All Activity

I think you are both right. There are times when it's relevant to judge the merits of the art itself and times when it is relevant to judge the merits of its message or intention.

How about we judge whether it is good art or bad art instead of basing that decision based on what the message is. There is really bad devotional art and really good satirical art out there. There is also really good devotional art and really bad satirical art.

The Lord is saying that He leaves these sayings to ponder in our hearts. I am pondering them and would request further input.

If art is intended to mock or denigrate Deity, it deserves criticism. But when art is born of a reservoir of faith and worship, it should be respected, even if who and what is being worshiped doesn’t align with our personal faith.

Foolish counsel to be honest. I am really confused on how getting rid of anonymity is supposed to avoid a holocaust. The SS weren’t going around masked. The danger of the KKK wasn’t their anonymity. That was just plausible deniability. Everyone knew who the Klan were and they were the respectable and upstanding citizens and their lackeys enforcing white supremacy through violence or the threat of violence. The value of anonymity is very valuable to those who are speaking against or fighting against structures of power. The KKK is the powerful wielding anonymity against the marginalized. Demanding a lack of anonymity is very dangerous to those who are already marginalized. A young newly out queer teen who fears their parents might harm them if found out should just “let their light shine” so they can get beaten or be rendered homeless? Should those fighting a fascist regime “let their light shine”? A victim of a sex crime perpetuated by someone in power seeking help should put their name on it so they get a bullseye? This is stupid. It is the rhetoric of authoritarian bootlickers. I don’t think that describes Elder Cook though. I think Elder Cook is just naive and read some stories about anonymity on the internet and made a snap judgment on it. When you have never been marginalized or been in danger this kind of saccharine stuff about being open probably sounds like virtue. Also quick reminder that Joseph Smith and other early church leaders used code names in the early revelations and in many communications for their own safety. Jesus went around telling people not to say who he was or that he had healed someone. Many prophets had to go into hiding for their own safety. Abinadi had to use a disguise to get into a position to preach. Were those all a tool of the adversary? Or does this only apply to the internet?

I ignore anyone who whines about “forced diversity”. That is just white people complaining that angels should be white people because………white people rule or whatever. It is a form of racism that somehow has social acceptance for some reason. The almost caricature costumes are a little odd. In the Bible some angels are portrayed as humanoid and some are seen as regular people. Others have multiple animal heads and lots of wings. I kind of like the wheels covered with eyes angels in Ezekiel. They sound like some kind of steampunk clockwork thing. Then it gets complicated because some of the “angels” in the Old Testament aren’t subordinated to God and are divine beings in their own right and were later shoved into the angel role for consistency. In New Testament times angels were generally assumed to despise humanity as unclean and the angels couldn’t understand why God keeps humans around or bothers to interact with them. Some forms of Jewish mysticism were about ecstatic experiences where you pass guardian angels to reach the chariot throne of God using passwords and sigils. You had to be ritually clean and pure to have a prayer of getting by the angels who consider humans to be trespassers there. In one reported trek God had to call the angels off from killing the rabbi who was approaching the throne. Angels not liking humanity is a common trope. The sweet and caring angels are a more modern invention.

<reads next sentence> You know you are allowed to read the whole post before replying…

I'm disclosing when I use AI (I thought I was, anyway, I'll need to be more consistent I guess). The critiques of Dan's use of scholarly sources were AI-generated, as I copied and pasted them. I just don't have the time to closely examine them. I did, however, provide links to each one so that Grok's critique could be checked/tested. That is one of the points of concern I have about Dan's social media content. Most of his audience is going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he presents scholarly materials. I am concerned that he is not a reliable purveyor of such things, at least on topics which are A) outside the realm of biblical scholarship and B) about sociopolitical matters about which Dan has strong personal opinions and beliefs. I too would have given, and initially did give, Dan the benefit of the doubt regarding his use of four articles about trans issues. Having worked with Grok to more particularly scrutinize these articles and compare them with what Dan said about them (and did not say), I think Dan has, to varying degrees, misused these papers. From one of my favorite bloggers: "Let us embrace the healing power of 'and.'" I do come here to talk with people who disagree with my worldview, and that will often end up involving defending the Church. It's all this and more. It's not that I have an expectation of persuading you, but more about wanting to listen to what you have to say, and testing what you have to say, and testing what I am thinking by presenting it here and letting people such as yourself (with a worldview that varies from mine in some significant ways, though I think we probably have a lot in common) critique my position. I don't come here to "socialize." I come here for discussion of important and difficult topics pertaining to the Restored Gospel and the institution that houses it. In the end, I may be just sorting things out for myself. No worries. I have generally thought I was explicit about my use of AI. I will work to be more consistent in my disclosures. As for why I come here, you are broadly incorrect about my motives. Thanks, -Smac

