All Activity

This is a problem that you have in general. You split someone's essay up so finely that you lose the forest for the trees. Dan quotes a rep from Turning Point USA that says she cares about the unborn and transgendered youth. Dan goes on to cite 30 minutes worth of studies and data that undermine her position. For example, if she cared about preventing abortion, she would pay attention to the best ways to lower abortions - namely comprehensive sex ed, widely available cheap/free long term contraceptives, and good support for pregnant mothers and babies. These are all things that TPUSA ignored in this speech. Therefore the "data" do not support the idea that TPUSA actually cares about preventing abortion. Now you can disagree with the studies cited (which you obviously do - especially on transgendered youth) but to say he provides "no dataset, study, survey, or operational definition" only works because you ignore the context around the statement. You do this all the time.

I don't know, since the term is not applied to the men.

From X (in response to "Joseph Smith was a false prophet. Prove me wrong") : The "don't waste my time" bit is the sort of stuff that I think is, or should be, beneath Dan as a scholar. A follow-up: In the comments and responding to a question "So aren't you a Mormon?": And another (in response to "@maklelan saying 'the data supports the conclusion Smith was a false Prophet' IS a religious opinion. It's why Dehlin said his audience agrees with your opinions and why you said you support Dehlin's project of carving out a space for atheist Mormons.") : Sure would like to see the dataset Dan used to reach his "academic conclusion" (!) that "{Joseph} Smith was a false prophet." Same goes for the datasets on which his pronouncements about The Book of Mormon are based. Thanks, -Smac

Any FLDS on the forum to comment?

Muslim theology seems focused on virgins for pleasure in paradise. On the LDS side, it seems like it's more about having much seed (eternal increase, Doctrine and Covenants 132:30). Apparently "David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time".

Why?

How did the doctrine of Jesus being the first spirit children of a heavenly mother arise?

Just threw it in as a comparison to how Muslims understand "virgin".

The "sons of God" should not automatically be understood as a gathering of faithful angels who are obediently presenting themselves before the Lord. The passage reads, "the sons of God came to present [yatsav] themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them." (Job 1:6) In Psalm 2:2, the same verb describes the kings of the earth taking their stand against the LORD and his anointed. Job 1:6–11 and Zechariah 3:1–2 both portray a heavenly courtroom in which a human being is challenged by an accusing figure. The Hebrew for Satan does not necessarily identify the same fallen adversary who rebelled against God in the War in Heaven. Satan is simply another angel entirely that has not been cast out yet. Questioning God's the judgment of human righteousness. The rest of the angels it seems are with the accuser angel and join in the destruction, not exclusively through one accuser angel. Job 1:16, "The fire of the gods is fallen from heaven" Zechariah 3's Satan is also member within the angelic heavenly council being accusitory, not a character named Satan. It identifies an otherwise anonymous figure by his current function. Not being understanding of God, as God simply overrules the member. It seems angel can be adverserially interfering and testing humanity. 1 Kings 22:19–23, Micaiah sees the Lord seated on his throne, with the host of heaven standing around him. A spirit comes forward and offers to become a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets. I'd distinguish between being under God's authority and being incapable of exercising independent judgment or will. Those are two different things. Angels can be zealous, severe, accusatory, and even mistaken in how they interpret or execute their responsibilities. They may act with a sense of righteousness that does not necessarily reflect the full measure of God's mercy, wisdom, or intentions. 2 Samuel 24:15–17 raises the question of how heavenly agents understand justice and whether their zeal can exceed what God ultimately intended. Angels seem to possess individual wills, perspectives, and dispositions. Their general obedience does not necessarily mean they understand God's justice or are devoid of thoughts of rebellion. An angel may recognize transgression and demand judgment. But God may see the same thing but choose mercy. I suspect that is because these particular angels are premortal spirits who never been to earth to learn justice and mercy. Who never left their first estate like the elder brother in the parable, being whether in the parable the father is God, the father's house is heaven, and the prodigal son is every man born, then the elder brother is an angel son who never left home. While dutiful is not yet perfected as we might expect angels to be.

Thank you for your response. I'm just not sure that this earth is the "first vineyard" based upon the following verse: Wouldn't this indicate that this earth is the twelfth?

