having sex with them which is.... Adultery on his part and probably on the part of some of the women if they were married to other men at the time. In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this? If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence. What do you write in your journal about your sex life? Probably nothing and if you did you wouldnt share it here would you. Of course there is no evidence. The only "Evidence" anyone needs is a marriage. It is an expectation in marriage. I dont know why some are so hell bent on proving Joseph didnt have sex with some of his wives and not others. The dosctine is lieterally about sex among other things... raising up seed. If he wasnt trying to procreate with each of these wives he was disobeying the lord apparently. My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death. They do? Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s? Yea I they place Joseph Smith in the modern era why not apply the modern era laws? Oh... yea because he would be in preison and looked at no differently than warren Jeffs who still has many of his brides dfending him just like Joseph did. Possibly, yes. Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship. They were married- that is all the proof needed. What proof is there of your fellow ward members having sex?? Esp the ones who have not had children yet? Answer: None unless they are going around talking about it, but everyone knows there is like a 99.99% chance they are. Not sure what you mean here. Look at the crap the AZ Gov candidate lamb is involved in. It isnt polygamy but do you think for a minute running for president (which Joseph did apparently) and everyone knew he had a pile of wives, was detroying printing presses etc he would survive in the current political climate?? He didnt even survive it in his day both figuratively and literally. I think this is incorrect. See here. Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation. Do you have contrary evidence? That Joseph and Emma were never sealed? I have not ever seen any proof with her name on anything resembling a sealing. There might be something out there, but my understanding is it isnt settled science so to speak. Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion. JS is worthy of being mocked. Thats what you get when you marry women behind your wife's back. Thanks, -Smac

I dont have any. "Yea keep believing he didn’t have sex with her." "You also placed this scenario in today’s political landscape so today’s laws apply as well. He would be in prison for not only marrying a 14year old and having sex with her." "I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls..." "Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them." "Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them." "Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course" Do you intend to retract or amend any of these statements? Nobody disputes that. If the "marriage" was dynastic, then perhaps not. We are going with the evidence. I encourage you to do the same. I see you are pretty invested in this issue. Your various statements above, and your comparisons between Joseph and Warren Jeffs, are likely coming from a place of disgust and anger, so much so that you are seeking to say inflammatory and offensive things to Latter-day Saints, who revere Joseph as a prophet. You clearly are not saying these things to persuade, am I right about that? If so, what is the intended purpose of these various statements? And given that you now admit you have no evidence to support your factual averments, why are you presenting them as factual? Thanks, -smac

No. That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference. If you have evidence of an alternative and superior inference, I'm happy to consider it. Okay. What evidence do you have that Emma was not sealed to Joseph? Thanks, -Smac

