Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[carbon dioxide]

Dan does not bother me that much.  What I watch on his youtube channel is basically Dan not giving an LDS view of issues but a scholarly, academic view of issues.   The question is how much weight should we give to modern day views of what people believed or events that occurred thousands of years ago.   All the scholars can do is examine what has survived through time.  What has not survived but has been lost.  Dan talks about data over dogma.   Fine but if the data is not complete, if there are holes in the data, the conclusions made from the data probably is not that great.  I think God probably is not too impressed on the conclusions that modern day academia has regarding the world and things that have happened over time.  He probably tell us to take them with a pound of salt.   So I listen to people like Dan but not really changing views much but its good to see how others look at things.

[PacMan]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Dan does not bother me that much.  What I watch on his youtube channel is basically Dan not giving an LDS view of issues but a scholarly, academic view of issues.   The question is how much weight should we give to modern day views of what people believed or events that occurred thousands of years ago.   All the scholars can do is examine what has survived through time.  What has not survived but has been lost.  Dan talks about data over dogma.   Fine but if the data is not complete, if there are holes in the data, the conclusions made from the data probably is not that great.  I think God probably is not too impressed on the conclusions that modern day academia has regarding the world and things that have happened over time.  He probably tell us to take them with a pound of salt.   So I listen to people like Dan but not really changing views much but its good to see how others look at things.

Dan isn't giving a scholarly view.  He gives a post-modern social commentary decrying power structures despite, ironically, using his own power structure to support his social commentary.

[Analytics]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

If you have a better term for what is described above (someone, like Sagan or Tyson or McClellan, "aims to engage the public and convey scientific {or biblical scholarship} concepts in an understandable and relatable manner" as having "the goal of making science {or biblical scholarship} accessible to a broader audience"), feel free to suggest it.

populist (noun) 1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. 2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.

I believe the word that you were looking for is popularizer.

popularize (verb): to make popular: such as a: to cause to be liked or esteemed, b: to present in generally understandable or interesting form. noun form: popularizer

Edited August 31, 2023 by Analytics

[mfbukowski]

11 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Not in any hurry, talk when you have time.  Are we living in the past, present or future as in space and time?  Our universe is past and not present, so in our solar system we are what. Present and yet past if viewed from another galaxy.  There is no time or is there?

God was always God, why. Because He was always divine  Godly and pure love as is Christ and the Holy Ghost, from eternity to eternity Gods always... not so with us.

Sorry, I have to be at work at 9, and then I will have time to think about if time is real.

Time is just the stream of our experiences.  No experience, no time.

That's why they make alarm clocks 

Edited August 31, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Dan isn't giving a scholarly view.  He gives a post-modern social commentary decrying power structures despite, ironically, using his own power structure to support his social commentary.

That's a really strange accusation given your other comments. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you use the term "post-modern" in this context.

[Analytics]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Helfer apparently has her area of expertise (AASECT Certified Sex Therapist, LMFT, CST-S).  

So, supposedly, does "Dr." Dehlin (PhD in Clinical and Counseling Psychology). 

So does Kelly (the law).

So being credentialed or having an area of training/experience/expertise does not differentiate Dan from this group.

The biggest difference I see is that these other people you cited (as far as I know--I don't know all of them) target Latter-day Saints and are trying to reform Mormonism, create Mormon subcultures, or otherwise directly target Mormons.  

In contrast, McClellan is targeting a much broader audience and isn't singling out Mormons or Mormonism.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

More to the point, the commonality in the group is not their credentials or academic bona fides, but their "wolf in sheep's clothing" behavior.  Given Dan's published-to-the-world comments, I think it's not unreasonable to be concerned that he has that in common with the others listed above.

With McClellan, I don't see the sheep's clothing here. "Data over dogma" is an awfully clear declaration of where he's coming from. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  My recollection is that Bokovoy is no longer active in the Church.  If so, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" descriptor would be inapt.  And I'm not aware of any substantial effort on his part when he was a faithful member to play the wolf.  Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any current effort by him to turn people away from their faith.

I don't know if Bokovoy has officially resigned, but he's become the darling of the exMormon community and has described his faith journey out of the faith in detail with John Dehlin, Radio Free Mormon, Bill Reel, and probably others. Regarding Mormonism's truth claims, his views are now indistinguishable from mine. The only difference is that he talks about it more than I do, is smarter, better educated, more charismatic, and more articulate, and has a much larger audience.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

As for David P. Wright, I know little of him.  He was excommunicated nearly 30 years ago.  And he was excommunicated, it seems, for apostasy, which apparently involved him speaking publicly in ways critical of the Church. 

David P. Wright was fired from BYU for being a wolf in sheep's clothing. He wasn't doing anything to subvert the Church--it's just that on the inside he didn't have a traditional testimony, and his department was afraid some students would be able to sense that. After he left BYU, he published a couple of high-quality scholarly articles about the bible passages that are quoted in the Book of Mormon. That is what he was excommunicated for. 

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

So in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, is the "wolf in sheep's clothing" a legitimate concern?  

Absolutely it's a concern. If you want intelligent, curious people who have intellectual integrity to maintain a traditional testimony, the last thing you want them to do is become Ph.D.-level experts in the Bible, nor do you want them to understand why people like Bokovoy lost their testimonies.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Regardless of why he lost his membership, he is welcome back.

Really? Do you really think the Church will apologize for wrongly excommunicating him for writing a couple of scholarly articles? I don't think the Church works that way.

