LDS TikTok star debunks Bible conspiracies, misinformation

[provoman]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Two things can both be true. Scholars can be in a consensus that the verses don’t represent a general prohibition and also not understand what their motivation was for prohibiting the penetrator. It’s not rocket science. Would also help to link to the entire clip for context. 

That is not how he started his video. He started his video with 'what do they mean ... no one is exactly sure'. He made no mention of motivation.

Then he says 'those that general prohibition don't have a strong argument'; which does not equal 'no argument/no basis/indisputably wrong/ etc'

He ends with an affirmative 'not a prohibition'

He start with no one knows, then ends with in essence 'my opinion is correct, and I know'.

 

(As for his motivation portion, What other societies had as their laws, is not relevant to what God may have commanded the House of Jacob to do or not do.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ... )

 

Edited December 18, 2022 by provoman

[Eschaton]

9 hours ago, Navidad said:

I can't log into the Tribune link you post, so could you simply provide some examples of the misconceptions and conspiracy theories related to the Bible that you are referring to for us (me?). Thanks - I really don't have a context for this discussion.

Here's a recent one:

 

 

In this one he debunks the idea that Jeremiah 10 prohibits Christmas trees and give some nuance about the origin of both Christmas wreaths and Christmas trees in history. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Eschaton

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would hope that you do see the relevance of Biblical studies (what this thread is about) to spiritual growth (what each of our lives is about). I am not sure about the value of one without the other. Thanks.

One can certainly take spiritual lessons from the conclusions of Biblical scholarship if one wanted to, but Biblical scholarship itself isn't a spiritual endeavor - it's essentially the same as studying any other ancient text (The Illead, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Aeneid) from a historical perspective. 

[Eschaton]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

You were and are referring to different opinions. You found a book that supports the opinion you agree with.  There is nothing really wrong with that.

But, at the time of the comment of yours that I responded to, neither Rev or Dan provided source(s).  There were simply two competing opinions, with each saying to the other "you are wrong". And in my opinion, based on a recent post of Dan's, he seems to suggest the issue is not settled, though he disagree with the counter-opinion.

A regrettable feature of modern discourse is the idea that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge." Rev's unsupported claims do not trump relevant mainstream scholarship. 

[gav]

 

23 hours ago, Nevo said:

On 12/17/2022 at 8:43 PM, gav said:

Agreed, but a little humility goes a long way... and it's more palatable all round. Triumphalism is not very palatable...

More humility would benefit everyone, surely. But if scholars would do well to wear their learning lightly, so would non-scholars do well to wear their ignorance lightly and not dismiss decades (or centuries) of scholarly labor outright on the grounds that scholars have biases and sometimes change their minds (so why should we listen to anything they say?).    

Agreed again, in case it wasn't clear, I don't have a dog in this fight since there has been chest beating on both sides. Although entertaining, this kind of triumphalism doesn't lead to a meeting of the minds or edification but rather further polarisation of the issue. I don't think some of the subject matter has sufficient source material, especially the further back we go into the past for us to be truly certain. At best there is high probability and sometimes only plausibility or mere possibility. All would do well to keep that in mind in these debates and not overstate their case.

The texts and other evidence we have is likely a very small sample of what was originally recorded and what was recorded is perhaps only a thin sliver of daily life. Even if by some miracle we had all the records etc. would that still give us a comprehensively accurate picture of everything?

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

A regrettable feature of modern discourse is the idea that "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge." Rev's unsupported claims do not trump relevant mainstream scholarship. 

That was not the situation. The situation was Rev and Dan making statements without citing any sources. And then someone stated the Rev was wrong because his response to Dan was "you are wrong. 

Taken in order, Rev posted, Dan responded 'you are wrong', Rev replied back 'you are wrong'.

Nevo did not explain why Dan's 'your are wrong' was acceptable but Rev's was not. 

[Eschaton]

3 hours ago, provoman said:

That was not the situation. The situation was Rev and Dan making statements without citing any sources. And then someone stated the Rev was wrong because his response to Dan was "you are wrong. 

Taken in order, Rev posted, Dan responded 'you are wrong', Rev replied back 'you are wrong'.

Nevo did not explain why Dan's 'your are wrong' was acceptable but Rev's was not. 

Dan's positions are actually representative of current, mainstream Biblical scholarship. That's true whether or not he offers a direct citation in a particular post.  He very frequently does offer citations, however. 

Similarly, I can accurately say that most medical research supports the fact that smoking causes cancer. That's true whether or not I offer you links to a dozen medical studies. Someone claiming the contrary even while offering an outlier source to back up their claim does not make their claim true. 

Edited December 18, 2022 by Eschaton

[provoman]

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Dan's positions are actually representative of current, mainstream Biblical scholarship. That's true whether or not he offers a direct citation in a particular post.  He very frequently does offer citations, however. 