I am reiterating my request for evidence of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen. On a somewhat related note, my wife is a great-great granddaughter of John D. Lee. Brigham Young adopted Lee on January 25, 1846, when Brigham was 44 years old and Lee was 33. That's only an 11-year difference, and both men were well into adulthood, and Lee's father was still alive (he died in 1850), and Lee did not legally take on his "adoptive" father's surname. So that seems pretty strange, particularly if this point is being presented in a decontextualized way. Some of the weirdness goes away when more context is provided. Both Young and Lee were Latter-day Saints. In the 1840s (especially in Nauvoo), some Church members were sealed to other members—often leaders—in a spiritual father-son relationship. The idea was to create an unbroken chain of sealing back to Adam and to link people into the priesthood network of the kingdom. Brigham Young himself was sealed to Joseph Smith; he in turn had dozens of men (reports commonly put the number around 38) sealed to him as adopted sons in early 1846. John D. Lee was one of them—he later described himself as Young’s second adopted son. Lee was already a loyal, active member (missionary, Council of Fifty clerk, etc.). The sealing formalized a spiritual and practical bond: Lee was to look to Young’s temporal interests, and Young was to secure Lee’s spiritual welfare as an heir in the family. Lee sometimes signed his name in ways that reflected the relationship and referred to himself as Young’s adopted son for years afterward. The practice was later discontinued as the Church’s understanding of sealings developed (especially after temples became available and proxy work for biological ancestors expanded). It was never a conventional adoption meant to raise a minor; Lee was an adult convert and leader at the time. So, contexts matters. It helps us understand a facially strange circumstance. It does not fully resolve the weirdness, it just mitigates it. The Church was, after all, still very much in its formative stages, and I think some practices need to be viewed through that lens. Which brings us to the marriage of Helen Mar Kimball to Joseph Smith, Jr., the examination of which may benefit by comparing and contrasting it with the Young-Lee adoption item. Here's what I think: Both practices were irregular by 19th-century (and modern) social norms, yet were motivated by the same emerging Latter-day Saint theology of sealing: the creation of eternal familial bonds that linked people into a priesthood network extending back to Adam, independent of ordinary biological or legal relationships. In the Law of Adoption, adult men (including John D. Lee) were sealed to Brigham Young as spiritual sons. The relationship was understood as religious and dynastic—Lee was to advance Young’s temporal interests while receiving spiritual inheritance—rather than a conventional parent-child arrangement. It was performed in the Nauvoo Temple period as part of the broader effort to organize the Saints into sealed “families” of the kingdom. Joseph Smith’s sealing to Helen Mar Kimball (age 14 in 1843) operated under the same sealing logic, applied to plural marriage. Contemporary and later accounts from Helen herself and others frame it primarily as a dynastic or protective sealing that connected her family to the prophet, not as an ordinary marriage. Historians across perspectives note the absence of contemporary evidence of consummation; many treat it as consistent with other early sealings that created eternal links without requiring (or, in the case of a 14-year-old, plausibly involving) a sexual relationship. Like the adoptions, it was justified by the theological claim that such sealings secured place and protection in the afterlife and bound families together beyond death. The analogy is therefore structural: both were non-standard sealings that created spiritual kinship for religious ends, performed by prophetic authority, and later discontinued or reframed as the Church’s understanding of sealing developed. The differences are also clear—one was a same-sex, adult-to-adult priesthood adoption; the other involved a minor female under the practice of plural marriage (albeit with her parents' consent (it was Heber's idea, actually)—but both reflect the same mid-1840s impulse to organize eternal relationships through temple ordinances rather than through ordinary civil or biological norms. What are your thoughts about this? Thanks, -Smac

I dont have any. They were sealed as husband and wife. According to LDS doctrine it wouldf have been ok to have sex right?? It def was permissible so why does everyone fall all over themselves trying to prove he didnt? He is supposed to...