I'm certainly not saying McClellan is harmless. Quite the opposite, in fact. But I would suggest that a good way to understand McClellan is to understand Bokovoy who wrote on his blog a little while before he was completely out:

Quote

 

Many years ago now (in fact, more than I’d like to admit), I was approached by one of my undergraduate professors from Brigham Young University and given some well-meaning advice. I had just begun my graduate work pursuing a Master’s degree in Near Eastern and Judaic studies and this former religion professor was a bit concerned for my spiritual wellbeing.

“Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

 

Bokovoy goes on to say:

Quote

Most of us don’t abandon our traditional views easily, but eventually, almost all of us do. In the process, some become agonistic and completely set aside the Bible as a religiously authoritative text. Others of my colleagues find new ways to retain a spiritual connection to the Bible that factors in critical models. One of the main issues I’ve witnessed determining whether or not this process works is the scholar’s own religious community. How accepting are they with one of their own who because of academic inquiry understands scripture differently than they do? It’s not an easy issue. But with a new world of information accessibility, it is an issue that more and more religious communities are facing. What do we do with scholars in our midst and the youth who are exposed to their work?

McClellan might be forcing the issue a little bit, but whether he does or doesn't, the issue isn't going away. 

Is exposing people to the truth about data and dogma a good thing or a bad thing? I think it's a good thing, but if you see it differently that's your prerogative. I just don't see any sheep's clothing here. He isn't saying, "let's reconcile the dogma with the data and come to a new paradigm that strengthens our testimony" or anything like that.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

populist (noun) 1: a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people. 2: a believer in the rights, wisdom, or virtues of the common people.

I believe the word that you were looking for is popularizer.

popularize (verb): to make popular: such as a: to cause to be liked or esteemed, b: to present in generally understandable or interesting form. noun form: popularizer

How about "popularist?"

See, e.g. ,here: 

Quote

popularist

Definitions

from The Century Dictionary.

• noun One who aims at popularizing scientific and other technical subjects; a popularizer.

Here:

Quote

popularist

(ˈpɒpjʊlərɪst)

adj

1. (Journalism & Publishing) designed for the general public; non-specialist; non-intellectual

2. (Broadcasting) designed for the general public; non-specialist; non-intellectual

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

Translations

And here:

Quote

Popularist vs Populist: Differences And Uses For Each One

Are you confused about the difference between popularist and populist? You’re not alone. These two terms are often used interchangeably, but they actually have distinct meanings. Let’s take a closer look.

It’s important to note that both popularist and populist can be correct depending on the context. However, popularist tends to be more commonly used in British English, while populist is more commonly used in American English.

So, what do these words mean? Popularist refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, often by simplifying complex issues or taking extreme positions. Populist, on the other hand, refers to a political movement that seeks to represent the interests of ordinary people against those of the elite or establishment.

"Popularist refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, often by simplifying complex issues."  This sounds more in line with how I have been using "populist."

Quote

While these definitions may seem similar at first glance, the distinction is important. A popularist may use populist rhetoric to gain support, but they may not necessarily be aligned with the values of a true populist movement. Understanding this difference is key to understanding the current political landscape.

Define Popularist

Popularist, also known as populism, is a political approach that aims to appeal to the concerns and interests of ordinary people. This term is often used to describe politicians or political parties who claim to represent the common people against the elites or establishment. Popularist politicians often use emotional language and simple messages to connect with their audience and gain their support. They tend to focus on issues that are popular among the masses, such as immigration, trade, and national identity.

Popularist movements have been around for centuries, but they have gained renewed attention in recent years due to the rise of right-wing populist movements in Europe and the United States. Popularist politicians often claim to speak for the silent majority and portray themselves as outsiders who are not part of the political establishment. They often criticize mainstream politicians for being out of touch with the concerns of ordinary people and for being too focused on the interests of the elite.

Define Populist

Populist, on the other hand, is a broader term that can refer to any political philosophy or movement that seeks to appeal to the interests and concerns of the general population. Unlike popularism, populism is not necessarily associated with a particular political ideology or agenda. Populist movements can be left-wing, right-wing, or centrist, and they can focus on a wide range of issues, such as economic inequality, social justice, or national sovereignty.

"Populist, on the other hand, is a broader term that can refer to any political philosophy or movement that seeks to appeal to the interests and concerns of the general population. Unlike popularism, populism is not necessarily associated with a particular political ideology or agenda. Populist movements can be left-wing, right-wing, or centrist, and they can focus on a wide range of issues, such as economic inequality, social justice, or national sovereignty."

I'm not quite sure what to make of this.  It still casts both words in overtly "political" terms.  And though Paul Krugman may, depressingly, have been broadly correct in his aphorism that "everything is political," I reject the notion that "politics is everything."  There is a political aspect to many (most?  all?) things, but it is not - nor should be - the primary or defining aspect.

I think this opinion piece makes some good points:

Quote

“Maybe this is as good as it gets.”  If our lives are defined and determined by nothing higher than politics, then this line from the Jack Nicholson and Helen Hunt movie of the same name is probably true. No matter how good it might (seem to) get, if politics is the highest we can strive, then political victory is as good as it gets. But if it is true – if our aspirations are limited to who prevails in the next election, or what issue wins the next ballot initiative – our lives are pretty thin.

While some may be reluctant to admit it, ultimate commitments and loyalties in America today are quite often limited to political victories and losses. As the reactions to the last presidential election have shown us, for some people, politics is everything. Because that is the case – because nothing transcends and supersedes political questions as ultimate questions – politics becomes blood sport, rather than a civil conversation about how we should govern ourselves.

