smac97

That is my assessment as well. And yet NotaTBM is only kinda sorta retracting his claim that Joseph was not sealed to Emma. I'm not sure. In the Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam), Person A asserts a claim and then demands that Person B prove the claim is false to show that Person A's claim is true . Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance. But that is not what has happened here. NotaTBM ("Person A") made a factual claim: that Joseph was not sealed to Emma "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma." Person B (smac97) responded: And here: From footnote 457: Person A made the assertion, and so he generally has the obligation to provide evidence for it. This does not change if the assertion is "negative." Thanks, -Smac

Your summaries and paraphrases of my ideas are almost always inaccurate, substantially so. No. When I need to nail a nail into a piece of wood, I just a hammer, not a saw. When I want to cut a piece of wood, I use a saw, not a hammer. The scientific method and standard historiographical methods are all quite good and useful in their sphere, but they are not the only tools available. No. I do look at this, though: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." This, we are told, is "data > dogma." Okay. It certainly has its flaws, but it's the best system, or one of the best, devised so far. I'm skeptical that the lawyers you know would disagree with my characterization of how court proceedings and briefs are in terms of tone and decorum. I think his approach has changed a lot. I think he likes to use his "I'm a scholar" bona fides to bolster and lend undo credence and probative weight to issues about which reasonable minds can disagree. But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. Please provide some "factually correct" things he has said which I do not like. I acknowledge that. I take him serious as a scholar. I take him less seriously when he makes forays outside of his realm of expertise. I also take him less seriously given his, shall we say, inconsistent application of "data > dogma." I also take him less seriously when he dunks on amateurs and resorts to snipes and digs, as this materially detracts from what I thought he was positioning himself to do, which was to thoughtfully distill and present the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. He does that still, which is why I pay attention to him. Thanks, -Smac

Jacob Hansen professes to be a Latter-day Saint devoted to his faith. And I think he is well versed in his familiarity with the doctrines and history. And I think he cares a lot about the Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church. In the end, he is sharing his perspective on the Church, and defending it. When I listen to Jacob's content, he is clear about his faith and his perspective. Is he looking for clicks? Yes. Garnering attention is the name of the game. I don't fault him for that, particularly since I think Jacob's content is not only "thorough and well reasoned," it is decorous. His splashes don't have the increasingly hammy/mugging flavor I'm seeing in Dan's channel. But even more important than that, he is civil in his disagreements. Take a look at this: I asked Grok to sum up the taunts and insults the pastor dished out, and the same for Jacob: Jacob sticks to the argument and the facts, (substantially) avoids ad hominem and insults and putdowns. I was impressed by and proud of his behavior. In contrast, I was pretty disappointed by and unimpressed with the pastor. Of the two participants in the above video, I think Dan hews substantially more toward the pastor's behavior. Free with personal taunts and insults. He regularly dunks on amateurs, and then adds taunts and insults to finish up. He imputes terrible motives onto the people he is critiquing, and then attacks them for it. I'm not on X much, but I'll give it a go: From October 23: October 19: Also October 19: October 16: October 13: October 13: October 12: October 12: Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say." October 11: October 10: Sounds like some ExMos have looked at what Dan is saying and think his staying in the Church is "so he can bring more people out" of it. Boy, ExMo Reddit threads discussing Dan are . . . illuminating. They seem to have drawn conclusions about Dan and the Church. These are the impressions Dan is giving former Latter-day Saints: I still don’t think it is possible to do what Dan does in public and answer these questions with his priesthood leaders honestly. I believe that since he views all religion as nothing more than a cognitive tool humans developed since the beginning of time, he has no problem participating in the religion from that point of view. I listened to his mormon stories interview and concluded that he probably doesn't believe the church is true. I genuinely believe he views it as a social club (because in reality that's what it is). So he treats it like a social club. I don't think Dan has come out directly and talked about his current beliefs, but it's probably safe to say he doesn't literally believe Mormon truth claims. He could be in the church for social and cultural reasons. My guess is that he’s a nonbeliever. Whatever funny business he's doing to remain in good standing as a Mormon is, in my view, a heroic act of interfaith dialogue that is maybe a little tricky, but is fundamentally about catching bad faith indoctrination in a meaningful way. I don't care how he justifies it to himself or his church. He's doing the No-Lords work so much better than any millennial atheist icon ever did. I think it’s pretty straightforward, he is a cultural Mormon. He claims to be a theist - but it’s clear he doesn’t believe in Mormonism. If you listen to him. He uses his education and platform to discredit Monotheism and Christianity as well as the Bible. He has been clear many times that he doesn't hold to a literal belief in the truth claims nor doctrine of Mormonism. It is essentially his cultural/social structure. I believe he knows the church is not true. I think he figured out that he is able to help the most misguided church members by staying in the church on paper... I assumed he was ex Mormon. I was shocked when I found out he wasn't I would be VERY surprised to learn he wasnt PIMO. I just cant fathom he actually beleives in the church... He walks a line so thin that both sides like him. I admire that. But as a Exmormon he has the knowledge to directly show the church is false. Anyway, back to Jacob: His X channel going back several weeks does not contain the same sort of dunking-on-amateurs and gratuitous digs and insults that I have seen in Dan's content. Perhaps a sampling error. I'll keep looking. Thanks, -Smac