Hi longview and TheNehor. I can follow-up with a little more "clarity" longview. The Church has used imagery from the physical cosmos to symbolize the blessed just in eternity. Dante famously used this in his epic poem the Paradiso, while borrowing from other traditional sources. "And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever." (Dan 12:3) I would propose that the firmament is the whole collection of the stars that illuminate the night skies. This would be the glory of all the saints together as one hierarchical and harmonious, beautiful whole. But then there are the individual stars, uniquely special in their assigned place and glory, according to God's will. This is why I agree that there are degrees of glory in heaven as well as in the physical creation with which we are familiar. "But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. For not all flesh is alike, but there is one kind for men, and another for fish." (I Cor. 15:39) Here again we see as well as with the verses that follow, a deliberate hierarchy in creation, which all announce God's glory. A fish is certainly a tremendous creation which sings a greater "song" to God than does unanimated matter. But everything God makes gives its praise to God, according to its capacity, to what the created thing is: "O ye fire and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye cold and heat, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye dews and hoar frosts, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye frost and cold, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever. O ye ice and snow, bless the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever." [Daniel 3:66-70] Back to Corinthians and the verse TheNehor was discussing with you longview: "There are celestial bodies and there are terrestrial bodies; but the glory of of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another." (I Cor. 15:40) Once again we see creation's hierarchy, with a sharp distinct between earthly and heavenly. I think no one would ascribe the praise of fire and heat, blessing or glorifying God, with that of the brute beast. A magnificent horse is a beautiful beast and surely praises God more in obedience to its own nature and capacity. But will fish and horse, or fire and heat be accounted as terrestrial or celestial? I propose that it is plausible to limit the celestial glories to the creature made in God's image. I fear that the Latter-day Saints are understandably focused with God's image as physical (because of all the flak you have to take about it), as to sometimes look past an even sharper distinction between man and the good animals. The animals made without powers of reasoning (an intellect) and loving (free will). I am not trying to convince the LDS of anything except that I wish you could appreciate a little better how the Catholic is filled with wonder at being made in a spiritual image of God. Will and intellect are invisible to the senses. What a responsibility for such a creature to choose to rationally love and obey and praise God? Unlike the always good (obedient to their natures) beasts, we have the potential for evil, to disobey our natures, but we can only do so through disobeying our reason and choosing. This is what the good beasts can never attain, the image of God in man, by our own powers of reasoning and loving. "There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory." (I Co. 15:41) This is too long already. If anyone is curious, I will try to explain the plausibility for why one might hold that Jesus is the Sun, His Mother is the moon. and the wise, just, and redeemed will join them shining in the celestial glory of the stars. I do not think a Catholic has to accept this belief, so I certainly don't expect LDS to accept it. But the teaching is supremely beautiful to my beholding of it. Dante immortalizes it with loving poetical fire. According to Artificial Intelligence, Aquinas argues this position in his Commentary on I Corinthians. I would add that if AI is correct, Aquinas follows a respectable school of thought immortalizing a beautiful teaching with cool intellectual rigor. I just love the idea of the loving poet, and rational intellect, representing the two sides of our understanding of the image of God in us. It seems so fitting - coming round to magnify the same theological positions in two different ways! The will and the intellect. Love and reason, like mercy and justice, kissing in peace and harmony! Thanks for your consideration.

i dont know if you have children or not, but is there any proof anywhere you and your spouse had sex? Proof that I can look up? Did you testify of it, write an article, tell all your friends? Etc... There isnt any proof laying around I had sex before having children but i had a few episodes and that was before I was even married. Just because there is no "evidence" or statement that doesn't mean a thing. No one runs around esp back then making a brag about having sex with their secret husband who is married to ten other women. The very purpose of polygamy is to have children so sex is going to be involved ..whether they had kids or not.

Does the doc say her name at all? From what I understand is she was not sealed to Joseph....For sure not before 22 other women were we do know that is pretty much settled. After the 22 initial wives... possibly.

Yea she is a "Victim." I know you dont have a problem with prophets having sex with teenage girls, but hey anything to defend Joseph. The poem below written by Hellen Mar Kimball doesnt portray someone who is happy nor really had a choice in the whole matter. I mean what 14 year old girl is going to want to marry some 38 year man? Answer: None "I thought through this life my time will be my own The step I now am taking’s for eternity alone, No one need be the wiser, through time I shall be free, And as the past hath been the future still will be. To my guileless heart all free from worldly care And full of blissful hopes and youthful visions rare The world seamed bright the thret’ning clouds were kept From sight and all looked fair... ...but pitying angels wept. They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold. And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled, Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise, Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price; Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny, And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes, And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart, Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot; But could’st thou see the future & view that glorious crown, Awaiting you in Heaven you would not weep nor mourn. Pure and exalted was thy father’s aim, he saw A glory in obeying this high celestial law, For to thousands who’ve died without the light I will bring eternal joy & make thy crown more bright. I’d been taught to reveire the Prophet of God And receive every word as the word of the Lord, But had this not come through my dear father’s mouth, I should ne’r have received it as God’s sacred truth." Then why did Joseph keep his marriages secret from Emma? I'll tell ytiou why...because he was havng sex with them. The whole doctrine is for polygamy to be used as a method to rais up seed which means to have sex with his wives. Just because none of the wives had any children doesnt mean he wasnt having sex with them. Was Helen MAr Kimball sealed to Joseph as a wife or daughter? A: She was sealed as a wife...so sex it is of course 1. Helen’s Explicit Use of the Word "Wife" In her later journals, public defenses of polygamy, and autobiographical letters, Helen directly referred to herself as a plural wife. For example, in an 1881 autobiographical letter detailing the arrangement, she signed her name as "Whitney Smith" to acknowledge both her earthly husband (Horace Whitney) and her sealed husband (Joseph Smith). [1, 2, 3]