"{F}or some people, politics is everything."  I think that is sadly true, and it is something I hope to avoid by the plague.

Quote

If politics purports to supply ultimate answers to human questions, then political success is not about self-governance, but rather about winners and losers in the possession and distribution of power. And, of course, there is no room for compromise: There are good guys and bad guys, and only one side can win in a zero sum game. And this way of thinking cannot help but engender intolerance, division, and conflict from both sides of the proverbial political aisle. Disagreement equals irrationality or hatred.

Over the following 12 months, I will be using this space to explore the proposition that, while everything is political, politics isn’t everything. Rather, politics and political life are transcended and relativized by something higher and nobler. I believe that this “something higher” is the deposit of Christian faith, as communicated through a long history of historical, philosophical, and theological development, which provides, among many other things, a sense of something that transcends politics.

As I understand and try to practice this faith, humility, not dogmatism, is the effect of this sense of transcendence. While it is true, of course, that every religion has a set of doctrines that define – and thus delimit – itself, true religious faith also engenders a deep sense of humility, awe, and wonder. To remove these aspects of religious faith is to reduce religion to ideology. Religious dogmatists remove mystery, awe, and wonder from faith no less than political secularists. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism: religious or political, right or left. And fundamentalism leaves no room for the humility that must be at the heart of faith in a transcendent God. God is God, and we are not.

And, of course, this humility must always be mindful that the faith might be false, and that the truths I embrace might be an illusion. Faith is a journey, not an end; it’s conversation, not an assertion. To be sure, this journey of faith has an ultimate destination – it is an ascent to the Beatific Vision. But it is precisely this affirmation that reminds us that we are not there yet. And it provides a way of seeing, and making judgments about, the world. Even so, now, we know only in part; then, we will know in full. Or not. While faith might be defined as the perfection of knowledge, it takes a good deal of burnishing and polishing before that height is achieved. “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief,” is the prayer that I pray every day.

But if life is reduced to politics – if that’s as good as it gets – we can never open ourselves to a sense of transcendence, regardless of how it is understood. A life defined by politics as its highest end is a truncated life. While I might be wrong, I have transcendent hope that this is not as good as it gets.

Thoughtful stuff, this.

Back to the original article:

Quote

Populist movements often emphasize the importance of direct democracy and popular participation in the political process. They tend to be critical of representative democracy and the role of political parties, and they often call for more direct forms of citizen participation, such as referendums or citizen assemblies. Populist movements can be seen as a response to the perceived failures of representative democracy and the growing sense of disconnection between citizens and their elected representatives.

Comparison between popularist and populist

Popularist	Populist
Focuses on appealing to the concerns and interests of ordinary people	Seeks to appeal to the interests and concerns of the general population
Often associated with right-wing political movements	Can be left-wing, right-wing, or centrist
Uses emotional language and simple messages to connect with the audience	Emphasizes the importance of direct democracy and popular participation in the political process
Focuses on issues that are popular among the masses, such as immigration, trade, and national identity	Can focus on a wide range of issues, such as economic inequality, social justice, or national sovereignty

How To Properly Use The Words In A Sentence

Using the right word at the right time can make a huge difference in how your message is perceived. In this section, we will discuss the proper usage of the words “popularist” and “populist”.

How To Use Popularist In A Sentence

“Popularist” is a term used to describe someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, often by making exaggerated or simplistic statements. Here are some examples of how to use “popularist” in a sentence:

• The politician’s popularist rhetoric appealed to the masses, but failed to address the complex issues at hand.
• The popularist approach to marketing focuses on creating catchy slogans and flashy advertisements.
• Some critics argue that the media’s popularist coverage of current events oversimplifies complex issues.

It is important to note that “popularist” is often used in a negative context, implying that the person or idea being described is shallow or lacking in substance.

“'Popularist' is a term used to describe someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, often by making exaggerated or simplistic statements."

"It is important to note that 'popularist' is often used in a negative context, implying that the person or idea being described is shallow or lacking in substance."

Hmm.  I hadn't realized that both "populist" and "popularist" appear to have negative connotations.

Quote

How To Use Populist In A Sentence

“Populist” is a term used to describe someone who advocates for the rights and interests of the common people, often in opposition to the established elite. Here are some examples of how to use “populist” in a sentence:

• The populist candidate promised to stand up for the working class and fight against corporate greed.
• Many historians view the New Deal as a successful example of populist policies.
• The rise of populist movements in Europe has challenged the traditional political establishment.

Unlike “popularist”, “populist” is not necessarily a negative term. In fact, many people view populism as a positive force for change and social justice.

More Examples Of Popularist & Populist Used In Sentences

As we continue to explore the difference between popularist and populist, it’s important to understand how these words are used in sentences. Let’s take a look at some examples:

Examples Of Using Popularist In A Sentence

• The popularist candidate promised to lower taxes for middle-class families.
• Her popularist approach to healthcare reform gained her a lot of support.
• The popularist movement swept through the country, appealing to those who felt left behind by the government.
• Many critics argue that the popularist agenda is too focused on short-term gains and lacks a long-term vision.
• Some experts believe that the rise of popularist leaders around the world is a response to globalization and a perceived loss of national identity.
• His popularist rhetoric often relies on simplistic solutions to complex problems.
• The popularist message resonated with voters who were tired of traditional politicians and their empty promises.
• The popularist party’s platform includes a strong emphasis on protecting national borders and limiting immigration.
• Popularist movements are often associated with authoritarianism and a disregard for democratic institutions.
• Despite criticism from some quarters, the popularist candidate won a landslide victory in the election.