Similarly, I can accurately say that most medical research supports the fact that smoking causes cancer. That's true whether or not I offer you links to a dozen medical studies. Someone claiming the contrary even while offering an outlier source to back up their claim does not make their claim true. 

Two people both told each other "you are wrong" 

An observer says "well the second person to say 'you are wrong', is the person who is wrong, because all the second said was 'you are wrong'. I choose to support the first person that said 'you are wrong' - just saying 'you are wrong' does not mean we dismiss the statement."

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

That is not how he started his video. He started his video with 'what do they mean ... no one is exactly sure'. He made no mention of motivation.

Then he says 'those that general prohibition don't have a strong argument'; which does not equal 'no argument/no basis/indisputably wrong/ etc'

He ends with an affirmative 'not a prohibition'

He start with no one knows, then ends with in essence 'my opinion is correct, and I know'.

 

(As for his motivation portion, What other societies had as their laws, is not relevant to what God may have commanded the House of Jacob to do or not do.

Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: ... )

 

Here is a copy of the full version, if anyone wants to judge for themselves. 
 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVEy1rx/

[Dario_M]

On 12/15/2022 at 6:49 PM, Navidad said:

I am a bit confused. Is he a Biblical scholar or an apologist? If the latter, for what does he argue or make an apology?

 

He is from the LDS church. Is that not allready enough information? 

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Dario_M said:

He is from the LDS church. Is that not allready enough information? 

Not really. My experience is that doesn't answer my question. I know many LDS and non-LDS Christians who are apologists and many who are not.

[Eschaton]

13 hours ago, provoman said:

Two people both told each other "you are wrong" 

An observer says "well the second person to say 'you are wrong', is the person who is wrong, because all the second said was 'you are wrong'. I choose to support the first person that said 'you are wrong' - just saying 'you are wrong' does not mean we dismiss the statement."

 

It sounds like you don't want to put forth any effort? 

[Eschaton]

13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Here is a copy of the full version, if anyone wants to judge for themselves. 
 

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRVEy1rx/

This is great and educational, I'm not sure what the problem is. 

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

It sounds like you don't want to put forth any effort? 

Are you positive I am not putting in effort?

Again, 

First: Rev made a lengthy post.

Second: Dan responded with a unsourced 'you are wrong' lengthy post.

Third: Rev responded with a lengthy 'you are wrong' post.

Fourth: Nevo essential posted that Rev was in error because Rev posted 'you are wrong' as a response back to Dan. Even though Rev responded is same manner in which Dan responded to Rev. I questioned Nevo about the inconsistency (Rev & Dan did the same thing)

Edited December 19, 2022 by provoman

[Eschaton]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Are you positive I am not putting in effort?

Again, 

First: Rev made a lengthy post.

Second: Dan responded with a unsourced 'you are wrong' lengthy post.

Third: Rev responded with a lengthy 'you are wrong' post.

Fourth: Nevo essential posted that Rev was in error because Rev posted 'you are wrong' as a response back to Dan. Even though Rev responded is same manner in which Dan responded to Rev. I questioned Nevo about the inconsistency (Rev & Dan did the same thing)

What's preventing you from looking into the scholarship material that both Nevo and Dan have shared? 

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

What's preventing you from looking into the scholarship material that both Nevo and Dan have shared? 

What is preventing from looking at the exact specifics that I was addressing.

[Damien the Leper]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is preventing from looking at the exact specifics that I was addressing.

Most of us who have a history with Dan here have had said history for many years (13 years myself). That being said, when Dan or Volgadon or Robert F. Smith have provided information pertaining to ANE studies we have tended to take them seriously. If you'd like for Dan to provide source material I'm sure he'd be glad to provide it. Your whining that "he did what he did" is merely a childish distraction from the actual conversation.

[Nevo]

18 hours ago, provoman said:

Two people both told each other "you are wrong" 

An observer says "well the second person to say 'you are wrong', is the person who is wrong, because all the second said was 'you are wrong'. I choose to support the first person that said 'you are wrong' - just saying 'you are wrong' does not mean we dismiss the statement."

I said no such thing. Let me rephrase to see if I can make it clearer for you.

• Rev asserted that the divine name was pronounced as "Yehovah" anciently, not "Yahweh."
• Dan replied that "Yehovah" is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages and explained how it came about.
• Rev continued insisting that "Yehovah" was the correct ancient pronunciation.

I judge Rev to be in error in this exchange, not because he was "the second person to say 'you are wrong'," but because his assertion is not supported by historical or linguistic evidence and Dan's is. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

[Eschaton]

40 minutes ago, provoman said:

What is preventing from looking at the exact specifics that I was addressing.

It's so low effort it's hard to take very seriously. 