It seems like you are making Dan an offender for a word: I'm not sure about that, but I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Imagine if you saw the following conversation: Person A: "I am a scholar of religion. Using a hammer to cut a two-by-four into equal lengths doesn't make sense. It violates everything we know about the operation of carpentry. So from a scholarly point of view, cutting a two-by-four with a hammer is not something that is supported by the data." Person B: "Well, yeah. That's pretty obvious. A hammer is not the right tool for the job. The right tool would be a saw. Also, what does your being a 'scholar of religion' have to do with carpentry or cutting a two-by-four?" What "claim" are you referencing here? I don't think Dan lays out much of anything relative to his pronouncements about miraculous events. He does not explain or define evidentiary parameters, what quantum of evidence is or ought to be used when evaluating miraculous claims, how methodological naturalism (and its a priori rejection of miraculous events) is a useful tool for examining miraculous claims, what does and does not constitute admissible and probative "data" or evidence, what paradigmatic presuppositions are in play when evaluating the verity and reality of miraculous events, and so on. In making pronouncements about the miracles of Jesus Christ and the theophanies of Joseph Smith, he offers just conclusory stuff, on the strength of "Hi, I'm Dan McClellan and I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion." I'm not in the same game as Dan. He's all about the social media content, and the clicks that bring notoriety, attention, praise and money. Dan's 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. His content also coming across as more desperate for attention. A sampling of recent splash images for his YouTube vids: To me, this stuff is not congruent with what I had thought was Dan's original purpose in going on social media (as I summed up: "thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience"). He is, of course, at liberty to ham up his social media content, mug for the camera, and do whatever else he thinks might get him more clicks, but those clicks come at a cost. Thanks, -Smac

It really doesn’t. It can have a few meanings but it doesn’t refer to widows.

It is a great place to start, imo. Not too technical, but has some very useful insights.

It seems like you are making Dan an offender for a word: "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." It's exactly the same claim that you are making. "Without extraordinary evidence" there is no way someone that uses the historical critical method can confirm a miracle on the order of the resurrection. He lays it out. Much pithier than you I might add.

So the reference to virgins in Doctrine and Covenants 132 is different from 1 Nephi 11:15–20, 2 Nephi 17:14, and Alma 7:10?

It's possible where some unforeseen death occurs before consumation or they choose to remain celibate.