Examples Of Using Populist In A Sentence

• The populist uprising against the ruling elite caught many by surprise.
• Her populist message of economic justice and social equality resonated with voters across the political spectrum.
• Populist movements often emerge in times of economic hardship and social unrest.
• Many politicians have adopted a populist tone in order to appeal to disaffected voters.
• Populist leaders often portray themselves as champions of the common people against the entrenched interests of the elite.
• The populist party’s platform includes a call for greater government intervention in the economy and a redistribution of wealth.
• Some critics argue that populist movements are inherently anti-intellectual and dismissive of expertise.
• The populist candidate’s promise to drain the swamp and shake up the political establishment struck a chord with many voters.
• Populist movements are often characterized by a distrust of traditional political parties and institutions.
• Despite his populist appeal, the candidate’s lack of experience and knowledge on key issues raised concerns among some voters.

Common Mistakes To Avoid

When discussing political ideologies, it is important to use the correct terminology to avoid confusion and miscommunication. One common mistake that people make is using the terms “popularist” and “populist” interchangeably, when in fact they have different meanings and connotations.

Popularist Vs Populist: The Difference

The term “popularist” refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public or a specific group of people, often by making exaggerated or simplistic claims. This can be seen in the realm of advertising, where companies use popularist tactics to sell products by appealing to people’s emotions rather than their reason.

On the other hand, “populist” refers to a political ideology that emphasizes the needs and interests of the common people, often in opposition to the elite or ruling class. Populism can be seen as a response to perceived injustices or inequalities in society, and can manifest in various forms such as economic populism or cultural populism.

It is important to note that while popularist tactics can be used in populist movements, they are not synonymous and should not be used interchangeably.

"The term 'popularist' refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public or a specific group of people, often by making exaggerated or simplistic claims. This can be seen in the realm of advertising, where companies use popularist tactics to sell products by appealing to people’s emotions rather than their reason."

This seems to fit was Dan is doing.

Quote

Tips For Avoiding Common Mistakes

To avoid confusion and miscommunication, it is important to use the correct terminology when discussing political ideologies. Here are some tips for avoiding common mistakes:

• Take the time to research and understand the meanings of political terms before using them in conversation or writing.
• Be mindful of the connotations associated with different terms, and use them appropriately to convey your intended meaning.
• If you are unsure about the correct usage of a term, seek clarification from a reliable source or expert in the field.

Context Matters

When it comes to discussing political ideologies, the terms popularist and populist are often used interchangeably. However, the choice between these two terms can depend heavily on the context in which they are used.

Examples Of Different Contexts

Let’s take a look at some examples of different contexts in which the choice between popularist and populist might change:

1. Historical Context

In a historical context, the term popularist is often used to describe a political movement or party that emerged in the late 19th century in the United States. The Populist Party was formed by farmers and laborers who were struggling financially and politically. They advocated for policies that would benefit the common people, such as the nationalization of railroads and the creation of a graduated income tax.

On the other hand, the term populist is often used to describe political movements that emerged in Latin America in the 20th century. These movements were often led by charismatic leaders who appealed to the masses by promising to fight against corruption and inequality.

2. Geographic Context

The choice between popularist and populist can also depend on the geographic context in which they are used. For example, in Europe, the term populism is often associated with far-right political parties that are anti-immigration and anti-EU. These parties are often accused of using xenophobic rhetoric to appeal to their base.

However, in Latin America, the term populism is often associated with left-wing political parties that advocate for social welfare programs and economic redistribution. These parties are often accused of being too reliant on government intervention and not doing enough to promote economic growth.

3. Political Context

The choice between popularist and populist can also depend on the political context in which they are used. For example, in the United States, the term popularist is often associated with the progressive movement of the early 20th century. This movement was led by politicians such as William Jennings Bryan, who advocated for policies that would benefit the working class.

However, in recent years, the term populist has become more common in American politics. It is often used to describe politicians who appeal to the frustrations of the working class by promising to fight against the establishment and the elites.

As we can see, the choice between popularist and populist can depend heavily on the context in which they are used. While these terms are often used interchangeably, it is important to understand the nuances of each term in order to accurately describe political movements and ideologies.

Exceptions To The Rules

While the use of popularist and populist may seem straightforward, there are certain exceptions where the rules for using these terms may not apply. Here are some instances where the usual definitions and usage of popularist and populist might not be applicable:

1. Contextual Usage

Depending on the context in which the terms are used, their meanings may vary. For instance, in the field of art, popularist may refer to an artist who creates works that appeal to the general public, while populist may refer to an artist who incorporates political themes in their works to appeal to the masses. Similarly, in the context of politics, popularist may refer to a politician who seeks to appeal to the popular opinion, while populist may refer to a politician who champions the rights of the common people.

"{I}n the field of art, popularist may refer to an artist who creates works that appeal to the general public, while populist may refer to an artist who incorporates political themes in their works to appeal to the masses."

Quote

2. Regional Differences

The use of popularist and populist may also vary depending on the region or country. For instance, in the United States, popularist may refer to a political ideology that seeks to promote the interests of the working class, while populist may refer to a political ideology that seeks to promote the interests of the rural population. In the United Kingdom, on the other hand, popularist may refer to a political ideology that seeks to promote the interests of the people against the government, while populist may refer to a political ideology that seeks to promote the interests of the people against the elites.

