Jump to content

Church joins interfaith coalition letter supporting LGBTQ rights in Florida


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

About 5 years ago, right on this discussion board, Dan McClellan boasted with great pride that he is in favor of abortion and that the women who engage in the practice should be lauded as heroines for asserting the dignity of their autonomy. I was absolutely flabbergasted! If he is able to so boldly and easily turn against the Church teachings on the sanctity of human life, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we get more false doctrine coming from him in January.

CFR…I don’t trust interpretations of others’ political positions, there is way too much insertion of one’s own position into such. 

Link to comment
On 11/12/2022 at 9:07 PM, Calm said:

Why don’t we wait and find out?

I was more interested in what Tacenda thought would be "exciting."

I think we already has some idea what Dan McLellan has to say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
On 11/12/2022 at 9:41 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So he has tons of videos on TikTok discussing this topic. Just as a warning, on TikTok he presents the consensus view of critical biblical scholarship.

Yes, that is what I am anticipating.

On 11/12/2022 at 9:41 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So when watching his videos it’s important to keep that in mind. (For example on the topic at hand, he engages scholarship to examine what the likely authors of the passages had in mind - according to critical scholarship). He sometimes will give a hint or tease about his own personal opinions, but does not tend to address his own faith or views. Here are just a couple:

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTqwsF/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRxTUgpC/

Nothing new here.  

His comments about "dogma" are interesting and ironic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
19 hours ago, CV75 said:

My goodness this guy needs to be more careful.  I see some serious missteps, e.g., throwing out phrases like, "the Bibles' original authoritative intent"

I'm sure that's shorthand for "any particular author's intent." Dan knows that the Bible doesn't have any kind of univocality, he says as much all the time. But like he says, it's impossible to completely and fully understand authorial intent, even if we have a good idea of what was generally intended. 

If you take Paul for instance, his understanding of same sex relationships (or even opposite sex ones) is so alien to our own that his particular views on these things aren't particularly relevant. Certainly many of Paul's views on opposite sex relationships are rejected by most Christian denominations, including Latter-day Saints. Paul thought that God made people engage in same sex relationships as a punishment for their worship of false Gods, and that monotheism was more ancient than polytheism. He was simply wrong on both counts.

 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
1 hour ago, smac97 said:

His comments about "dogma" are interesting and ironic.

Not remotely. There is a dogmatic approach to the text. One where we assume the Bible is speaking with one voice, has one agenda, and it aligns with our modern view of the world. And then there is the approach Dan brings in his videos. One where he asks, how would people anciently have understood this? What was their purpose for writing? What’s the historical context?

One approach already knows what the text says and one asks what the text says and how ancient people would have understood it. 

If you are still confused, Dan approaches the Bible in his videos like you would approach every single religious text other than the Book of Mormon and Bible. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

... If you are still confused, Dan approaches the Bible in his videos like you would approach every single religious text other than the Book of Mormon and Bible. 

And how do you think @smac97 would approach religious texts other than the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And how do you think @smac97 would approach religious texts other than the Book of Mormon and the Bible?

 

The same way Dan approaches the Bible in his videos. With a desire to understand how the authors viewed themselves, the historical context in which it arose, etc. In other words, a data based approach. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

His comments about "dogma" are interesting and ironic.

Not remotely. There is a dogmatic approach to the text.

Actually, there are a variety of dogmatic approaches to the text.  One of which holds as incontrovertibly true the notion that same-sex behavior is acceptable to God, and proceeds to interpret the text with that presupposition in place.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One where we assume the Bible is speaking with one voice, has one agenda, and it aligns with our modern view of the world.

That is one, yes.  But there are others.  Hence the irony.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And then there is the approach Dan brings in his videos.

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

One where he asks, how would people anciently have understood this? What was their purpose for writing? What’s the historical context?  One approach already knows what the text says and one asks what the text says and how ancient people would have understood it. 

Right.  No risk at all of him reading anything into the text.  None at all.  No thumb on the scale, even just a smidge.

Or . . . not.  See my comments above about apparent daisy-chaining and speculation.  Is it possible that Dan's "modern view of the world" is affecting his perspective on, say, the meaning, interpretation and application of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13?  Any chance at all?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If you are still confused,

I don't think I have given any indication that I feel "confused."

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dan approaches the Bible in his videos like you would approach every single religious text other than the Book of Mormon and Bible. 

I'm not sure you are cognizant of how I approach the religious texts of other faith traditions, so you're not really in a position to draw such a comparison.