This is an interesting suggestion. I would like to better understand it. What does "should" mean here? In a criminal case, the evidentiary bar "should" be and is, "much higher" than in a civil case because because of factors such as A) the severity of consequences (loss of liberty is possible in a criminal case, not so for a civil one), B) presumption of innocence and allocation of risk (as a starting premise), C) Due Process, D) power imbalance and E) historical experience, observation, and design. The "should" is clear and justified. But what does "should" mean in the context of accepting or rejecting, say, the reality of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, His divine Sonship, His role as our Savior and Redeemer, and so on? "Higher" than what? What quantum of evidence is in play? Preponderance? Clear and Convincing? Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Something else? Says who? Who is it that declares that "the bar for establishing a miraculous event should be much higher," and why is that person's say-so authoritative? For what purpose? Evidence is adduced in, say, civil litigation to establish or disestablish the facts of a dispute between two sides and how the law applies to those facts. "{T}he bar for establishing a miraculous event should be much higher" in order to . . . do what? What are the rules of evidence? What does and does not count as admissible? What is the probative weight assigned? Who gets to determine all this? I am curious if you accept, as historical fact, the assassination of Caesar on the floor of the Senate. Julius Caesar was assassinated on 15 March 44 BCE (the Ides of March) during a meeting of the Senate held in the Curia of the Theatre of Pompey. A group of senators (led by Marcus Brutus and Gaius Cassius, with others including the Casca brothers, Tillius Cimber, and Decimus Brutus) attacked him with daggers. He was stabbed multiple times (accounts vary between 23 and 35 wounds) and died at the foot of a statue of Pompey. Main surviving sources: Nicolaus of Damascus (contemporary, writing in the late 1st century BCE for Augustus): the earliest and most detailed surviving narrative of the conspiracy and the attack itself. He was not an eyewitness but had access to contemporary information. Cicero (contemporary letters): confirms the event occurred and describes the immediate political aftermath; he was not present at the stabbing. Later historians drawing on earlier (often lost) accounts: Plutarch (Life of Caesar, Life of Brutus), Suetonius (Life of Julius Caesar), Appian (Civil Wars), and Cassius Dio. These were written 100–250 years later. There is no surviving official Senate record, forensic report, or direct eyewitness testimony from participants. Contemporary oral reports circulated quickly and fed into the written accounts. The political consequences (civil wars, the rise of the Second Triumvirate, and eventually Augustus) are extensively documented and consistent with Caesar’s sudden removal. Critique of the quality of the evidence The core fact—that Caesar was killed by a group of senators in the Senate on the Ides of March—is among the best-attested events in ancient history. Multiple independent traditions (pro- and anti-Caesar) agree on the essentials, and there is no serious ancient counter-narrative denying that the assassination occurred. The rapid political fallout is independently attested. However, the evidence has clear limitations: No direct eyewitness accounts survive. Even Nicolaus was not present; later writers are further removed and rely on intermediate sources that are lost. Provenance and chain of custody. The historical evidence purports to be written by Nicolaus, Cicero, etc., but the original documents do not appear to exist. And even if they did, there is no way to verify actual authorship. Moreover, the chain of custody for these documents has all sorts of gaps and deficiencies. Detail conflicts. Numbers of wounds, who struck the first or fatal blow, Caesar’s last words (if any), and the exact sequence differ across sources. Dramatic elements (omens, last speeches) are more literary than historical. Bias and purpose. Sources were written by authors with political agendas (e.g., Nicolaus for Augustus; later writers reflecting imperial or Republican perspectives). There was no formal public inquiry or deposition of witnesses. No physical corroboration. No weapons, body, or contemporary documentary record of the act itself survives. The location is archaeologically known, but that does not confirm the specific events. In short, the fact of the assassination is secure by the standards of ancient history; the precise blow-by-blow narrative is not. The quality is high for the central claim and moderate-to-low for the colorful details. What is the "standard" by which individuals should assess the divinity of Jesus Christ? The theophanies of Joseph Smith? The physical reality of the Gold Plates? The origins of the text of The Book of Mormon? And who establishes that standard? And why is that person's say-so definitive? What is your take as to the quality and quantum of historical evidence for the physical reality of the Gold Plates as contrasted with the historical evidence for the assassination of Caesar? No. The scientific consensus is not sacrosanct. It is not perfect and pristine and 100% correct. Our command of it is incomplete, blinkered, and tainted with biases and decidedly nonscientific influences. I appreciate what scientists have to offer and contribute to humanity, but I can't get on board with the idea that any one of them (let alone all of them together) has/have a pristine and unassailable command of everthing there is to know. The quote from Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" can, to me, be applied to suggest that human knowledge, logic, and science cannot explain everything that exists in the universe. Our grasp and command of "science" is, in many respects, incomplete, blinkered, and tainted with biases and decidedly nonscientific influences. I think it has a lot to do "with the actual practice of science." Science is the most reliable method we have for investigating the natural world precisely because it emphasizes empirical testing, falsification, and independent replication. Those features give it a strong track record on many questions. At the same time, the enterprise is carried out by humans operating inside institutions, so real-world constraints on how much weight we place on any particular scientific claim are warranted. That said, several well-documented problems justify that caution: Irreproducibility is widespread. Large-scale replication efforts in psychology, biomedicine, and other fields of "science" have