3. Historical Context

The historical context in which the terms are used may also affect their meanings. For instance, in the early 20th century, popularist was used to refer to a political movement in the United States that sought to promote the interests of farmers and rural communities, while populist was used to refer to a political movement in Russia that sought to promote the interests of the working class. In the present day, however, the terms have taken on different meanings and connotations.

It is important to note that the exceptions to the rules for using popularist and populist are not exhaustive, and their meanings and usage may continue to evolve over time. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the context, regional differences, and historical context when using these terms to ensure accurate and appropriate usage.

"It is important to note that the exceptions to the rules for using popularist and populist are not exhaustive, and their meanings and usage may continue to evolve over time."

How would yo describe Carl Sagan and his "popular" approach to explaining the cosmos in broadly-accessible-to-the-masses terms?  Was he a "popularizer," or "popularist" or "populist"?

What about David Attenborough and his approach to naturalism and the environment (same goes for Steve Irwin)?

What about Auguste Gusteau in Disney/Pixar's Ratatouille and his "Anyone Can Cook" approach to French cuisine (same goes for Julia Child)?

And so on.  I previously would have described all these folks as "populist."  But that appears to have more political baggage and negative connotations than I realized.  So perhaps "popularist" and/or "popularizer" are more apt.

Quote

...

Conclusion

After exploring the differences between “popularist” and “populist”, it is clear that these two terms have distinct meanings and should not be used interchangeably. While “popularist” refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, “populist” describes a political ideology that emphasizes the needs and desires of ordinary people over those of the elite.

It is important to be mindful of these distinctions when discussing politics and social issues, as using the wrong term can lead to confusion and miscommunication. By paying attention to the nuances of language, we can better understand the world around us and communicate more effectively with others.

Key Takeaways

• “Popularist” refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public, while “populist” describes a political ideology that emphasizes the needs and desires of ordinary people over those of the elite.
• Using the wrong term can lead to confusion and miscommunication when discussing politics and social issues.
• Paying attention to the nuances of language can help us better understand the world around us and communicate more effectively with others.

Overall, it is important to continue learning about grammar and language use in order to become more effective communicators and avoid common mistakes. By taking the time to improve our language skills, we can better understand and connect with those around us.

"'{P}opularist' refers to someone who seeks to appeal to the general public."

Well, okay then.

Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

Is exposing people to the truth about data and dogma a good thing or a bad thing?

"THE TRUTH"?

Good or bad?

That's the problem right there.

2500 years of philosophy and we are still using those words?

 

[rjohnson7]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, I have to be at work at 9, and then I will have time to think about if time is real.

Time is just the stream of our experiences.  No experience, no time.

That's why they make alarm clocks 

I bet somewhat controversial... thx for the post, it is most interesting. 

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The biggest difference I see is that these other people you cited (as far as I know--I don't know all of them) target Latter-day Saints and are trying to reform Mormonism, create Mormon subcultures, or otherwise directly target Mormons.  

I think Dehlin, Kelly, Young, Reel, etc. were primarily, but not exclusively, targeting Latter-day Saints.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

In contrast, McClellan is targeting a much broader audience and isn't singling out Mormons or Mormonism.

I pretty much concede this point.  McClellan seems to be targeting a broad audience, including but not limited to Latter-day Saints (though his appearance on Mormon Stories may be an exception to that).

More to the point, he is going out of his way to not do so from a pointedly "Latter-day Saint" perspective or paradigm (again, his appearance on Mormon Stories is, I think, a notable exception and departure from this generalization).

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

With McClellan, I don't see the sheep's clothing here. "Data over dogma" is an awfully clear declaration of where he's coming from. 

I think Dan is pretty dogmatic in his own right.  

But on balance, I think you are correct.  He's not targeting exclusively Latter-day Saints in his efforts, or even primarily so (again, except perhaps for his appearance on Mormon Stories).  His comments to Dehlin (presently portraying himself as "an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints," and one who is presently "on {his} ward council," while otherwise insisting that his personal beliefs are "off the table") may well be an attempt to avoid the route that Dehlin, Kelly, etc. have taken.  

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I don't know if Bokovoy has officially resigned, but he's become the darling of the exMormon community and has described his faith journey out of the faith in detail with John Dehlin, Radio Free Mormon, Bill Reel, and probably others.

Being "the darling of the exMormon community" is not necessarily the same as being a "wolf in sheep's clothing."  There's no subterfuge or false pretext in what Bokovoy is doing.  He is quite overt and public in describing "his faith journey" out of the Church.

In contrast, my sense is that Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, Young, etc. were all "wol{ves} in sheep's clothing" in most material respects.   However they started, they went through long stages of posing as faithful Latter-day Saints while at the same time were attempting to tear down the faith of the Saints.  I think Dehlin and Reel were the worst in this regard.  Kelly was an obvious poseur, so I never bought her schtick.  Sam Young was even more so.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

David P. Wright was fired from BYU for being a wolf in sheep's clothing. He wasn't doing anything to subvert the Church--it's just that on the inside he didn't have a traditional testimony, and his department was afraid some students would be able to sense that. After he left BYU, he published a couple of high-quality scholarly articles about the bible passages that are quoted in the Book of Mormon. That is what he was excommunicated for.

I guess I need to educate myself about him a bit more.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

So in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, is the "wolf in sheep's clothing" a legitimate concern?  

Absolutely it's a concern. If you want intelligent, curious people who have intellectual integrity to maintain a traditional testimony, the last thing you want them to do is become Ph.D.-level experts in the Bible, nor do you want them to understand why people like Bokovoy lost their testimonies.