For myself, I would love to see a revelation from God establishing the moral legitimacy of same-sex behavior.  There are a few reasons for this:

First, I think it is important that we look for and discern the will of God and accept it when it is given to us.  

Second, if past and current prophets and apostles have been substantively wrong on this issue, I want such errors to be corrected. 

Third, I want my gay brothers and sisters to be happy, and if such happiness can be found in same-sex behavior being compatible with God's will, then I'm all for it.

Fourth, it would be a big relief for the Latter-day Saints, as you and yours would (hopefully) stop characterizing us has hateful bigots.

As it is, however, I don't anticipate such a revelation.  I'll surely eat crow if and when we see one presented to us, but meanwhile I think it is incumbent upon us to proclaim the Gospel as it has been formulated by and through prophets and apostles, both past and present. This is as opposed to the Gospel as conforming to popular social trends.

Meanwhile, we carry on.  I am grateful that the Church has substantially refined and improved its tone and messaging on issues associated with same-sex attraction.  I am also grateful that the Brethren seem to be, cumulatively speaking, kind and decent, but also intent to teach us what is right, even when what is right is not popular.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
On 11/13/2022 at 4:59 AM, 2BizE said:

as long as religions can still maintain the right to discriminate against them

In short, you object to the right of churches to call homosexual behavior sinful. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The same way Dan approaches the Bible in his videos. With a desire to understand how the authors viewed themselves, the historical context in which it arose, etc. In other words, a data based approach. 

Yes, but also much more than that.

I also take a "data based approach" to the Bible and the Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

I must be missing some segment of peoples modern world view. Dan’s view of Leviticus states that the author of the text condemned the penetrator in homosexual acts. Is there a group out there that shares this view? That certainly isn’t my world view and it certainly isn’t Dan’s. Who exactly is arguing for this today?

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

I must be missing some segment of peoples modern world view.

Perhaps so.  Confirmation bias can make us miss things.

For example, you seem to be presenting Dan has having attained some lofty pinnacle of enlightened thought wherein his approach is free from any bias or preconceived notions and "personal opinions," whereas the rest of us are just a bunch of benighted yokels mired in such things.

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dan’s view of Leviticus states that the author of the text condemned the penetrator in homosexual acts.

Yes.  And he gets there through daisy-chaining and speculation.  Again, is it possible that Dan's "modern view of the world" (his personal opinions, preconceived notions, etc.) is affecting his conclusion that "the text condemned the penetrator in homosexual acts"?  Any chance at all?

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Is there a group out there that shares this view? That certainly isn’t my world view and it certainly isn’t Dan’s.

Actually, that does appear to be Dan's view.  In this TikTok video he states that "we can conclude that whatever the concern is with this prohibition {in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13}, it is aimed at the penetrator, not the penetrated," and that in the "original versions" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they only prohibited being the penetrator."

He sure seems to be presenting these conclusions as his "views."  Do you disagree? 

45 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Who exactly is arguing for this today?

Dan is (or at least seems to be).

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
18 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR…I don’t trust interpretations of others’ political positions, there is way too much insertion of one’s own position into such. 

Curious, I searched and while I didn't find precisely what @teddyaware was referring to, because I didn't examine the entire thread, it might nevertheless be somewhere in Mystery Meat's thread "There Is No Such Thing As A Liberal Mormon" which was originally posted in August 2016. In that thread @maklelan posts this

Quote

I am a faithful Mormon who works for the Church and am at this very moment on an island in the South Pacific beginning a new translation of the scriptures, and I absolutely support Planned Parenthood and requiring companies to provide birth control. I just don't see how a faithful Mormon could justify facilitating the oppression and injury of women in the name of grotesquely uneducated and petty identity politics.

In the same thread, he indicates that he does not believe a fetus has the status of a human life until it is actually born. Did he write exactly what Teddy said he wrote? Don't know. But it seems that does reflect his opinion.

Not that he's not entitled to his opinion. Of course he is. It happens that I'm not too favorable towards people who believe that abortion up to just before the moment of birth is OK. Which seems to be what his position is.

Not to be a board nanny, but discussing this further is probably a threadjack. Those who do wish to carry this further should perhaps start another thread on the subject. But I am pretty sure it has been talked to death here, and hasn't changed anyone's mind so far. So why bother?

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, that does appear to be Dan's view.  In this TikTok video he states that "we can conclude that whatever the concern is with this prohibition {in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13}, it is aimed at the penetrator, not the penetrated," and that in the "original versions" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they only prohibited being the penetrator."

He sure seems to be presenting these conclusions as his "views."  Do you disagree?

