All Activity

A lot of the ire he gets comes from correcting misinformation. A lot of his videos are countering apologists who get things wrong about the Bible. He also does some correcting of skeptics who get the Bible wrong. One example of the latter was a video debunking the idea that Jesus was based on the Egyptian goddess Isis. I think the most backlash he gets is from countering what amounts to political and cultural propaganda that abuses the Bible. This for example: A personal favorite is a response to culture warriors dunking on some people (possibly sarcastically) praying to a non-binary God. Always fun to see some mainstream Christians talk about the incomprehensible God with no physical body and insist that God is male thereby going back to the more ‘primitive’ belief that Jews and early Christians held about an embodied God because they need that metaphor to get angry and scream about blasphemy instead of chuckling at the silliness and rolling their eyes and moving on. Gotta demonize those satanic queer people for the blasphemy of saying something we also believe.

If it’s true that he intervenes at times and not in others, then there “is” no difference, as I see it

Deleted. Changed my mind.

So when asked scholarly questions he should bear his testimony? They could grab any rando LDS person for that. Why would anyone want to listen to that? Accurate. It is not based on a philosophical claim or biblical scholarship. The conclusion is based on how historians operate. They take the data they have from a lot of fields (archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) and try to reconstruct what we can say is probable. Also most of this stuff of sociopolitical issues start with him doing a deep dive into the Bible as to what it says about those issues and he is brutally factual there even when the Bible says something he doesn’t like. Then often shares his thoughts on the issue. I don’t think you have spent any time listening to him. You seem to have built up an image of some strawman “enemy within” apostate who you are bitter about because he disagrees with you about your culture war nonsense. It is a historical conclusion. There is some special pleading here that we should definitely factor in the possibility of the supernatural when reaching historical conclusions when it involves Christianity’s traditional claims but no one is going to bat for the miracles of the other wandering wise men of the period or for miracles credited to being performed by polytheistic deities. It is a high bar but supernatural events have to have a LOT of evidence to prove. That is just how historical research works and the evidence for the resurrection is pretty weak. The resurrection narratives are assumed to be later stories because they are later stories. Yes, the idea that Jesus came back to life was prevalent early and the most likely point of origin for those stories is Peter (and possibly Mary). And cases of people seeing dead loved ones aren’t that rare. The empty tomb narrative is also late. There are a few problems with the empty tomb narrative. The biggest one is that is not how crucifixion victims were treated. They were thrown into mass graves. Now is it possible that someone begged for the body of Jesus and got it? Maybe. Or maybe that was a later rationalization. There was no one controlling the story. Peter was around but how was he going to reasonably counter people getting stuff wrong? He was probably dead before the Book of Acts and the gospels showed up. The Pauline letters say almost nothing about the life of Jesus. As far as we can tell Paul was focused on Jesus dying and being brought back to life and what that meant. Paul had one short time with Peter and the two did not seem to get along. I get the impression Peter just wanted him to just go and evangelize anywhere else. Also, there are lots and lots and lots of papers and books and videos by experts discussing the evidence of the resurrection. He didn’t “elide” that interpretive step. He is in line with most of the scholarship. You really have some perverse need to make Dan dishonest. Your flaw is that he presents the scholarship correctly and it doesn’t confirm your favorite dogma and he should support that dogma because that is what good LDS do. You also personalize this as if Dan is the one ruling it out. No, the historical consensus rules it as very improbable and he passes that along. There are plenty of scholars that will tell you what you want to hear. There are big flaws and a priori assumptions in their work too though so if you want to be consistent you would have to throw them out too. The most common one I see thrown around is claiming that the martyrdom of all the apostles/disciples prove it must have been real because no one dies for something they don’t believe is true. No one is claiming that Peter didn’t believe it. Or James. Or Paul. Also as a technical point Peter recanting wouldn’t have saved him. He and other Christians were reportedly being scapegoated for a crime so him disavowing Christianity wouldn’t have led to him being spared. And the rest of the apostles/disciple vanish from the historical record very quickly and accounts of their martyrdoms only pop up centuries later and many include things like dragons so there aren’t a lot of people taking those stories seriously but some apologists love endlessly repeating that they were all martyred when they won’t defend the only accounts we have of them being martyred. That is pretty dishonest. So you haven’t found a flaw in his schtick. Nor do I think you know enough about the state of the field or what Dan actually does to accuse him of dishonesty and trickery. The stuff Dan says is pretty much what Christian clergy who go to good educational institutions learn to get their degrees. This isn’t hidden stuff. Well…..except that clergy rarely share all this with their congregations for……reasons. Probably reasons similar to why you don’t like what Dan says. To be fair I do have one beef with Dan. Why has he not created a t-shirt with his line, “Leave my trans homies alone” on it? I’ll buy it!