Corrected. Thx.

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 think you misunderstand the argument. The truth of the book of Mormon or Joseph's prophetic call isn't determined by how many people believe it. You: "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." Also you: "The truth of the book of Mormon or Joseph's prophetic call isn't determined by how many people believe it." These don't seem compatible. You seemed to be saying that there are very few Latter-day Saints in the world "because the data don't support Joseph being a prophet." The "because" bit seems incompatible with "the truth ... isn't determined by how many people believe it." What am I missing? I guess you are going with something like "there are few Latter-day Saints in the world because most of humanity have not been persuaded by 'the data' about the Restored Gospel." Am I on track? If so, that still feels like the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Okay. I think I understand your point. I'll give it consideration. I think very few people make decisions about religious sentiments based on "academic non-faith based data." I would want to see "the data." I'm not sure the Shinto belief is empirically testable, and it's not really something that falls within his "scholar of the Bible and religion" purview. I would concur with him about the Muhammad thing, as I think that is empirically testable. I had thought that scholars generally bracket religious truth claims. I think, as a general rule, religious truth claims are not empirically testable, which is one of the reasons scholars typically bracket them. That said, yes, I think my faith is "special" insofar as it has something that is, to an extent, empirically testable: The Gold Plates and the text of The Book of Mormon. I think most explanations filter down into three categories: A) Joseph Smith fabricated the text of The Book of Mormon consequent to a profound mental illness; B) Joseph Smith fabricated the text of The Book of Mormon consequent to him being a big fat liar; and C) Joseph Smith did not fabricate the text, which instead was and is what he said it was and what it purports to be. I would really like to see empirical data for A and B. I went the rounds with Analytics about this a little while back, but I don't think it went anywhere (except that he felt "space aliens" or "satan" were a more likely explanation for Joseph's story than what Joseph said). The Book of Mormon is "special." If it is not what it claims to be, what Joseph said it was, then I think the text needs to be accounted for ("need" in a limited, logical sense, not scientific or legal or anything). But as soon as A or B is examined, it falls apart. That's what I've concluded, anyway. I would really like to see some substantive alternative explanations for the text. Thanks, -Smac

Especially ones heavily reliant on ai. If I wanted to talk to a robot I’d do it locally not on a forum. That said it’s my opinion that SMAC’s main purpose in posting here is not to engage in dialogue but rather to protect and defend the church’s good name against the calumnies thrown against it by its adversaries. Along the lines of not letting church critics have uncontested slam dunks or whatever that saying was. His audience is people reading but not commenting. I don’t BTW mean this in a disparaging way @smac97 - and if I am wrong here I will take your word for it.

Some extremely long posts that miss the actual point do it even less.

I think you misunderstand the argument. The truth of the book of Mormon or Joseph's prophetic call isn't determined by how many people believe it. The sun is a gravitationally bound dense ball of plasma that produces heat predominately by fusing hydrogen nuclei into helium. This was as true 2000 years ago when no one believed it as it is today where it is almost universally accepted. What acceptance does show however is how compelling the data is. The data for the sun being a ball of plasma is now overwhelming. Thousands of years ago not so much. If the academic non-faith based data supported book of Mormon as an ancient text, more people would believe it. This isn't the same thing as saying it's not true. If Dan said the data didn't support the Shinto belief that gods live in inanimate objects, I don't think you'd bat an eye. If he said the data don't support Muhammad splitting the moon you wouldn't bat an eye. But your faith is special right?