You fundamentally misunderstand him. He argues that the best research and data support this reading of the text. And he is correct. He, unlike others supporting a dogmatic approach, does not use his reading of the text to inform his modern view.
 

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Who exactly is arguing for this today?

Dan is (or at least seems to be).

No he is not. Dan (and others like him), want to understand how the ancient authors viewed the text. Some modern Christians want to take their non-historical view of the Bible and use it to justify their own modern views and set modern policy. 

Edited by SeekingUnderstanding
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I'm sure that's shorthand for "any particular author's intent." Dan knows that the Bible doesn't have any kind of univocality, he says as much all the time. But like he says, it's impossible to completely and fully understand authorial intent, even if we have a good idea of what was generally intended. 

If you take Paul for instance, his understanding of same sex relationships (or even opposite sex ones) is so alien to our own that his particular views on these things aren't particularly relevant. Certainly many of Paul's views on opposite sex relationships are rejected by most Christian denominations, including Latter-day Saints. Paul thought that God made people engage in same sex relationships as a punishment for their worship of false Gods, and that monotheism was more ancient than polytheism. He was simply wrong on both counts.

 

Thank you for that excellent point. His reference to "younger men and boys and slaves" as "things" is still a bit unsettling. I also think there are better ways to discourage interpreting the Bible out of context for hurtful and discriminatory purposes than folding it into an oppositional political statement, another misstep in using scholarship to advocate for better behavior.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote

Actually, that does appear to be Dan's view.  In this TikTok video he states that "we can conclude that whatever the concern is with this prohibition {in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13}, it is aimed at the penetrator, not the penetrated," and that in the "original versions" of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, they only prohibited being the penetrator."

He sure seems to be presenting these conclusions as his "views."  Do you disagree?

You fundamentally misunderstand him.

I'm not sure about that.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He argues that the best research and data support this reading of the text. And he is correct.

I don't think either of these propositions have been demonstrated.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

He, unlike others supporting a dogmatic approach, does not use his reading of the text to inform his modern view.

As I said a few minutes ago: "{Y}ou seem to be presenting Dan has having attained some lofty pinnacle of enlightened thought wherein his approach is free from any bias or preconceived notions and 'personal opinions,' whereas the rest of us are just a bunch of benighted yokels mired in such things."

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote
Quote
Quote

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

I must be missing some segment of peoples modern world view. Dan’s view of Leviticus states that the author of the text condemned the penetrator in homosexual acts. Is there a group out there that shares this view? That certainly isn’t my world view and it certainly isn’t Dan’s. Who exactly is arguing for this today?

Dan is (or at least seems to be).

No he is not.

Dan is not part of the "we" in "we can conclude that whatever the concern is with this prohibition {in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13}, it is aimed at the penetrator, not the penetrated"?

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dan (and others like him), want to understand how the ancient authors viewed the text.

So do I, and people like me.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Modern Christians want to take their non-historical view of the Bible and use it to justify their own modern views and set modern policy. 

Some "modern" folks want to read their personal an political preferences into the Bible so as to justify their own modern views and set modern policy, particularly as pertaining to SSA-related issues.

He's not the first person to attempt this strategy in a Latter-day Saint context.  D. Michael Quinn's Same-Sex Dynamics book is a good example of a modern writer projecting his personal preferences onto historical sources.  See the following reviews:

A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of Latter-day Saint History

Quinnspeak

To be sure, I would like to think of Dan as a thoughtful, introspective, fairminded, and relatively objective scholar.  But I think he has a long way to go before "fairminded" and "objective" can be added to his scholarly color palette.  Offhand, I recall him

  • declaring anyone who was pleased to see Donald Trump elected POTUS to be "no follower of Christ" (twice, even), as haters of women and minorities and as "legitimizing racial abuse and attacks," 
  • that he was "ashamed to be a Mormon" because some Latter-day Saints voted for Trump,
  • that I, in decrying racism, was actually "spouting rhetorical prophylaxis for white supremacy,"
  • that I am "fighting so hard" to "protect" "race-based privileges,"
  • that I am "profoundly racist,"
  • that Provoman had "pervert{ed} the Prophet's words for the sake of your blithe defense of white supremacy,"
  • that I am "carrying water for white supremacy,"
  • that all opposition to elective abortion "fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women," and that the pro-life movement is "absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women," 

And on and on and on.  Dan's posts are, unfortunately, often chockablock full of both A) highly-politicized talking points, bugaboos, bête noirs and night terrors, all with a very clear and particular "political" bent, and B) searingly hostile vilifications of anyone who disagrees with him on such politicized issues.  And he has said all these horribly nasty things on this message board, to his fellow Latter-day Saints.