You're overselling this. I don't think so. Serious topics deserve serious discussion. I'm sorry to hear that. I have attended dozens of depositions, and conducted many of them. While I have seen tense moments, I haven't seen any attorney misconduct, and incivilities are measures (no shouting, etc.). Depositions are a tough thing to the extent there is no referee - the judge - to step in and stop problems. Thanks, -Smac

Understood. Mugging for the camera so as to garner more social media clicks may be "having fun with it." But it comes at a cost, I think. I work as an attorney, and we are generally addressing serious topics. While some verbal asides during oral argument and very brief forays in written briefs may arise, substantive discussions about the law and its impact are important, and so are treated with seriousness and decorum. Again: Dan's social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience. I first said this about two years ago, and it seems to be even more applicable now. Well, no. I do not have any social media presence. I do not want attention from the public at large. I'm content to post thoughts on this seemingly obscure and sparsely-visited message board. I acknowledge that "desperate for attention" does not cast Dan in a good light, but that's what his more recent splashes convey to me. If he wants to be taken seriously as a scholar, I would not think he would be mugging for the camera for click-baity video splashes. Thanks, -Smac

Some of the summary about Caesar, yes. Though I have previously spoken of the historical evidence for Caesar's assassination, including Nicolaus, etc. No. I think reasoned skepticism about miraculous events is generally appropriate. My previous discussions have analogized evidence for the assassination with the evidence for the physicality of the Gold Plates. Any thoughts on that? If I say that a saw is better than a hammer for cutting a two-by-four in half, I am not "attempting to water down" the utility of a hammer in its own sphere. I just pointing to the better tool. And yet we still have substantial problems with Irreproducibility, Human biases and incentives, External influences, non-neutral Methodological and theoretical presumptions, Peer review, and so on. And then there's the whole "Using a hammer to cut a two-by-four" issue of trying to apply the Scientific Method to the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the theophanies of Joseph Smith. Not "only," but otherwise, yes. No, I don't want that. As does the historical record about Caesar's assassination talks up the validity and reliability of the extant historical narratives. There is nothing close to a one-to-one comparison in view, I acknowledge that. Hence the more appropriate comparison between Caesar's assassination and the physical reality of the Gold Plates. It does. But the methodology and presuppositions matter. In the U.S., courts of law are not an appropriate forum for adjudicating religious disputes. The Scientific Method cannot be meaningfully applied to the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the theophanies of Joseph Smith. I agree. I also think that a hammer is "fit" for nailing things into wood, but not for cutting wood in half. Thanks, -Smac