That’s very much along the lines of what I feel like. God gave me the brain and heart (or maybe it’s my eternal nature) to want to care for others and then placed me in a world where I am constantly told it’s good to do so and it is certainly needed, plenty of opportunities. But then I end up with a body that limits what I can do to very little. And even allows me to make uninspired choices by accepting others’ authority who I have been taught I should trust (doctors, parents, teachers) that makes things much worse. So instead others still suffer and I get to see their pain and do nothing. I just don’t see much purpose in it. Whatever I learned from it, I think I got in the first 20 years. I have decided not to be concerned emotionally at least with the why, I am not likely to get answers when better people than I am did not. I do what I can to make the best world in my very little corner of it. Some day it will be over. Maybe even be beautifully magnificent. Maybe not, but I am going to construct my idea of life as if it is. It seems the healthiest way to deal with this reality. Definitely the best for my ego, lol.

This… I don’t understand why people insist faith must inform everything someone says or they don’t have real faith.

And you asked Grok.

Group sex under the influence is extreme enough behaviour potentially dangerous to a woman’s health, both emotional and physical (I don’t know if it’s as emotionally damaging to men given the cultural lessons have been so different for them for eons) that a (preferably written) recorded in some way contract detailing acceptable behaviour (preferably signed) before taking anything mind altering is probably the only thing I see as morally removing the rape aspect. Quoting this comment as I really, really agree with this, but can’t give a rep point because I see the personal stuff as too far….which happens with a lot of your posts. Not telling you to change them. I don’t feel the need to agree with everything I read. The only reason I don’t give thumbs up when there’s personal stuff is I am in a mood to be concerned someone might assume I agree with that. Sometimes I will assume people know me well enough to know when I wouldn’t support such speculation or judgment and rep even with personal stuff. My confidence in others understanding varies over time.

This isn’t rhetorical overuse. It is calling a rapist a rapist because he raped someone. Rapists, bigots, and fascists are all real things, actual people that are these things. If you reflexively assume it is always hyperbole maybe that is an even bigger problem than the potential for overuse. Swatting someone away is a “no”. Being so insensate that all she remembers is being tired is a “no”. The text message was sent by one person. Others of them showed up. That is rapey behavior and it is RAPE to proceed without an enthusiastic “yes”. This isn’t hard. They knew they were taking advantage of her condition like a lot of rapists do. This is often how rape works. You seem to be trying to define the concept of rape out of existence. Rape apologists are what fuel this kind of conduct. I find your condemnation facile. I don’t. We are talking about Cornell University where protesting on behalf of Gaza gets you deported while raping someone gets you a remedial essay assignment on why what you did was wrong. I won’t hold my breath expecting any form of justice. And seeking justice from God would involve *checks Old Testament* paying her father a fine and having the first guy marry her assuming she was a virgin. If not a virgin…..no crime committed. So not going to hold my breath there either.

I have found, from a personal perspective. God, helps/aids/assists, in ways that people may not have expected, or in some cases preferred. The end result of God's interaction with people at specific times of need can be deemed a blessing, even if it is not, at times understood.

I would have to watch or rewatch with this in mind to give an accurate and detailed response. It’s been too long since I watched superhero movies. They are not very interesting these days, pretty shallow and unsurprising, too dependent on special effects and not decent dialogue or story. Having said that, going from memory, he has highly simplified in the cases I know about. I might agree with him. I find the Harry Potter movies boring in part because of the way Harry’s breaking the rules is treated. It seems to me he thinks it’s important to put experience and people in a black and white frame to teach morality. I don’t see the female heroes as perfect and limited only by circumstance at the beginning with no actual internal growth. Maybe he is missing subtleties because he isn’t looking for them. Then there is the whole need for punishment. What does that serve? Fear of punishment can teach one to look outside oneself to control one’s behaviour. Feeling responsibility and guilt otoh, that goes with you everywhere. I wonder if he is Christian. If so, has he missed the whole forgiveness arc in the New Testament? Plus how does society punish someone who they are essentially incapable of punishing? Any punishment must be self inflicted at that point, even if it’s sitting in a cell because they choose to submit. What would be punishment for someone with such mental powers. And better than punishment anyway is a life of redemption, something that gives rather than takes away as punishment does. Whether that actually happens or not I can’t remember or don’t know.

I just watched this YouTube video and found it interesting: Warning: The video includes a spoiler to the Green Lantern TV show, if that matters. A Grok summary: A few thoughts/questions: 1. Does this guy have a point? I think he does, but I'm interested in hearing other perspectives. 2. Why do you think this is happening? 3. Is this important? My three favorite fictional heroes are Gandalf, Captain America and Atticus Finch. Two of the three are "pop culture" guys. Thanks, -Smac

This is so unexpected and yet seems naturally like something you would do after interacting with you these years. I love that there is such a person like you on the board because it makes it so much more interesting. You have provided so many more details than I have been able to get before. Thank you. I know you likely do this to satisfy your own curiosity, but wow, it’s so great.