Given my first-hand experiences with Dan, I hope you will understand why I don't quite see him as the paragon of scholarly restraint and objectivity that you do.  When it comes to topics "political," Dan is a scorched earth, no-holds-barred, my-way-or-the-highway, you-either-agree-with-me-or-you're-a-bigot kind of guy.

So when it comes to Dan's interpretation of biblical passages on the Third Rail that is same-sex attraction, I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that his sociopolitical opinions just might be in the driver's seat (or at least loudly shouting directions and demands from an adjacent one).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Some "modern" folks want to read their personal an political preferences into the Bible so as to justify their own modern views and set modern policy, particularly as pertaining to SSA-related issues.

He's not the first person to attempt this strategy in a Latter-day Saint context. 

How does viewing Leviticus as a prohibition against penetrating another man, further the cause of viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God? This is the leap that I am missing. Like my preference would be for there to be no prohibition against homosexuality in the bible. The data, however, do not support this. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for that excellent point. His reference to "younger men and boys and slaves" as "things" is still a bit unsettling.

I don't think he was referring to them as "things" at all

 

40 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I also think there are better ways to discourage interpreting the Bible out of context for hurtful and discriminatory purposes than folding it into an oppositional political statement, another misstep in using scholarship to advocate for better behavior.

I don't see how he did that either? I think his point is that in historical context these texts don't actually support either side of this issue, therefore we must "negotiate" with the text to find the best way forward, just as we did with the issue of slavery. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How does viewing Leviticus as a prohibition against penetrating another man, further the cause of viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God?

I'm not sure it does.  And I'm pretty sure I have not suggested that it does.

That said, I think attempting to substantially narrow the scope and application of the Levitical passages is a pretty common tack taken by those attempting to reconcile same-sex behavior with belief in the Bible.  This does not seem to work that well in a Latter-day Saint paradigm, as we are not beholden to stringencies associated with or arising from A) biblical inerrancy, B) sola scriptura, or C) critical biblical scholarship.  That is, we believe the Bible is the word of God, but not "inerrant."  We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but not solely so.  We find some utility in critical biblical scholarship, but the pronouncements of subsets of scholars are seldom the definitive and discussion-ending say-so on a given topic.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is the leap that I am missing.

If you go back and read Dan's posts (both under his current handle and his previous "maklelan" one), you'll see a pretty consistent pattern.  For some, Paul Krugman's diktat that "Everything Is Political" is a byword, perhaps even a shibboleth.  Having been repeatedly excoriated by Dan for failing to kowtow to his pronouncements, which are dependably-as-the-tides from a particular sociopolitical perspective, when I watched his videos interpreting the Levitical passages, I surmised beforehand the angle he would take.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Like my preference would be for there to be no prohibition against homosexuality in the bible. The data, however, do not support this. 

Well, some people disagree with you.  See, e.g., here.

I disagree that there is a biblical "prohibition against homosexuality," but I do believe there are prohibitions against same-sex behaviors.  In any event, for some who want to reconcile "homosexuality" (presumptively both the attraction and acting on it), the alternative approach to denying the existence of biblical proscriptions is to weaken or delegitimize or substantially re-frame and re-characterize them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it does.  And I'm pretty sure I have not suggested that it does.

And yet you also said this in regards to the views expressed in Dan’s videos:

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

So Dan gives us the consensus view of critical biblical scholarship on how the authors of Leviticus viewed the world. And then you claim (as I read you) that this view “aligns with [Dan’s] modern view of the world.” And then you say that you didn’t suggest it. 
 

Clearly I am missing something, and so I apologize for misreading you. 

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:
Quote
Quote

How does viewing Leviticus as a prohibition against penetrating another man, further the cause of viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God?

I'm not sure it does.  And I'm pretty sure I have not suggested that it does.

And yet you also said this in regards to the views expressed in Dan’s videos:

Quote
Quote

There is a dogmatic approach to the text.  One where we assume the Bible is speaking with one voice, has one agenda, and it aligns with our modern view of the world.  And then there is the approach Dan brings in his videos.

Yep.  An approach that also "aligns with our modern view of the world" (for some of us, anyway).

Yes.  There are plenty of people who, in their "modern view of the world" think there is nothing morally/ethically wrong with homosexual behavior.

Is Dan one of these?  Given the past fairly clear indications of him being really into a particular sociopolitical worldview, I have surmised as much.  But I am certainly open to correction on that point.