Am I required to by forum rules? Then no I think you are required by thee forum rules, see here: It certainly is a strong expectation on the board. I am invested in being a Latter-day Saint, yes. I have strong beliefs about the Restored Gospel. I come to this board to vet and test what I believe and why, and to listen to divergent points of view. I am interested in your point of view, for example, hence my questions posed to you. You are making repeated and various factual assertions of a sexual relationship between Joseph and Helen, while at the same time admitting that you have no evidence for those claims. Yes, as well as personal and prophetic revelation and my own reasoning. The evidence relative to the relationship between Joseph and Helen merits real attention. And it's a serious topic, so I would hope it is addressed with decorum and reasoning and civility. The evidence against a sexual relationship is largely negative—there is no contemporary record of consummation—and is reinforced by Helen’s own later accounts. No contemporary source (letters, diaries, affidavits from the 1840s) describes sexual relations. The sealing is documented as a religious ordinance arranged by Helen’s parents (especially her father, Heber C. Kimball) to create a dynastic link. Helen’s own writings, composed decades later, frame the event as a sealing she accepted at her father’s request for eternal family purposes. She does not describe cohabitation or a sexual marriage; her language emphasizes the spiritual and familial character of the ordinance and the difficulty of understanding it at age 14. There is no record of pregnancy, childbirth, or other physical evidence that would indicate consummation. The arrangement fits the same mid-1840s sealing logic seen in the Law of Adoption (adult men sealed to leaders for spiritual kinship). In that context, many early plural sealings functioned as eternal bonds without requiring or documenting ordinary marital cohabitation, particularly where the woman was very young. Later critics and some historians have inferred a sexual relationship from the fact of the sealing itself and from the broader practice of plural marriage, but that inference rests on assumption rather than direct evidence specific to Helen. In short, the historical record supports a parent-initiated dynastic sealing; it does not contain positive evidence of a sexual relationship. For my part, applying Occam's Razor to the foregoing scenario points away from a sexual relationship, and towards what was seen at the time as a dynastic one. I did not know you were a member of the Church, and I fully support your right to both have an opinion and express it. Some come here to socialize. I don't. I come here to discuss and debate and learn and listen. Your comments in this thread appear calculated not to education or inform, but rather to incite offense and anger. While you are certainly at liberty to do that (there is a limit re: "trolling"), I hope you will set aside the vitriol and have a conversation about the evidence. If you are right in your assessment of Joseph Smith, I want to know that. Your comments appear to be calculated to give offense, but I haven't taken offense. I also have not given you any "orders." Just requests, framed with intentions toward civility and inquiry about your perspective. Thanks, -Smac

"That the sealing was between Joseph and Emma is a reasoned inference." Is her name written there somewhere? Again, no. Are you saying the journal entry cannot form the basis for the reasoned inference? If so, could you elaborate? But that was not your original assertion. You said: "Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma." Are you now retracting that claim? Or just qualifying it ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma {until after he had been sealed to several other women})? So do you accept and agree with the reasoned inference, or not? Thanks, -Smac

For all your complaining about logical fallacies, you should know better than to ask this question. Could you elaborate? @Notatbm is making an affirmative declaration, that Joseph was not sealed to Emma. I am asking him to substantiate that claim. The Burden of Proof Principle The Claimant Bears the Burden: In logic and debate, the person making a positive or negative assertion is responsible for providing the evidence to support it. The Negative Proof Fallacy (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): It does become a fallacy if someone asserts a claim and then demands that their opponent prove the claim is false to show it is true (e.g., "You can't prove Joseph Smith was never sealed to Emma, therefore he wasn't"). Shifting the burden in this way is a form of an argument from ignorance. The Specific Example (Joseph Smith and Emma Smith) The Historical Fact: Historical records—including entries in Joseph Smith's journals and documents housed in The Joseph Smith Papers—show that Joseph Smith and Emma Hale Smith were sealed for eternity on May 28, 1843, in Nauvoo, Illinois. The Assertion: If someone asserts the negative claim ("Heck he didn’t even bother to get sealed to Emma"), they are the ones who must provide the evidence. Asking them to back up their assertion is a valid challenge to their claim, not a logical fallacy. However, asking them to prove a negative can be practically difficult or impossible because proving the non-existence of a historical event relies on complete historical records. Here, however, we have some historical and circumstantial evidence that Joseph was sealed to Emma. NotaTBM is, of course, free to assert the opposite, but I think he needs to present some evidence for it. Thanks, -Smac

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

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

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

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

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

I think it does the opposite. It says a miracle is outside the discipline of historical method. Ideally, yes. But then why does Dan come along and, while speaking within that naturalism paradigm, issue pronouncements about what "the data" show or do not show? How is methodological naturalism equipped to articulate what "the data" are regarding miracles, how it should be evaluated, what quantum or measure is appropriate, and so on? I just don't think methodological naturalism can work as an arbiter of "the data" regarding miracles because it a priori denies the existence of miracles. Science is a wonderful aspect of the human experience, but it is not the sole mechanism for discerning truth and reality. Moreover, the scientific consensus is not sacrosanct. It is not perfect and pristine and 100% correct. Our command of it is incomplete, blinkered, and tainted with biases and decidedly nonscientific influences. In 1957 Lee De Forest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, scoffed at the notion of space travel: "To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth—all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances." In 1930 Robert Millikan, an American experimental physicist honored with the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1923 for the measurement of the elementary electric charge and for his work on the photoelectric effect, stated: "No 'scientific bad boy' ever will be able to blow up the world by releasing atomic energy." In 1912 Guglielmo Marconi, inventor and electrical engineer, known for his pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission and credited as the inventor of radio, stated: "The coming of the wireless era will make war impossible, because it will make war ridiculous." In 1909 Scientific American declared that "the automobile has practically reached the limit of its development is suggested by the fact that during the past year no improvements of a radical nature have been introduced." In 1903 Albert Abraham Michelson, an American physicist known for his work on the measurement of the speed of light who won the 1907 Nobel Prize in Physics, stated: "The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote." And so on. I appreciate what scientists have to offer and contribute to humanity, but I can't get on board with the idea that any one of them (let alone all of them together) has/have a pristine and unassailable command of everthing there is to know. The quote from Shakespeare, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" can, to me, be applied to suggest that human knowledge, logic, and science cannot explain everything that exists in the universe. Or, as King Benjamin put it, "Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend." Thanks,, -Smac