found that a substantial fraction of published findings fail to replicate at the claimed effect sizes (or at all). This is not a minor glitch; it indicates that many results that survive peer review and reach the literature are still unreliable. Human biases and incentives shape outcomes. Researchers are subject to confirmation bias, career pressure to publish positive results, and the “file-drawer” problem (negative or null results are less likely to appear). Statistical practices such as p-hacking and selective reporting further inflate false-positive rates. These are not occasional lapses; they are systematic features of the current incentive structure. External influences are common. Funding sources—industry, government agencies, foundations—can affect which questions are asked, how studies are designed, which results are emphasized, and which are suppressed or never pursued. Regulatory capture, publication bias, and the revolving door between academia and industry are documented phenomena, not conspiracy theories. Methodological and theoretical presumptions are not neutral. Science operates under working assumptions (for example, methodological naturalism) that are useful for many purposes but are not themselves empirically proven universal truths. When those assumptions are treated as settled conclusions rather than provisional tools, claims that fall outside them can be dismissed without adequate engagement. Peer review and consensus are imperfect filters. Peer review catches some errors but routinely misses others; it is also subject to groupthink, status hierarchies, and ideological conformity on contested topics. A prevailing consensus is evidence of what most specialists currently believe, not automatic proof that the belief is correct. None of this means science should be discarded or that every claim is equally suspect. Core results in physics and chemistry that have been repeatedly tested under controlled conditions and that generate precise, successful predictions deserve high confidence. Claims that rest on weaker designs, smaller samples, heavy statistical adjustment, or strong institutional incentives deserve correspondingly less. The practical implication is straightforward: we should treat scientific findings as fallible products of a fallible process, demand transparent methods and successful independent replication where possible, and calibrate confidence to the actual quality and robustness of the evidence rather than to the authority of the label “science.” None of that is forthcoming in Dan's social media content. Not only is he not purveying "scientific" data, he is broadly conclusory in his pronouncements about what "the data" do or do not show about miraculous events (the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the theophanies of Joseph Smith, the origins of The Book of Mormon, etc.). No explanation as to what method(s) he is using to collect and analyze data. Just "I'm Dan McClellan, and I'm a scholar..." Relevance to assessing miraculous events The scientific method is optimized for generating and testing claims about regular, observable, and in-principle repeatable features of the natural world. It works by formulating falsifiable hypotheses, controlling variables, collecting empirical data, and seeking independent replication. Those conditions are rarely met by claims about the divinity of Jesus Christ or the theophanies of Joseph Smith. These claims are singular historical or personal events rather than recurring natural processes. There is no controlled experiment that can re-create the Resurrection, the First Vision, or the appearance of Moroni and then vary conditions to see whether the outcome changes. The relevant data are largely testimonial, documentary, and contextual; they can be examined with historical methods, but historical methods themselves do not operate under the same standards of controlled replication and predictive testing that define experimental science. (And Dan McClellan surely isn't speaking of "data" in anything close to the "scientific method" sense.) They also typically bracket supernatural causation (methodological naturalism), so they are not designed to confirm or disconfirm a miracle claim in the first place. In my view, an individual evaluating such claims therefore has to rely on other modes of inquiry: historical source criticism, assessment of the coherence and consequences of the reported experiences, personal or communal spiritual witness (we Latter-day Saints put a lot of "ultimate" emphasis on this), and philosophical judgments about the possibility of divine action. Those are legitimate forms of reasoning, but they are not applications of the scientific method. Science can inform background questions (textual transmission, archaeological context, psychological studies of religious experience), yet it does not possess the tools to settle the central question of whether the events were divine. Treating them as if they do simply misapplies the method. Relevance to assessing Dan McClellan's social media content In my view, the foregoing items materially diminish and undercut the force of Dan McClellan’s “data > dogma” framing when it is applied to miraculous or theophanic claims. This is the area where my critique focuses. First, even within domains where the scientific method is well-suited, published “data” are not self-interpreting or automatically reliable. Replication failures, publication bias, career and funding incentives, and unexamined theoretical assumptions regularly produce results that later fail or require substantial revision. Treating “what the data show” as to miraculous events as a transparent, dogma-free verdict therefore overstates the cleanliness of the process, both in ordinary science and in the rather weird realm of social media clickbait. Second, the scientific method has limited purchase on the specific claims about which Dan has made repeated and emphatic - but notably vague and unexplained and conclusory - declarations about what "the data" do and do not show: the divinity of Jesus or the theophanies of Joseph Smith. Those are singular historical or personal events, not repeatable natural processes open to controlled testing and independent replication. Historical inquiry can examine surrounding evidence, but it operates under different rules (and typically under methodological naturalism that brackets the supernatural). Personal or spiritual assessment falls outside the method entirely. McClellan’s frequent appeals to “the data” on such topics rarely specify which data are being counted, under which evidentiary standard, or from within which methodological paradigm the conclusion is being drawn. When the paradigm already excludes