I think your sentence is missing a word. I also think you have Dan's approach backwards. He uses his scholarly bona fides (which are significant) to bolster his social media presence.

I think Jacob is making the same mistake as Dan: using the same platform (here, "A Thoughtful Faith") to post social media content about A) the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and B) Jacob's personal political views and opinions. I dislike that. A lot. That said, Jacob is not trying to use scholarly bona fides to bolster and lend undue credence to his personal opinions, so there is something of a difference there. Thanks, -Smac

I especially appreciated his inadvertent misspelling (we're vs. were).

It’s right there in the name and everyone knows nazis don’t lie.

Did you think these meant different things? They are two different ways of saying the same thing.

Here's one of Jacob's latest fine, well thought out moments for you to consider:

Or perhaps it's just a disagreement. First, I quote Dan and provide links, so the context is there. Second, my critique of Dan's social media content has been going on for a while, so there really isn't "a particular context" in view apart from what I have noted, which is what I take as Dan using his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster and lend credence to his personal opinions on matters well outside of his expertise as a biblical scholar. Third, Turning Point USA is an organization he dislikes on political grounds, so labeling that dislike as a conclusion from “the data” gives it an aura of objectivity it does not possess. Whether or not Joseph Smith was a "false prophet" is not an academic or scholarly inquiry, yet Dan has publicly declared that he has reached an "academic conclusion" that "the data supports the conclusion Smith was a false Prophet." Fourth, I find his references to "the data" about such non-empirical matters to be rhetorically dishonest. I see this as Dan engaging in a sleight-of-hand maneuver, where he posts social media content under the rubric of "Hi, I'm Dan McClellan and I'm a scholar of religion and the Bible" and also content which walks and talks in virtually all respects like his "scholarly" videos, but then contain pronouncements about matters that are A) not within his realm of expertise, B) are not empirically testable, and C) reflective of his personal and subjective value judgments, opinions and presuppositions. Both categories of content look virtually alike. Same channel, same guy, same video setup. But while Dan is quite good at marshaling "the data" for matters pertaining to biblical scholarship, his pronouncements about other items (mostly sociopolitical issues he finds significant) are effectively bereft of any showing of "the data." And yet he appeals to "the data" for both categories. Dan has actually declared, publicly and to the entire world, and using the exact same platform as he uses for his pronouncements on biblical scholarship, that "the data indicate" that Joseph Smith "was a false prophet," and that this is his "academic conclusion." I find that problematic. Dan regularly does not cite "the data" he is referencing when he makes pronouncements about what they ("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, Turning Point USA, 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. Fifth, 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. I can appreciate that you are attempting to justify Dan's invocation of a supposed "academic" (!) assessment of "the data" about not-emprically-testable religious claims, but it's not working. That is to say, you are not persuading me to your point of view. Academics and self-declared "scholars" are not, or should not be, in the business of arbitrating prophethood, or making conclusory declarations, based on uncited "data," about not-empirically-testable religious claims. Yes. Alongside his "academic conclusion" about Joseph Smith being a "false prophet." Sure would be nice if he presented "the data." I think you presuppose too many things here. And because their perspective doesn't conform to Dan's "view," ipso facto "people in general matter to Turning Point USA." "The data" = Dan's opinion (outside of biblical scholarship). I find this problematic. I agree. That's why I posted a link to the whole video, and then parsed it out. And you complained. You: "You split someone's essay up so finely that you lose the forest for the trees." Also you: "{Y}ou ignore the context around the statement." Dan’s argument assumes that the only way to “care” about unborn children or gender-distressed youth is to adopt the specific policy conclusions he prefers, and that any disagreement proves bad faith. "The data" as to these matters appears to be just code for "My personal opinion." That is not how care works, and it is not how the evidence works. On the unborn, TPUSA’s position follows from the view that a human organism with a heartbeat, brain activity, and unique DNA is a rights-bearing human being. Restricting elective abortion is therefore an expression of care for that group, not indifference. Claims that restrictions “harm” women rest on selective or contested data (maternal-mortality trends, economic studies, comparisons with countries that have different baselines). Disagreement over the moral status of the fetus and the strength of those studies is not evidence that pro-life advocates do not care about babies. And yet here we are, watching Dan and you declare that "the data" show that pro-life advocates do not care about babies. On transgender-identifying youth, the claim that “the data conclusively show” affirmation is the only caring response is overstated. Major systematic reviews (Cass Review in the UK, and shifts in Sweden, Finland, Norway, and elsewhere) have found the evidence for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors to be weak, with significant risks and high rates of co-occurring mental-health conditions. Many who “care” about these young people conclude that caution, therapy addressing underlying issues, and avoiding irreversible interventions is the more protective approach—especially given desistance data from earlier cohorts and the rapid rise in adolescent-onset cases. Preferring that approach is not proof of indifference. People routinely care about the same group while disagreeing on means. Treating policy disagreement as conclusive evidence of bad motives is an unfalsifiable accusation, not an empirical finding. And Dan imputes terrible motives onto other people. All. The. Time. Thanks, -Smac