I'm not seeing this. Verses 6-11: Where in there are angels "question{ing} Job's loyalty"? Not sure about this either: What am I missing? Okay. My question is not about whether angels can kill. Let's assume they can. My question is are they just free agents? Angelic mercenaries running around doing whatever they want? Or would it rather be, I think, that angels are sent by God to perform particular tasks, and they do do. The clip from the sneak peak, though, seems to treat the three angels as acting independent of God's will, like they are getting ready to string down those confronting Jesus, and would have done so had Jesus not looked at them and shaken his head. Ah. This is a good one: The verses describe the Lord sending a pestilence that kills 70,000 men, then stopping the destroying angel at Jerusalem when it is “enough.” The LDS edition of the Bible includes a Joseph Smith Translation note on verse 16: " the Lord said unto him, Stay now thine hand, it is enough; for the people repented, and the Lord stayed the hand of the angel, that he destroyed not the people …" This seems to shift emphasis slightly toward the people’s repentance as the occasion for the mercy, consistent with LDS teachings that divine judgments can be stayed or softened by repentance. In other words, the angel could be seen to be acting in perfect conformity with God's will, not a mercenary doing his own thing. What are your thoughts? Okay, but I'm not sure Eliphaz's statement reflects the mind and will of God, or the correct state of things as between God and His angels. Church educational materials treat the friends’ speeches as well-intentioned but fundamentally mistaken. They assume a strict retribution theology (the righteous prosper, the wicked suffer) that the prologue of Job has already shown to be inadequate. Job is blameless, yet he suffers. The friends’ counsel, including this appeal to angelic imperfection, is therefore not presented as authoritative revelation. Hmm. I've never heard that before. I'll think on it. Thank you for sharing. In some traditions this may be so. I'm not really seeing it in the Biblical references you have provided though, and certainly not in the paradigm of the Restored Gospel. Still, interesting stuff. Thanks, -Smac

Based on early LDS commentary from leaders like Orson Pratt and John Taylor, who taught that the Master visits His creation in successive turns, with a millennium representing a "day" or "hour" where a specific world enjoys the joy of His countenance. Christ is interpreted as visiting twelve different planets or worlds in succession, giving each kingdom its due time before eventually returning to the "first vineyard" (Earth) for the Second Coming. An alternative thought I held describes Jesus visiting the other 12 scattered tribes of Israel across different fields, completing a post-resurrection ministry similar to His visit to the Americas recorded in the Book of Mormon. Earth is currently waiting in the "11th hour" the final period of labor and missionary gathering just before the Master returns to the first vineyard in Jerusalem at the end of the day.

What are the Twelve Kingdoms in the Parable in Doctrine and Covenants 88? It is my hope that someone has an understanding of the significance of this parable.

Like the Angels who accuse, question, or oppose human beings, in Job 1:6–11 they questioned Job's loyalty and Zechariah 3:1–2 one stands to accuse Joshua the High Priest of impurity for wearing filthy garments, but God does not allow their words to stand. Numbers 22:22–35 an angel is going to kill Balaam but the donkey avoids the angel, the angel even says that if the donkey had not turned aside, he would have killed Balaam just because he didn't look to see him. Angels who execute devastating violence, like 2 Samuel 24:15–17 the angel who kills 70,000 Israelites. Then the angel is described as stretching out his hand to destroy Jerusalem until God commands him to stop. Job 4:18 "Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly" Eliphaz's statement reflects an ancient theological understanding of the imperfection or limited standing of heavenly beings before God. The elder son who never left his father's home in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:25–32 can be read as an angel who has remained home and was obedient, identifies as righteousness, but cannot understand the father's extraordinary mercy toward someone who has fallen. A righteousness that becomes detached from compassion. In Jewish and early Christian heavenly-ascension literature, humans interact with hostile angels who regard human visitors as intruders, question their right to enter, or threaten to prevent their ascent, often needing a higher-ranking heavenly protector to defend him against other heavenly beings. 3 Enoch 1:3–4, Angels threaten to throw Rabbi Ishmael down. Rabbi Ishmael specifically fears Qafsiel and the angels accompanying him. Metatron rescues Ishmael from their hands. Hekhalot Rabbati depicts the mystic who attempts to ascend must confront fearsome angels who will kill you if you don't have the passwords and seals. Angels seem to look down on fallen men, underestimate the evil inclination of earth, come down with good intent to help guide humans, only to fall themselves. Like Azazel.

That's interesting. Could you give some examples? Would also like to better understand this. Thanks, -Smac

Angels aren't depicted as always with God's program, and don't understand human behavior, they judge mortals harshly in their tunnel vision or delusion of their own perfect state.