miraculous causation, the announcement that “the data do not support the miracle” is largely a restatement of the starting assumption rather than an independent empirical finding. Taken together, I think the two points highlight a recurring gap in Dan's “data > dogma” presentation: it invokes the authority of empirical method while remaining vague about what counts as relevant data, what method is actually being applied, and why that method is competent to rule on the class of claim under discussion. The result is less a neutral adjudication of evidence than a rhetorical preference for one set of constraints over another. All under the rubric of "Hi, I'm Dan McClellan, and I'm a scholar..." Reproducibility is, in a sense, something that scientists use "to see the future." If a scientist tests and confirms a hypothesis using the scientific method in May 2026 in Boston, he may right a paper about it which is predicated on the idea that his findings are reproducible. He anticipates that scientists in the future will get the same results he did. I'm not gloating. I am noting the real-world limitations on what "science" can and cannot do, and also the flaws that exist within the realm of what it can do. Here are a few well-documented cases in which prevailing scientific conclusions were later shown to be wrong: Phlogiston theory (18th century): Chemists widely held that combustion released a substance called phlogiston. Lavoisier’s oxygen theory replaced it; the earlier consensus was simply incorrect. Luminiferous aether: For much of the 19th century, physicists concluded that light waves required a pervasive medium (the aether). The Michelson–Morley experiment and special relativity eliminated it. Stress and spicy food as the primary cause of peptic ulcers: Medical consensus long attributed ulcers to lifestyle factors. The work of Marshall and Warren established Helicobacter pylori as the main cause, overturning the prior view. Continental drift: Alfred Wegener’s evidence for continental movement was rejected by most geologists for decades. Plate tectonics later confirmed the core idea. Eugenics programs: Early-20th-century scientists and institutions treated selective breeding and sterilization policies as scientifically justified. The underlying claims about heredity and social outcomes were later recognized as both factually flawed and ethically catastrophic. (Boy, folks in the thrall of "scientism" sure get uncomfortable when topics like this come up.) Dietary guidance on dietary fat and cholesterol: Mid-to-late 20th-century nutritional consensus strongly linked dietary saturated fat and cholesterol to heart disease and shaped public guidelines. Subsequent evidence has substantially revised the strength and simplicity of those causal claims. These examples do not show that science is useless, but they do show that consensus conclusions are provisional, can rest on incomplete data or unexamined assumptions, and are sometimes overturned by better evidence. That is rather my point. The Scientific Method, broadly, "doesn't have a special insight into" the divinity of Jesus Christ or Joseph Smith's theophanies. Individuals must therefore look to other additional paradigms to assess these things. The validity of the application of the Scientific Method to miraculous historical events, such as the miracles of Jesus Christ and the theophanies of Joseph Smith, is the point I am attempting to make here. Okay. Dan McClellan’s “data > dogma” framing functions as a rhetorical move that imports the authority of empirical inquiry while remaining silent about the actual constraints and presuppositions in play. He constantly (literally in the beginning of virtually every video he posts) presents himself as a “scholar of the Bible and religion,” and then in some videos he issues broad verdicts about what “the data” do or do not support regarding events such as the resurrection or the origins of the Book of Mormon. Those verdicts are always negative. He also sometimes uses his "I'm a scholar" social media content to opine about matters outside his area of scholarly expertise, e.g., social and political issues. The omission is that the operative paradigm—methodological naturalism, as practiced in critical historical and biblical scholarship—excludes miraculous causation from the set of allowable explanations before the evidence is even examined. Under that rule, no amount of revelation, testimony, empty-tomb tradition, etc. can count as data that establish a miracle, because the method has already defined such an outcome as outside its scope. The conclusion that “the data do not support the miracle” is therefore largely a restatement of the starting assumption rather than an independent finding. This is what I see as Dan's sleight of hand: the language of “data” evokes the success and self-correcting character of science, yet the prior points about scientific practice undercut the implied reliability. Even in domains suited to the scientific method, irreproducibility, incentive structures, publication bias, and later-overturned consensus conclusions show that “what the data show” is frequently provisional and shaped by non-empirical factors. When the same language is applied to singular theophanic or miraculous claims—precisely the class of claim for which controlled testing and replication are unavailable—the gap widens. The method is not neutral with respect to the question being asked; it is structured to return a negative answer. Labeling that result “data > dogma” presents a methodological exclusion as if it were a transparent empirical verdict, while leaving the exclusion itself unstated for the audience. If Dan were like some sort of weird love child of Commander Data from Star Trek: TNG and Chief Justice John Roberts, if he were just the purveyor of "the data," if he were functioning as a sort of "umpire" who doesn't make the rules, but just applies them, then I don't think we'd be having this discussion. But Dan isn't that, or anything like it. His public pronouncements about the miraculous elements of the Restored Gospel effectively all go one way, and he does this under the unexplained and unjustified cloak of "data > dogma." And I think he uses his credentials and the penumbra of his "data > dogma" schtick to unduly bolster his personal opinions about controversial societal topics (abortion, gay marriage, etc.). And I think he uses his social media platform and influence to tear down the faith of his fellow Latter-day Saints. By his own published-to-the-world reckoning (on Dehlin and Rogan), he is "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that he has called this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right." Thanks, -Smac