Okay. Only a handful of people have seen Dan's various calumnies against me and my character, and not all of them have credited Dan's calumnies, and I am unlikely to meet any of the people who do credit them, and several of those who do dislike me already. Also, I found much of Dan's calumnies to be out-of-hand stupid. So me being - what's the term? - "butthurt" is certainly up to you, but it's not really borne out by the evidence. My adverse critique of Dan has more to do with the potential and/or actual damage he is doing to the faith of other Latter-day Saints, including unsuspecting ones who may assume that Dan, being a Latter-day Saint, would be a useful resource for someone hoping to strengthen or rehabilitate their faith, and may not fully appreciate that he has now repeatedly bragged about "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that he has called this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right." I would hope that Dan would like to advance the work of the Church. I would also hope that he is a genuinely devout Latter-day Saint. At present I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on these points, despite what I have seen him say. For me, the fundamental reason I stay in the Church is because I believe it is what it claims to be. That it also does all sorts of wonderful things to improve society is a natural and intrinsic "by their fruits"-style outgrowth of that fundamental reason. I want to effect positive change within the Church, but in supportive and sustaining ways, and not in an adversarial or subversive or "loyal opposition" sort of way. I would hope Dan could say the same. I would much prefer to view him as a Terryl Givens or a Richard L. Bushman than a John Dehlin or a Sam Young. Thanks, -Smac

The main point of disagreement is not with the existence of a historical Jesus or with the mainstream scholarly reconstruction of him as an apocalyptic preacher who was executed under Roman authority. Those are widely accepted conclusions in critical historical work, and nothing in the quoted paragraph on that score contradicts Latter-day Saint belief. The disagreement is with the first half of the statement—the claim that, from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is a physical impossibility that “the data” do not support and for which we lack evidence that clears an especially high bar. That framing treats a reported miracle as the kind of claim historical method is equipped to confirm or disconfirm in the same way it handles ordinary events. Historical scholarship operates under methodological naturalism: it explains the past using ordinary historical causes and evidence that can, in principle, be assessed without invoking the supernatural. Under that rule, a bodily resurrection is excluded from the set of possible explanations before the evidence is even examined. Calling the result “what the data show” or “what scholars can say” therefore reflects a prior methodological commitment more than an empirical finding about the evidence itself. How can the resurrection of Jesus Christ be empirically verified or falsified? What would count as evidence that could “get over the bar”? Eyewitness testimony, empty-tomb reports, and early creedal material are the main historical data we have; they are also the data critical scholars already use when they reconstruct the rise of belief in the resurrection. Those data are not typically treated as sufficient to establish the event under ordinary historical standards, because the standards themselves do not allow miraculous causation. Whether the proper standard should be preponderance, clear and convincing evidence, or something stronger is rarely made explicit, and it is not clear that any of those legal-style thresholds map cleanly onto a singular claim from the first century. In short, it is difficult to speak of “the data” ruling the resurrection in or out when the method in use has already decided that such an event lies outside what historical data are permitted to establish. This is a recognized feature of the discipline rather than a novel observation. Many scholars who work on the historical Jesus or the origins of Christianity explicitly distinguish between what can be said under historical method and what may be affirmed on other grounds (theological, experiential, or otherwise). The quoted statement collapses that distinction by presenting the methodological exclusion as a straightforward conclusion about the evidence. So I find it odd to see a scholar of Dan's caliber A) presuppose, and rely on a methodological naturalism paradigm that presupposes, the absence of miraculous events, and then B) characterize that paradigm as establishing authoritative parameters of "the data," and all C) while not informing his neophyte audience. There is nothing insightful or scholarly in announcing "the data do not support the miracle" when the speaker is acting within a paradigm that does not allow for the possibility that the miracle happened. Put another way, once Dan presents the interpretive method, and given that this method a priori and in advance rules out miraculous causation, announcing that "the data" - which Dan has already paradigmatically curated to exclude any consideration of miracles - do not establish the miracle is not an independent finding; it is the method restating its own starting assumption. As for the Latter-day Saint context, the Church teaches the bodily resurrection of Jesus as a foundational historical event, not merely as a later interpretive story. When someone who identifies as Latter-day Saint and presents himself as guided by “the data” publicly treats the resurrection as something the evidence does not support, that creates an obvious tension with the Church’s position. The objection is not to the study or public explanation of critical scholarship as such; it is to the implication that the resurrection fails an evidentiary test that historical method is not designed to apply in the first place. The tension is heightened precisely because Dan presents the conclusion as what "scholarship" and "the data" show rather than as what one methodological framework concludes. Thanks, -Smac