Any thought about the "violent overthrown" element of communism? In Marxist theory and communist history, violence is not considered an ultimate end or a core philosophical value, but rather an unavoidable, legitimate, and necessary instrument for achieving political and social transformation. Academic analysis and communist texts generally view the role of violence through three distinct phases: the overthrow of the capitalist state, the preservation of the revolution, and the legacy of state terror in practice. Claims akin to “real socialism/communism has never been tried” (or that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, etc. “weren’t really socialist/communist”) are, in my view, reliying on the No True Scotsman fallacy. It redefines the term after the fact to exclude or circumvent historical counterexamples where these ideologies have, when implemented, had horrible results (such as USSR). Such claims are effectively unfalsifiable ("No, I mean real communism..."). The historical regimes - USSR, China, Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. - were not random dictatorships or “state capitalism.” They were explicit, large-scale attempts to implement the core of Marxist-Leninist socialism: collective or state ownership of the means of production, central planning of the economy, suppression of private enterprise and markets, and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Their leaders, parties, and constitutions described themselves as building socialism and communism. The results—chronic shortages, mass repression, famines, and economic failure—were not accidents. They followed from the incentive and information problems inherent in abolishing private ownership and market prices. If every real-world attempt that matches the theory’s own criteria is dismissed as “not real,” then the theory has no empirical content. No other political or economic system is granted this exemption. Failures of liberal democracy or markets are not waved away by saying “that wasn’t real capitalism.” An ideal that has been pursued for a century under its own name, at the cost of tens of millions of lives, and has consistently produced the same outcomes, cannot be shielded by redefinition. The Amish are often pointed to as a successful small-scale deployment of communitarian living which, I think, is the good faith goal of many folks who endorse socialism. However, I don't think the square peg of the Amish community can be pounded into the round hole of socialism or proto-socialism. These folks are a voluntary, faith-based Christian community that practices mutual aid and separation from modern technology for religious reasons, while retaining private ownership of farms and businesses. Their cooperation is limited, consensual, and rooted in church discipline and personal responsibility. In contrast, socialism/communism is a political-economic system that seeks collective or state ownership of the means of production, central planning, and redistribution enforced by state power—often through coercion and the suppression of private property and markets. The Amish operate small-scale voluntary communities inside a market order; socialism/communism seeks to remake the entire economy through compulsory collective control. Also, I think the Amish can only exist within the U.S. and countries similar to it (like Canada, though that's getting iffy). They depend on a host society that protects religious liberty, private property, and the right to opt out of many state systems (public schooling, military service, certain taxes or regulations). The United States has provided that combination more consistently than almost anywhere else, through constitutional protections and practical legal accommodations. In most other countries—authoritarian regimes, strongly secular welfare states with high conformity pressure, theocracies, or places with weak property rights—such communities are far more vulnerable. Historical European persecution drove many of their ancestors to America. Even in some modern liberal democracies, heavier state involvement in education, welfare, or land use can erode their ability to maintain separation and self-sufficiency. They are not self-sustaining outside a relatively tolerant, rights-based order; they need a surrounding system that leaves them alone. Thanks, -Smac