I thought the same!

Although I am not familiar with this work. Maybe I could, potentially be one of those, who could use this material, to engage more into the subject and then gain a better, and a more informed understanding of the matter. There is always a starting point on anything.

When I first read the OP I thought the Red Man song was one of the new ones being released and about had a heart attack wondering when the church had lost their minds! That's definitely one that should stay historical and forgotten.

I was listening to the Follow Him podcast yesterday where they are discussing the book of Ezekiel. I don’t remember the scholar’s name that they had on, but he talked about this very thing. He talked about how growing up in the church, after we read a passage of scripture, the first thing that we are often taught to do is to ask how it applies to us. But he said the most important thing when studying scripture is to first ask what did the author mean and what was his intended audience supposed to learn. After we know that then it is very, very good to also learn how to apply it to ourselves, in our lives, and different present day situations. But it should not be the primary goal all the time. Context is crucial.

A world where truth is being; not having. Ha! Perhaps my shortest post ever!

Oct 29 2026 - Eight more hymns added to ‘Hymns for Home and Church,’ including Christmas songs Some forgotten hymns are here: https://mormonr.org/sv/blog/005wCG/forgotten_hymns_of_the_restoration I mention one specifically because of a previous thread. Hymn 63 - "O Stop and Tell Me, Red Man" 1 O stop and tell me, Red Man, Who are ye? why you roam? And how you get your living? Have you no God;—no home? 2 With stature straight and portly, And deck’d in native pride, With feathers, paints and broaches, He willingly replied:— 3 “I once was pleasant Ephraim, “When Jacob for me pray’d; “But oh! how blessings vanish, “When man from God has stray’d! 4 “Before your nation knew us, “Some thousand moons ago, “Our fathers fell in darkness, “And wander’d to and fro, 5 “And long they’ve liv’d by hunting, “Instead of work and arts, “And so our race has dwindled “To idle Indian hearts. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/collection-of-sacred-hymns-1835/85 The title alone makes clear why this hymn no longer appears in our hymnbook. It refers to Native Americans as “Red Man” and uses phrases like “idle Indian hearts” and “customs,” language that would be inappropriate in a modern sacrament meeting. Other sacred hymns are included in the full transcript. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/collection-of-sacred-hymns-1835/85#full-transcript

Have you practiced mindfulness? One book I read said that if you are being mindful then you won't be bored. I've wondered if that is true. I've been trying to be mindful, and the idea holds up for the short time, like I can wash dishes and not be bored for 10 min, but if I had to do it for hours I don't know how true that would be.