Yawn.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Regardless of why he lost his membership, he is welcome back.

Really?

Really.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do you really think the Church will apologize for wrongly excommunicating him for writing a couple of scholarly articles? I don't think the Church works that way.

That's not what I said.

I suspect that the tiny handful of people who had stewardship over him, and who made the decision to excommunicate him, are either long dead or else are no longer serving in the ecclesiastical callings.

The fact remains that if Wright wants to re-join the Church, he will be welcomed back. 

Two of so-called "September Six," Avraham Gileadi and Maxine Hanks, have re-joined the Church.  Don Bradley left and returned.  

Historically, Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery returned.

See also Joe Tippetts, and Ashley Stone, and Stephen Murphy, and "Christian, Letitia, Dusty, Allyson and Leo," and Elisabeth ________________ (see here and here), and Misty Sutton, and Haleigh Everts, and Janet Eyring.

All these folks have been welcomed back.  Likely not perfectly so, as the Latter-day Saints have their share of flaws and weaknesses.  But in my experience, the sentiments over someone who returns are overwhelming joy and excitement.

So yes, David Wright is welcome back.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm certainly not saying McClellan is harmless. Quite the opposite, in fact.

But perhaps the harm isn't coming by way of him being a wolf in sheep's clothing.

I get that some folks think that the only way a rational person remains in the Church is either to A) remain ignorant about the history and doctrines of the Church, or B) be duplicitous and dishonest about the history and doctrines of the Church.

I'll take Door #3, Bob.  There are plenty of people who have a thorough understanding of the history and doctrines of the Church and who continue to fully embrace and love and seek to apply the principles of the Restored Gospel.  I feel very fortunate to have many such people within my family and spheres of friendship/acquaintance and otherwise.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But I would suggest that a good way to understand McClellan is to understand Bokovoy who wrote on his blog a little while before he was completely out:

Quote

Many years ago now (in fact, more than I’d like to admit), I was approached by one of my undergraduate professors from Brigham Young University and given some well-meaning advice. I had just begun my graduate work pursuing a Master’s degree in Near Eastern and Judaic studies and this former religion professor was a bit concerned for my spiritual wellbeing.

“Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

Bokovoy goes on to say:

Quote

Most of us don’t abandon our traditional views easily, but eventually, almost all of us do. In the process, some become agonistic and completely set aside the Bible as a religiously authoritative text. Others of my colleagues find new ways to retain a spiritual connection to the Bible that factors in critical models. One of the main issues I’ve witnessed determining whether or not this process works is the scholar’s own religious community. How accepting are they with one of their own who because of academic inquiry understands scripture differently than they do? It’s not an easy issue. But with a new world of information accessibility, it is an issue that more and more religious communities are facing. What do we do with scholars in our midst and the youth who are exposed to their work?

"{S}ome become agonistic and completely set aside the Bible as a religiously authoritative text."

"Others ... find new ways to retain a spiritual connection to the Bible that factors in critical models."

Seems reasonable to me.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

McClellan might be forcing the issue a little bit, but whether he does or doesn't, the issue isn't going away. 

"The issue" being . . . what?

Also from Bokovoy:

Quote

Taking into consideration the arguments of Hoskisson, Spencer, and Miller, we find two very different approaches to scripture. Yet whichever philosophical camp one may connect with, it’s essential that readers not misrepresent the approach that Spencer and Miller offer. Theirs is not a “secular” reading of the Book of Mormon. In fact, if properly understood, their approach offers the exact opposite. If historicity is the process of using secular (I prefer the term “academic”) tools to evaluate the authenticity of a narrative concerning the past, then what Spencer and Miller present is a “spiritualization” of the text that ultimately transcends the historicity of men mingled with scripture.

From this vantage point, as “scripture,” the Book of Mormon is fundamentally a dynamic tool that allows readers to step outside the natural world and transcend to greater spiritual heights. It may tell us something about the past, but more importantly, scripture tells us something about ourselves.

Also from Bokovoy:

Quote

The Book of Mormon itself invites readers to ponder carefully over the truthfulness of its claims.
...
The tenets of Higher Criticism certainly create some challenges for the Book of Mormon. However, rather than being simply dismissed or ignored, these issues should receive careful consideration. The following chapter provides a basic introduction to the Book of Mormon in light of the insights scholars have gained into the Pentateuch through Historical Criticism. Even though Historical Criticism (and by extension, Higher/ Source Criticism) presents some difficulties for the Book of Mormon’s claims, a careful reading of the text and a consideration of the work as revelatory literature can resolve some of these issues.

Seems reasonable to me.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Is exposing people to the truth about data and dogma a good thing or a bad thing?

Is Dan at risk of being hoisted by his own petard?  He seems pretty dogmatic about some things in his own right.  And yet I'm sure he insists he's "all about data."  His behavior on this very board, however, seems a pretty strong rebuttal to that claim.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I think it's a good thing, but if you see it differently that's your prerogative.

I think pithy social media soundbites (like "data > dogma") don't do much to advance meaningful discourse.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I just don't see any sheep's clothing here. He isn't saying, "let's reconcile the dogma with the data and come to a new paradigm that strengthens our testimony" or anything like that.

You may well be right about that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2023 by smac97

[Smiley McGee]

3 hours ago, PacMan said:

Dan isn't giving a scholarly view. 

