All Activity

Just going to respond to this one point. Presumedly there is a best way to reduce abortions. We can see this by enacting different policies and seeing if abortions are reduced. Dan cites many studies (which you are free to disagree with, but have not done so) demonstrating that affordable birth control, comprehensive sex ed, and good prenatal and post natal care all significantly reduce abortions. That is data. That is an empirical finding. Dan also cites evidence that abortion bans don't reduce abortion rates. They merely change how, where and under what circumstances people access them. That is an empirical finding. That is data. Feel free to disagree and present opposing data. Dan here is participating in political speech just like you often come here to participate in political speech. Dan is citing data to support his position. Dan is not claiming leaning on his biblical or educational credentials here, merely presenting a data based (as he sees it) persuasive argument for what he sees as correct.

Three word responses do not do much to advance the discussion. Thanks, -Smac

I am critiquing Dan as a scholar, and his social media content about his personal opinions and politics, which matters he appears to be bolstering by mimicking his "scholarly" presentation about biblical scholarship. This just shows your own bias. Wanting to see "the data" that Dan uses to make pronouncements about the divinity of Jesus Christ, the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith, the authorship and origins of The Book of Mormon, etc. is not a matter of bias. It's just a basic thing that I would expect a scholar to produce. Notably, Dan regularly does this - very much to his credit - by providing citations to published scholarship for his pronouncements about biblical scholarship. Also notably, though, is that Dan regularly does not do this when he makes pronouncements about what "the data" do or do not support relative to his personal opinions on social and political and religious issues (the divinity of Jesus Christ, Joseph as a prophet, etc.). He posts both categories of content on the same channel. His videos espousing his personal opinions and sentiments on social/political/moral issues are visually indistinguishable from the videos about biblical scholarship. If a scholar is going to make public statements about what "the data" indicate, he ought to present that data for independent evaluation. Dan doesn't do this, and I think it's intentional, and I think it's intentional because he wants to borrower from his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his opinions about matters outside of biblical scholarship. Argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is an informal logical fallacy that claims an idea, belief, or action is true, right, or good simply because a majority of people (or a large number of people) accept, support, or practice it. Your comment here is, I think, a good illustration of this fallacy. I am perfectly willing to listen to what you have to say about "the data." Please provide it. I agree. I sure would like to see non-faith-based "data" that you and Dan have in mind as pertaining to Joseph Smith being a prophet. I don't see that as anything like a point that can be empirically evaluated by looking as "data." I think Dan vaguely point to "the data." Again, I would like to see the dataset Dan used to reach his "academic conclusion" (!) that "{Joseph} Smith was a false prophet,," and also the datasets on which his pronouncements about The Book of Mormon are based. That he has notably not provided these data despite supposedly making "scholarly" ("academic conclusion") assessments about it (!) is, I think, illuminating. Next up: Dan makes "academic conclusion"-style public pronouncements about what "the data" indicate about Mohammed being a prophet and the Koran having supernatural origins, and what "the data" indicate about whether Siddhartha Gautama achieved enlightenment, and so on. I won't hold my breath. I agree. I think we should discuss them. Too bad we can't get any of "the data" Dan is referencing. He isn't providing any. As I see it, archaeologists do not regularly treat religious texts as authoritative guides for research or excavation. They may consult historical or religious texts (including parts of the Bible, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Maya writings) as potential sources of hypotheses or place names when those texts have some independent corroboration or fit known cultural contexts. Material evidence—artifacts, stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, genetics, etc.—is primary. Claims in a text that lack supporting material culture, or that conflict with it, are not used to direct fieldwork or accepted as history. Religious texts function, at most, as secondary, critically evaluated sources rather than research blueprints. So I think your comment here is something of a non sequitur. Thanks, -Smac

Case in point.

I don't see careful analysis as "a problem." I don't think so. I still appreciate those elements of Dan's content that speak objectively to biblical scholarship. But I do see him using his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his personal opinions and politics. Dan quotes a rep from Turning Point USA and then states: "The data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." Again: This is the sort of stuff Dan does with "the data" which I find quite problematic coming from a purported "data > dogma"-focused scholar. He provides no dataset, study, survey, or operational definition. “People in general matter” is not a measurable claim that can be tested against a body of evidence; it is a moral evaluation of motives. By attaching the word “data” to it, he converts a political judgment into something that sounds like an empirical finding. Again: By Dan "I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" McClellan attaching the word “data” to it, he converts a political judgment into something that sounds like an empirical finding. I disagree with Dan's usage of the studies (which, in and of themselves, are pretty weak tea, as are virtually all the "studies" I have reviewed in favor of medical intervention on youth for "trans" ideations). The "context" is that Dan cites to and quotes from these studies, but does so by omitting a fair amount of relevant information and even mischaracterizing the findings in these studies. I find that troubling. And this is not resolved by "context." Thanks, -Smac

Thank you for your response. With respect to your post that says "but rather every one of them receives a full visit from the Lord. Nobody gets left out," Is it one visit, two visits or three? (Based on the following verse:) The first visit would be the "beginning at the first, and so on unto the last." Would the second visit be in reverse order, "from the last unto the first?" In the contrary, would this be like a circle or a clock that He moves from the last to the first to begin again? Of course, the "first unto the last" would infer another "forward" moving visit." So what is your take on it, in your opinion is it three visits or a reset and two visits?

It’s art. We can choose to use its narrative and ambiance as a springboard to contemplative spiritual experiences or we can choose to point out all the things we would have done differently with the production. I’ve enjoyed previous seasons of the show and look forward to the new season.

Section 88 is a bit of a paradigm-buster, with God being omnipresent ("in all things"), which teaching is not a part of mainstream LDS thought. Imo the point of that parable is not the number of kingdoms, nor precisely what "kingdom" means in this context, but rather that every one of them receives a full visit from the Lord. Nobody gets left out. I think one place this shows up is in the sacred writings of various civilizations, such as the Tao Te Ching. I think it is ongoing today in the form of "all that God does now reveal", which imo is not confined to the LDS Church.

If you were critiqueing Dan's published scholarship, you might have a point, but since you are not, you don't. This just shows your own bias. Latter-day saints make up around 1 of every 1,000 people in the world. That's because the data don't support Joseph being a prophet. Now there very well might be faith based reasons to affirm Joseph's divine call, there may even be some interesting data points out there, but there is a reason the book of Mormon isn't used to study ancient American civilizations.

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.