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’. My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me. It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going. Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess. She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times. She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family). Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him

I could see this if it’s ’seek and miracles in general and not specific ones’. My children are miracles, the internet and this board is a miracle for me, living in Canada was one, many others…none of which I asked for specifically, just left it to the Lord to choose what to give me. It’s been a long time since I trusted myself to know best what I needed. My mother was the most faith full person I have encountered and she was never blessed with much healing, just enough to keep going. Her survival as a child was likely a miracle, but left her insides a mess. She wanted to be a mother when doctors told her she couldn’t be and she managed five times. She told me she prayed to be healed, she sought and expected to be healed, the get up and walk version even (she accepted whether in this life or the next; though it seemed to me she wanted it sooner rather than later, she never seem to be upset with God’s timing as she had what she desired most in her view, a wonderful family). Maybe that is what set me up not to ask God for much in detail, but leave it to him.

Hey, I refreshed to be sure it hadn’t accepted my post…urg…..will delete the other duplicate later.

So nothing here is responsive in any way to anything I said. Positivism is a strawman because you can't respond to the historical problems of the Book of Mormon using historical scholarship. You're shopped around for the one obscure Biblical scholar who you suppose makes the apologetics mission a little easier. But even if she represented some kind of consensus or even large minority view (she doesn't - her hypotheses haven't caught on at all in the academy and she doesn't even represent a small group of like-minded scholars), her fanciful hypotheses are not enough to rescue the Book of Mormon from its 19th century milieu. Your inability to muster any historical case for the Book of Mormon from the standpoint of Biblical scholarship speaks for itself. Time is linear, therefore the Book of Mormon is not ancient.

The only thing that makes sense to me if God loves us perfectly is that in the oneness with God that is promised our experiences of mortality will be shared with each other as if we experienced it ourselves. I think this way for two reasons. Life becomes balanced and fair (in the sense that no one ends up suffering or having more than another) if we all end up experiencing the same thing. Even more important to my thinking though—because I believe life needs to be just, I don’t believe life needs to be fair to work for our eternal joy—is how can we make a truly informed choice of what we want to have and be unless we have pure knowledge of all the possibilities and results of our choices with all the thoughts and emotions attached to them. I did not come to this as a way to justify the endless suffering this life holds. I can’t justify that. This belief is just where my logic took me. It makes sense to me if Christ could somehow join with us and then experience all of our potential pain from our bad choices (sins, errors) as well as actual pain so we don’t have to, that such perfect sharing of experience should be possible when one becomes one with Christ. This does not make what we go through now just (there is nothing just in a child experiencing cancer or abuse no matter how many people share that experience and understand their suffering). Nor does it address how to have faith when there is no actual awareness of our future state being. I can’t speak to that at all. I don’t know how to tell others to have faith. I just know there have been a few experiences in my life I cannot explain in any other way besides God is aware of me and loves me and others. And those experiences tell me we will be where we want to be in the end no matter where we wander in the meantime (this literally happened once as I heard this, the other times reinforce he is there and paying attention even to the very little things). This and the sense of God’s presence/connection that has always been with me besides a few years I took a drug that made me feel I was bubble wrapped seems to be what secures my faith is what sustains me. I do not expect anything from God except peace and I get that when I ask when I have misplaced it. (I do ask for other things at times, don’t usually get them. Not very satisfying, but okay.) I am including the below not as a pity party or anything but to explain the process of my thought in how I can hold on to the belief in God’s perfect love while living in a world that looks insane. Nothing I feel or think about myself needs sympathy. I am content in my self which is what I need most. I understand I may simply be talking myself into this sense of all of us being cared for. I am not going to try and mess with it given how it’s worked for me for 65+ years. I prefer to avoid an existential crisis and loss of faith given my situation. If I have deluded myself and there’s nothing there, great, I am satisfied that to be deluded because it has allowed me to keep going when I feel I am not getting enough out of life myself to justify the effort. The idea of a future reward of a celestial or heavenly life does not motivate me in the least. It’s more like birthday gifts, an expected treat I am not working for, but know I am going to get because my family loves me. But another needs me to stay and care for them to survive and if my being around is worth it for them, it’s enough for me. And it’s not like I am suffering all the time. I have a very pleasant, comfortable life the vast majority of it. I live in luxury (not decadent luxury, relative luxury) and haven’t had to work much for it. It is just I don’t see much purpose in it for myself. My dreams I have had are unattainable in this life. (I have gotten wonderful things in my life, but they weren’t my dreams and almost all don’t fulfill me. This board has given me one dream, a community I feel like I belong in that fits me.) But I can’t climb any mountains to see the view. Can’t even get up in the foothills these days. I am stuck to getting my mountain views on a treadmill (this is both metaphor and literal, lol).