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So Dan gives us the consensus view of critical biblical scholarship on how the authors of Leviticus viewed the world.

Is there really a "consensus view" on the passages in question?  And are the participants in that consensus authoritative?  And are they also susceptible to interpreting the Bible in ways aligning "with our modern view of the world?"  Are these scholars immune from bias or personal preference?  Do they have a corner on the "calling 'em as I see 'em" market?  Is Daniel Ellsworth correct when he states that "critical biblical scholarship has been engaged in this process of deconstruction of biblical religious narratives for centuries"?  Is Eric Eliason correct when he states that "Kugel curiously does little to note the naturalistic and secular assumptions often at play in modern Bible scholarship and has little to say about secularism being the starting premise as much as the end result of much critical Bible scholarship"?  Are these underlying "naturalistic and secular assumptions" necessary?

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And then you claim (as I read you) that this view “aligns with [Dan’s] modern view of the world.” And then you say that you didn’t suggest it. 

First, you are the one that framed the issue as "further{ing} the cause of viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God."  I did not.

Second, I did say that "attempting to substantially narrow the scope and application of the Levitical passages is a pretty common tack taken by those attempting to reconcile same-sex behavior with belief in the Bible."  That doesn't seem quite synonymous with "viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God" (though they are variations on a general theme).

Third, there is an interim step between "condemned" (the "traditional" interpretation of the Levitical prohibitions) and "condoned" (as you put it, "viewing all same sex relationships as just fine with God").  That interim step is "not condemned" (akin to decriminalization of an act as an interim step toward legalizing it).

46 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Clearly I am missing something, and so I apologize for misreading you. 

I did not take offense.  Thank you for letting me clarify.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I don't think he was referring to them as "things" at all

 

I don't see how he did that either? I think his point is that in historical context these texts don't actually support either side of this issue, therefore we must "negotiate" with the text to find the best way forward, just as we did with the issue of slavery. 

I won't belabor this, but I did transcribe the phrase directly from the video; it suggests a bias concerning people-as-things which some people don't mind but others do.

His point on historical context is one thing and quite valuable in my opinion; his manner and approach is another, which, as you can see, solicits different interpretations.

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  There are plenty of people who, in their "modern view of the world" think there is nothing morally/ethically wrong with homosexual behavior.

Is Dan one of these?  Given the past fairly clear indications of him being really into a particular sociopolitical worldview, I have surmised as much.  But I am certainly open to correction on that point.

That is my read on him. 

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is there really a "consensus view" on the passages in question? 
 

Among *critical biblical scholars, I think Dan’s view is mainstream. There are a sizable number of biblical scholars that don’t approach the Bible in the same way.

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And are the participants in that consensus authoritative? 
 

Authoritative? I’d say that’s a dogmatic word. They bring evidence and scholarship to the table and let it speak for itself. 

42 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And are they also susceptible to interpreting the Bible in ways aligning "with our modern view of the world?"  Are these scholars immune from bias or personal preference? 

Surely not. Are they less biased than the “sola scripture”? How could they not be?
 

Dan takes “liberal” Christians to task on his TikTok channel all the time when they present views that attempt to align the Bible with our modern world view. These would be the videos that start with “while i support the rhetorical goals of this creator, the historical data don’t support …”
 

For my part, I don’t care if the Bible condones, condemns, or blesses same sex relationships. The morality of the Bible is antiquated and quite horrible in parts. I don’t think we should structure our lives based on the ancient law codes of some random tribe in the Middle East. That said, I find history fascinating. I enjoy learning about people of the past, including how they viewed themselves and their gods. I think most critical biblical scholars feel the same way. So I just don’t see any goal in trying to wrangle the text to align with a modern world view. These people’s goal is to understand how these historical people viewed themselves. The same as historians that study ancient Babylon, Rome, China. Etc. 
 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was more interested in what Tacenda thought would be "exciting."

I think we already has some idea what Dan McLellan has to say.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Only because whenever I have mentioned to someone on here or elsewhere I bring up an article mentioning how homosexual wasn't in the Bible until the 1980's and was anticipating what Dan may say about it. :)

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I won't belabor this, but I did transcribe the phrase directly from the video; it suggests a bias concerning people-as-things which some people don't mind but others do.

His point on historical context is one thing and quite valuable in my opinion; his manner and approach is another, which, as you can see, solicits different interpretations.

Time stamp of comment please. It could just be a casual speech habit where one fills in with a generic word (these days I use “whatever” quite a bit for this purpose). Unless you can establish he makes a habit of labeling people as “things”, I don’t think it wise to assume such a bias. 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...