Interesting. I haven’t heard this critique of his content before. Has any one summarized how his views break from the prevailing scholarship? Seems like most criticism is levied by members and apologists who feel he’s being disloyal. Agree with other posters that he’s likely not very mentally invested in the church, but whether his views are “scholarly” is different matter. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Dan isn't giving a scholarly view.  He gives a post-modern social commentary decrying power structures despite, ironically, using his own power structure to support his social commentary.

Interesting.

Is it possible he is doing both.  The former being a cloak for the latter?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Interesting. I haven’t heard this critique of his content before. Has any one summarized how his views break from the prevailing scholarship?

I think "his views" are heavily peppered with his personal sociopolitical opinions, as well as his personal critiques of people who may not agree with some aspects of his sociopolitical opinions.

I also suspect that he is using his scholarly credentials to lend undue weight/credibility to his personal sociopolitical opinions (as, I think, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has done).  I say this because he has not stayed "in his {scholarly} lane."  He weaves back and forth between "scholarship" and "personal sociopolitical opinions/beliefs."

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Seems like most criticism is levied by members and apologists who feel he’s being disloyal.

As far as the Mormon Stories comments?  Some of his comments there were, I think, problematic from a Latter-day Saint perspective.  

1 hour ago, Smiley McGee said:

Agree with other posters that he’s likely not very mentally invested in the church, but whether his views are “scholarly” is different matter. 

Nobody doubts he's a scholar.  The issue, I think, focuses on him intermixing his personal sociopolitical views with the "scholarship."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2023 by smac97

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I get that some folks think that the only way a rational person remains in the Church is either to A) remain ignorant about the history and doctrines of the Church, or B) be duplicitous and dishonest about the history and doctrines of the Church.

It's not that simple. It also has a lot to do with lowering expectations for what a true Church would be like, making compromises between conflicting priorities, putting issues on the shelf, and compartmentalization. In general, the human brain evolved so that we will believe what we need to believe to fit into our tribe, and there are all sorts of cognitive biases that facilitate that. It did not evolve to rationally and dispassionately evaluate truth claims about religion.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'll take Door #3, Bob.  There are plenty of people who have a thorough understanding of the history and doctrines of the Church and who continue to fully embrace and love and seek to apply the principles of the Restored Gospel.  I feel very fortunate to have many such people within my family and spheres of friendship/acquaintance and otherwise.

I'll just repeat what Bokovoy says a BYU professor told him. “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

Of the many people you know who "have a thorough understanding of the history and doctrines of the Church and who continue to fully embrace" it, how many "did Bible"?

Anyway, Bokovoy goes on to say, "Later I would come to realize that the advice I was given by my former religion professor was not unique. Scholars teaching Bible in conservative divinity school programs are often very similar to those teaching at my own alma mater."

An example of that would be Bart Ehrman. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman as a popularist brings the field of textual criticism to the masses in an insightful and engaging way. What's particularly nice about the book is the introduction, where he tells the story of how he entered Moody Bible Institute as a hard-core fundamentalist, but by the time he graduated from Princeton with his Ph.D. he was an agnostic. He's just another datapoint about the effect that studying the Bible has on faith--any faith.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"The issue" being . . . what?

The issue is the fact that the Bible isn't compatible with modern Christianity.

Anyway, Dan McClellan is a unique individual. My point on this thread is that if we want to put him into a group, I think the group he fits in with best isn't the "wolves in sheep clothing" you've mentioned. I think he is more like David P. Wright, David Bokovoy, Bart Ehrman, and every Latter-day Saint who has "passed through an academic program on the Bible."

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is Dan at risk of being hoisted by his own petard?

I don't know what that means.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

He seems pretty dogmatic about some things in his own right.  And yet I'm sure he insists he's "all about data."  His behavior on this very board, however, seems a pretty strong rebuttal to that claim.

All right. Let's see it.

[Or not. I don't really care.]

Edited August 31, 2023 by Analytics

[Anonymous Mormon]

20 hours ago, Duncan said:

try this!

 

It was a funny video, but not really faith promoting in my viewpoint. Curious if yours differs and if so, which is the faith promoting part?

[Anonymous Mormon]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

What do you hope he said, maybe it'll refresh my memory. I've listened to a lot of each podcast. The recent one hasn't been mentioned I don't believe. It's called: How "Thoughtful" Mormons Stay in the Church part 3.

@Dan McClellan

Maybe he'll tune in and give some feedback on the thread.

I'm just curious what he said that would be faith-promoting. I know that he doesn't share his personal view, but he went on a podcast called Mormon Stories aimed at an audience of Latter Day Saints and former Latter Day Saints.

So, what did he say that would have made a member of the church feel like their faith was strengthened? For example, after fast and testimony meeting, a good Sunday school class, or general conference there are lots of faith promoting things that are shared I could and do recap them with my wife when we discuss the meeting.

It was shared in that video what he said that was NOT faith promoting (no data for Christ being resurrected, etc.). On the flip side, I am curious if anyone can shared some of his faith-promoting comments that he made during his 15 hours on the podcast?

[ttribe]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Patently unacceptable and wrong.  

 

17 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

It dawns on me that I've never considered DezNat to be worthy of any sort of response from me, or even notice.   But just to be fully transparently unambiguous:

I absolutely reject Bojames/EphraimOnline's tweet.  Vague memes about unaliving people are unacceptable.   If this person somehow thinks they're a disciple of Christ or a Christian, I don't recognize this sort of behavior from anyone who might claim to follow the 2nd great commandment.  This guy ain't one of me. 