In my experience on the LDS side it's the ignorant fundamentalists who have the problem with Dan McClellan. LDS members with more critical thinking skills understand that there's a difference between saying, as an academic, "the data don't support X" and actually denying the spiritual validity or reality of X. Those types of members tend to like Dan. But fundamentalists don't get nuance, and insist that any expertise that doesn't support their personal beliefs has to be wrong or part of a conspiracy against them and so must be snuffed out. On the side of mainstream Christianity, Dan again runs into some ignorant criticism from the other kind of fundamentalists, who just assume because Dan is LDS that everything he's writing is biased in favor of Mormonism, even though what he says regarding Biblical scholarship is neutral and bog standard stuff you'd get in any halfway decent or better Biblical studies course. So fundamentalists on the LDS side think he's anti-Mormon, and fundamentalists on the mainstream Christian side think he's a Mormon apologist. Go figure.

I hope you won't mind me responding to your inquiry to Bluebell. Feel free to disregard if I am out of line. I addressed this inquiry back in 2021. It's a bit verbose, so here is a "TLDR" version generated by Grok, followed by the longer version: TLDR Version: Original Version: I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals. A few thoughts: 1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool: I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." It can. I think he can create some pretty good counterfeits. That's his thing. Lust can be confused for love. A correct principle can be distorted into something wrong. A charismatic figure can say or write things that are, as Paul put it, "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof." An individual or group may, as Paul also put it, "have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge," as they are "ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God." I am reminded here of a part of C.S. Lewis' The Last Battle, the last book in The Chronicles of Narnia series. A key plot line in the book involves Shift, a talking ape who lived near his friend/servant, Puzzle the donkey. Here's a character summary: Shift's scheme is summed up this way: The heroes of the story, Jill and King Tirian, encounter Puzzle wearing the lionskin and sort out Shift's scheme. They intend to expose the scheme, but before they can do so Shift (who by this point is in league with Rishda Tarkaan, a captain of the Calormenes, the enemies of Narnia, and who has discovered Puzzle's absence) takes the scheme even further: The heroes of the story respond this way: "By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger." That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by some folks. Chad Daybell certainly springs to mind. Hence the value of Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool (see above). I think he can come up with pretty good counterfeits. Paul spoke of the devil appearing as an "angel of light" (2 Cor. 11:14), as did Jacob (2 Nephi 9:9) and Joseph Smith (D&C 128:20). Those that are of God are reliable. But then, how do you determine which are of God? Again, the Four-Legged Stood seems pretty useful. Each leg counterbalances the other three. Yes. Or that the information sought is not yet to be revealed. Or that the individual is not prepared. Lots of possible reasons. I think we sometimes make things a bit too difficult. See also the section above dealing with simplicity on the other side of complexity. In the end, though, we do need to "walk by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7). I would appreciate any critique or assessment of the above. Thanks, -Smac

Unique is the only way that I can find to describe it as well.

I think that I struggle to trust God because I struggle to feel safe in His care. Does that make more sense? It's hard to talk about such nebulous concepts sometimes.

I agree, I don't think He creates hardships, but rather allows them. In the thick of it, it doesn't always feel like there is a difference in those ideas.

Welcome to the board and thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's comforting to know that I'm not alone. I like what you said about what you are doing right now.... I find that's how I have to operate as well. Find what gets me through at that time. It might not be what helps the next time but so far there has always been something else that gets me through the next time so I find comfort in that. And comfort in how every time I throw my hands up in the air and decide that I'm just going to take a step back from my relationship with God, or decide that something in the gospel isn't true, the spirit won't seem to let me. I mean, if I continued to push those impressions away or was determined to change the relationship He would let me I know. But He's never let me go that direction without trying to argue against it first, and that is probably one of the greatest blessings I'm given, even if I don't appreciate it all the time. (hopefully that makes sense)

I have no answers but someone a few weeks ago talked about how maybe this life is better understood less as a test that God has designed and more as a prerequisite that must be accomplished (not because He capriciously decided it but because there is no way, no literal way, for us to be able to access the celestial kingdom without the changes that mortality creates, not just physically but in all the ways). That person described it a lot better and it was actually connected to physics and the laws of physics (if I remember right it was the specific laws dealing with entropy) so it was a way cooler and more in depth explanation than my pitiful description of it, but it made a lot of sense to me.