For my part, I don't care for the subtext, namely, that in the Celestial economy of God there are angels running around half-cocked, ready to slay, but are then warned off by the Son of God. God's house is a "house of order" (D&C 88:119, 109:8 and132:8). But oh well. It's a TV show. Thanks, -Smac

This video is, upon further reflection, pretty discouraging as far as assessing Dan's reliability as a purveyor of "scholarship." I suppose he is reliable as to matters within his purview (biblical scholarship), but he then goes well outside of his domain and uses the same presentation techniques (screen caps of articles, quotes, etc.) to use studies that favor his perspective. Across the four studies examined (by Grok) above, McClellan’s pattern is consistent: he selects directional findings that align with a political conclusion, presents them as decisive “data,” and omits or minimizes the methodological limitations the authors themselves emphasize. In each case the underlying paper is real and reports associations. In each case McClellan converts qualified, low-certainty, or purely descriptive findings into stronger causal and policy claims than the studies support. The rhetorical effect is to make contested political judgments appear as straightforward conclusions from “the data.” That is the consistent feature of his citations in this video. Disappointing. But for Grok (and my ability to use it to quickly survey and summarize the various articles Dan cites, and also critique Dan's use of the articles' content), I probably would have taken Dan's assessment of these articles at face value. I think a lot of his audience do that. I think that reliance is, here, misplaced. Dan's conclusion (from the YouTube transcript) : I asked Grok if Dan has ever addressed the Cass Report (the conclusions of which go very much in the opposite direction of what Dan is saying about "the research"). The response: In substance, I think Dan's citation to articles amounts to a contradiction between his findings on what "the research" shows versus what Hillary Cass found. A Grok summary: Kinda hard to square this with Dan's professed devotion to data > dogma, where the "dogma" in view is his personal opinions about transgender issues. He cherry-picks a few articles that favor his presuppositions, presents them in the same format as he does with scholarship about biblical studies (screen cap of the first page, then quotes from the article), overstates or misstates or mischaracterizes their findings, does not give his audience much of any indication of this, and then sums them up as "the research." And he does this while seemingly ignoring the entirety of the Cass Report, perhaps the single most important piece of literature on the subject. And his statement of what "the research" shows conflicts with the Cass Report. Thanks, -Smac

Another article Dan cites: Dopp AR, Peipert A, Buss J, et al. Interventions for Gender Dysphoria and Related Health Problems in Transgender and Gender-Expansive Youth: A Systematic Review of Benefits and Risks to Inform Practice, Policy, and Research. RAND Corporation, 2024 (also summarized in RAND Health Quarterly). The Grok critique of Dan's use of this article: Thanks, -Smac

Haven’t read complaints. Are any upset because of no wings?

Another article Dan cites: Bird K, Arcelus J, Matsagoura L, O’Shea B, Townsend E. Risk and protective factors for self-harm thoughts and behaviours in transgender and gender diverse people: A systematic review. Heliyon. 2024;10(5):e26074. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26074. A Grok critique of Dan's use of this article: Thanks, -Smac

Went looking for a spear like that one and came across this article that agrees with your descriptions: https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2026/11/03/the-chosen-season-6-upsets-fans-with-native-american-african-angels/ Also pointed out angels could look dang weird, so why the rants? “ The Bible doesn’t really align with the complaints here in terms of how it describes angels, in that they take many forms from exceedingly normal to totally bizarre. We have: Angels that look like totally average humans, like the ones who came to Abraham or went to Sodom. Angels that are more intimidating with an “appearance like lightning” and pure white clothes, one that shows up at Jesus’ resurrection. Angels seen in prophecy which have four faces, human, lion, ox, and eagle, with four wings and bronze feet. Angels that attend God with six wings that are called Seraphim, which stems from a word that means “burning.” The point here is that there are a whole lot of different types of angels, and the ones with two feathery wings and gold halos and robes and harps are not really described in the Bible at all. So it stands to reason that sure, there could be warrior angels taking the form of human fighters across time. Even if that format isn’t mentioned specifically in the Bible, it seems clear that angels can take many forms. We’ll see how fans react when the full episode is out.”

Dan also cites to another article: Campbell T, Mann S, van der Meulen Rodgers Y, Tran NM. Mental Health of Transgender Youth Following Gender Identity Milestones by Level of Family Support. JAMA Pediatrics. 2024;178(9):870–878. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2024.2035. A Grok critique of Dan's usage of this article: Thanks,, -Smac

I speculate that communism might work on a small community where it is easier for the person on the street to see the lifestyles of those in charge so it will be more difficult to set up a hidden class system. I think with any government, the more transparent the better, which often means big is not always better. Communism has been tried in religious communities, for example. Probably the closest mankind has gotten, imo. Russia was definitely not a communist state even if it pretended to be. Never been to China, but from what I have heard, class is still going strong, beside the usual elite, there is a major difference between urban and rural. Not actual communism, no matter what the label. I don’t think they even typically claimed to be communism, but working towards that, but haven’t researched much. Now can the ideologies tied to communism actually work given human nature or are they doomed to be derailed eventually…that could be a decent discussion, imo.

Also, Dan cites to an excerpt from an article: Liu M, Patel VR, Reisner SL, Keuroghlian AS. Health Status and Mental Health of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Adults. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2024;184(8):984–986. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.2544. I asked Grok to assess Dan's citation ("About his citation to 'Journal of the American Medical Association Health and the 2024 US election,' what is that article, and what is your critique of it?") : Thanks, -Smac