[provoman]

17 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Most of us who have a history with Dan here have had said history for many years (13 years myself). That being said, when Dan or Volgadon or Robert F. Smith have provided information pertaining to ANE studies we have tended to take them seriously. If you'd like for Dan to provide source material I'm sure he'd be glad to provide it. Your whining that "he did what he did" is merely a childish distraction from the actual conversation.

What is childish is making excuses for double-standards

[Navidad]

Expert #!: "The Mexican Revolution began in 1910 when Francisco Madero "revolted" against Porfirio Diaz! It ended in 1920 when Venustiano Carranza was killed and Alvaro Obregon took over the government." I have ten sources, all by Mexican history experts who confirm that."

Expert #2: "The Mexican Revolution began in 1892 in the many small local revolts in Chihuahua. It ended in 1940 when Manuel Avila Camacho delivered his famous "I am a believer" speech and became president of Mexico." I have 15 sources, all by Mexican history experts, who are all Mexican who confirm that"

Expert #3: "There was no Mexican Revolution - the truth is there were a series of small revolutions that ended in 1929 with the end of the Cristero War. Everyone knows that! In fact, I wrote the book on that! That book is now #89 on the 'Amazon best seller in Mexican Revolutionary books written by left-hand writers list'. Neither of you know what you are talking about!

Expert #1: "My great grandfather rode with Pancho Villa. He told me that Villa loved Madero and followed him everywhere! That settles it. Villa is the centaur of the revolution and he followed Madero! No one better say anything bad about my great grandfather . . . or Madero . . . or Pancho Villa!"

Expert #2: "Are you kidding me? Haven't you read any primary sources by experts who all say that Villa was a bandit, a cutthroat, and liked strawberry ice cream? He was a great chess player, but he only went to the third grade! He isn't even worthy of a mention in the same sentence as the greatest statesman of the revolution, Plutarco Elias Calles!"

Expert #3: "You don't know what you are talking about!  Plutarco Elias Calles was a communist, socialist, atheist! He single-handedly tried to destroy the Catholic Church in Mexico. My priest told me that and he should know! Calles? the only thing he was ever a good president of was when he was president of the Chula Vista Spiritualist Society after he was exiled to California!  He saw dead people!"

Wow! We can't even agree on interpreting events that took place one hundred years ago! Of course we should all agree on events that took place 2000, 3000, or more years ago, in completely different cultures and times for which we have remarkably little (some just a few inches wide) primary documentation. We should be applauded for mocking those who don't agree with us, who therefore have no idea what they are talking about? Hmmm......let's see - maybe we should get back to discussing something we can all agree upon - something like the location of Zarahemla according to the so and so theory? Oh . . . and speaking of Mexican history . . . have you read my latest book on the Mormons in Mexico? It just hit number 86!

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Navidad

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Wow! We can't even agree on interpreting events that took place one hundred years ago!

More relevant to this thread would be the example of someone who doesn't know Spanish and who hasn't studied Mexican history insisting to a historian of the Mexican Revolution that Porfirio Díaz's name should be spelled Perifeo Diez. And by the way, he was never president of Mexico. Historians have gotten that all wrong.

Should our reaction be, "Well, the past is a foreign country. None of us were alive at the turn of the 20th century. I don't even like Mexican food. Maybe he's right"?

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

We should be applauded for mocking those who don't agree with us, who therefore have no idea what they are talking about! 

I know someone who did exactly that, actually. 

 

[Damien the Leper]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

What is childish is making excuses for double-standards

No one is. You're projecting this silly argument victimhood. You have full opportunity to ask for references. Yet you don't care to ask. Instead you continue to  bludgeon a dead horse and continue to distract with what you feel was wrongdoing. I stated the history myself and this board has with Dan. We trust Dan and scholarship.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Damien the Leper

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I stated the history myself and this board has with Dan. We trust Dan and scholarship.

I understand what you're trying to say here (and I tend to agree with you about Dan), but as it is often stated in investment strategy, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."  This is true of scholarship too.  We should always be looking at the data presented by the scholars and decide for ourselves if their assertions or interpretations are the best or only way to explain all of the data.  There may be other possible ways to explain the data.   And I don't think there is any true scholar who would ever say their explanation is the final word on the subject, since the discovery of more data could change the way things are interpreted.

[Damien the Leper]

40 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I understand what you're trying to say here (and I tend to agree with you about Dan), but as it is often stated in investment strategy, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."  This is true of scholarship too.  We should always be looking at the data presented by the scholars and decide for ourselves if their assertions or interpretations are the best or only way to explain all of the data.  There may be other possible ways to explain the data.   And I don't think there is any true scholar who would ever say their explanation is the final word on the subject, since the discovery of more data could change the way things are interpreted.

I wasn't asserting some blind acceptance of what Dan says as it is quite possible to check out his claims and look for the evidence and decide for yourself. I have asked Dan many questions over the years because of my misconceptions and misinformation. The greatest one that comes to mind is when I posted this video:

I hope @Dan McClellan remembers this exchange somewhat.