You don't have to take my word for it. The content of my various posts in this thread is available for review. The content focuses overwhelmingly on Dan's social media stuff. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, it is not explicit, but I think it's hard to suggest an alternative reading. I don't think there is any evidence for that. I think the only educated guess is Emma. I keep going back to the assassination of Caesar on the floor of the Senate. We seem to generally accept, on evidence far inferior to what we have about Joseph, the historicity and particulars of the incident, and the participants. Thanks, -Smac

Seems like we do. From Joseph's journal: From footnote 457: I would be curious about @Notatbm's assessment of this item. The footnote characterizes “w-r m-r-r-d” as shorthand. What makes you think it was a "cipher?" It has a fairly clear phonetic correlation to "were married." And what would the need be for a cipher about Joseph being sealed to Emma? I think the inference would need to be that Joseph and James were married to their respective wives (Emma and Harriet). Thanks, -Smac

I am certainly willing to consider historical evidence of a sexual relationship, but I am not aware of any. Can you help in this regard? In her reminiscences, autobiography, poetry, and later defenses of plural marriage, she never described sexual relations with Smith. Do you dispute this? If so, please lay out your reasoning and evidence. My understanding is that she characterized the sealing as “for eternity alone” and focused on its dynastic/spiritual purpose (linking the Kimball and Smith families and securing eternal blessings for her father’s household). After the sealing she continued living with her parents and attending school; she wrote about social restrictions (missing parties) rather than any intimate relationship. She was later married “for time” to Horace Whitney after Smith’s death. They do? Could you explain why and how laws existing in 2026 "apply" to Joseph Smith in the early 1840s? Possibly, yes. Again, I would be interested in what evidence you believe exists of a sexual relationship. See also here: The term “open” in this statute is a key element of this crime. The meaning of this term was then and still today is generally understood in law to cover conduct that is “notorious,” “exposed to public view,” or “visible,” and which is “not clandestine.”22 Joseph’s relationships with his plural wives did not meet this definition. Possibly, yes. Not sure what you mean here. I think this is incorrect. See here. Per Richard L. Bushman, Joseph and Emma were sealed on May 28, 1843. Bushman is a pretty solid historian, so I assume he has documentation. Do you have contrary evidence? That Joseph and Emma were never sealed? Not sure open mockery is helpful to the discussion. Thanks, -Smac

Man accused in Cornell rape lawsuit wants Letitia James removed from investigation Deeply unimpressed with Letitia James. Not just about her bias, but also her foolishness. Bias is a legitimate concern. Also not impressed with Gov. Hochul. Same reasons. I don't think the dispute is about broad legality of a governor's executive power. I don't think she'll be removed, but this was an unforced error. Thanks, -Smac

This is important stuff. I think our personal political preferences, ideologies, outlook, etc. need to be substantially "downstream" from our discipleship, as otherwise allegiance to a political party or ideology might end up superseding the "weightier matters" that exist, or should exist, in our lives. Thanks, -Smac

Well, no. My assessment of Dan is in part based on my personal interactions with him (hence my acknowledgment of those interactions), but mostly it's about his published-to-the-world social media stuff. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. Thanks, -Smac

No, it’s not. It’s your gig to say I am endorsing it. Even when I have said ‘nope’. You: "It’s your gig to say I am endorsing {the 'all men are potential rapists' slogan}. Even when I have said ‘nope’." Also you: "I go by the rule every man a potential rapist, have since I knew what rape was." Thanks, -Smac