Here is the problem. Dan's statement was made within a particular context (ripping it from that context makes Dan an offender for a word). The context was responding to a video put out by TPUSA. In that video TPUSA claims to care about people. What people do TPUSA care about in their video? Unborn babies and transgendered youth. Dan spends 30 minutes presenting data showing that the policy positions put forth by TPUSA actually harm both of these groups. In Dan's view the data conclusively show that TPUSA does not in fact care about "the unborn". If they did they would act completely differently based on the empirical data. In Dan's view the data conclusively show that TPUSA does not in fact care about transgendered youth or they would act differently. So Dan's claim at the beginning of the video must be understood by the context of the whole video. The 30 minute video provides the data (as Dan sees it) to show that TPUSA does not actually care about the unborn and they don't actually care about transgendered youth.

Respectfully, I reject the premise. I am looking at the totality of the video I am critiquing, and then parsing it out to explain which portions of it I find to be problematic and why. Yes. You'd think you would be acclimated to my writing style by now. You frequently inject ad hominem digs into your posts. I'm used to that. I don't think so. I have received a number of messages thanking me for my thoroughness. There are people who like my writing style, and people who do not. I'm okay with that. I don't really think much of your writing style, with its frequent and pervasive ad hominem digs, but I think others like what you say and how. I think that's more about preference than substance. De gustibus non disputandum est. I like some of Dan's content in the video, and I dislike some of it. I parsed out the two categories and explained the basis for the parsing. I have. I'm at ease with how I write. I dislike your ad hominem-laden content. That might merit some introspection, but I'll leave that to you. Thanks, -Smac

I agree, but it's art about a sacred topic, so responses to it may be understandably disproportionate, and perhaps not altogether reasonable. By way of example, I have read a number of narratives about people who, having left the Church, cite as evidence of the Church's terribleness its occasional use of artistic depictions of Joseph Smith reading directly from the Plates: For my part, I think artistic license should have a lot of sway. I remember seeing this as a child: I thought "Wow, Joseph Smith wore a cape? Like Batman? Cool!" Upon further reflection, and now that I'm in my 50s, I doubt Joseph wore a cape to his interview with Moroni as depicted in this image. I think that's okay, as it is ancillary to the main idea being conveyed. Same here. Thanks, -Smac

Just going to respond to this one point. Sounds good. None of us is obligated to respond more than we prefer. Actually, that was the part of Dan's video that I found to be pretty compelling. But that's not the "data" associated with Dan's pronouncement that "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. It's not an empirical finding about whether "people in general matter to Turning Point USA." Would you agree with that? I haven't parsed out his data on these points. I previously took them at face value, but then I saw what I took to be "playing fast and loose" with citations to published scholarship about trans issues. As I noted previously: 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. I'll pretty much defer to Dan's citations to biblical scholarship as a matter of course. Whatever flaws I see in his social media content, I don't think he would mischaracterize or misstate or misrepresent scholarly materials within his realm of expertise. Otherwise, though, my survey of Dan's citated materials which touch on topics outside of biblical scholarship have left me hesitant to trust him about those materials. Meanwhile, he provided no data whatsoever when he said that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." He is, of course, free to step in and out of his stature as a scholar, but I think doing so in the ways I am seeing are problematic. He said that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." He did not provide "the data" referenced here, which is the same thing he has done in making conclusory pronouncements about other obviously-not-empirically-testable-or-within-the-realm-of-biblical-scholarship topics, such as Joseph Smith being a "false prophet." No data, and I have drawn some conclusions as to why. He presented no data to support his claim that "the data do not support the conclusion that people in general matter to Turning Point USA." And his presentation of "the data" as to trans issues was, in my mind, materially deficient. Thanks, -Smac