Dude wants a better combo?  Here:

 

Unfortunately, that is not the only example of "BOJAMES" using violent imagery to defend his faith. It seems all of us "Apostates" are also on his kill list:
 

 

[Duncan]

47 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

It was a funny video, but not really faith promoting in my viewpoint. Curious if yours differs and if so, which is the faith promoting part?

are you kidding? Dan saying that the name Jesus doesn't mean this it actually means this and it accords to what Elder G. Homer Durham, who used outside LDS scholarship, to show what it actually means. Dan showed that yes, what Elder Durham said was true. Elder Durham used 4 sources to prove his point about the meaning of the name of Jesus-One could say that Dan and Elder Durham were one and the same

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/04/jesus-the-christ-the-words-and-their-meaning?lang=eng

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It's not that simple. It also has a lot to do with lowering expectations for what a true Church would be like,

Jettisoning both patent and latent expectations of infallibility in the Lord's servants (and in members generally) would be a big part of that, I imagine.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

making compromises between conflicting priorities, putting issues on the shelf, and compartmentalization.

All part of "see{ikng} through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12) and "walk{ing} by faith, not by sight" (2 Cor. 5:7).

I see all sorts of "conflicting priorities, putting issues on the shelf, and compartmentalization" in my understanding and utilization of the American legal system.  And its political system.  And the government's various branches and administrative/regulatory agencies.  Such is the lot of anyone working with flawed people in flawed systems of organization and governance.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'll just repeat what Bokovoy says a BYU professor told him. “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

I'll just repeat what I said in December 2022:

Quote

Quote

Bias is built into apologetics, as a defining feature. An apologist is a defense attorney for a faith position. 

I agree.  There is a pronounced ideological bent, a presuppositional bias, in such efforts.

Quite a bit of "critical biblical scholarship" harbors the same "defining feature," but tends to keep it on the DL while presenting a posture of objective neutrality.

Quote

The methodology of critical scholarship seeks to minimize bias, but completely eliminating bias is impossible.  

That methodology is certainly aspirational, but I question its IRL prevalence and application.  See, e.g., these remarks by Jeffrey L. Morrow.
...

Quote

But I think it is telling (in a good way) that you get atheist, believing Christian and Jewish Biblical scholars finding areas of agreement on scholarship despite differences in their personal beliefs. (Atheist Biblical scholars are actually somewhat rare). The methods used by Biblical scholars leads to converging conclusions that go against bias. 

You may have a point.  There's a lot of groupthink in much of academia these days.

Quote

From your source (a chair of theology, which is different than Biblical studies):

"One of the broadest of these assumptions is what we might call an anti-theological bias in biblical interpretation. That is the idea that proper scholarly biblical interpretation should be historical, and thus absent theology."

It's a bit weird to call that a "bias."

A person who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God is "biased," but a person who rejects that notion is not "biased?"

I think the best we can do is sit on the fence.  Consider, for example, these comments from Bill Hamblin:

Quote

There is a lot of talk among Mormon scholars about bracketing truth claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This immediately leads to the question: why would one want to bracket truth claims?  The answer is generally that we can understand a particular part of Mormonism better by bracketing truth claims about other parts of Mormonism.
...
Although in our post modern age it may seem passé, to me the purpose of both religion and the academy is precisely to discover and understand truth, not to bracket it.  Our quest should be for the good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy.  If we bracket truth claims about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, I believe many elements of the text become less comprehensible, and, indeed will become misunderstood.  Furthermore, it give non-Mormons a distorted view of what Mormons really believe.  Mormon truth claims are central to the nature of Mormonism and the beliefs of individual Mormons.  Bracketing or ignoring them necessarily distorts what Mormonism is really all about.  It is essentially pretending that Mormonism is something different than it really is.  Bracketing truth claims never helps us understand the truth in the broader sense.  It necessarily masks, hides, or distorts the truth, whatever that truth may be.

It seems to me that if someone has to bracket their truth claims about Mormonism in order to facilitate dialogue, it should be the non-Mormons.  Mormon truth-claims are an integral part of Mormonism.  To understand it properly you need to understand those truth claims.  It really doesn’t help a non-Mormon understand Mormonism better if she doesn’t understand that Mormons believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the deity and resurrection of Jesus, or the authentic prophethood of Joseph Smith.  If we bracket truth-claims about these matters, non-Mormons will never accurately understand Mormonism.  Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.  When I approach the Buddhavacana, I understand that most western non-Buddhist scholars believe that most of the Tripiṭaka does not represent the actual words of the historical Buddha.  I get it.  But when I read that scripture, I try to understand what it means to Buddhists who believe in the historicity of the Tripiṭaka, because that permits me to understand Buddhism better.  I bracket my truth claims in order to better understand Buddhism.  I don’t ask the Buddhists to bracket their truth claims.

That does not mean, of course that there aren’t a lot of things about Mormonism that can’t be discussed without any reference to truth-claims: the social order of a Mormon ward; the colonization of Utah; the impact of the Deseret Alphabet, etc.  But bracketing truth claims about the Book of Mormon will ultimately lead to misunderstanding that book.  Grant Hardy’s wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon is a case in point.  Although he chose to bracket historicity issues, the fact of the matter is, there was no reason for him to do so.  He could have written precisely the same book, with precisely the same insights, without bracketing historicity.

Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court once famously stated:

Quote

“Judges are like umpires,” John Roberts famously said at his confirmation hearing as Chief Justice. “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them ... They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”

I think he here had in mind "judges" functioning in an appellate capacity.  Appellate judges typically do not suss out the "facts," but rather adjudicate the appropriate application of the law to the facts as established by the fact-finder (the trial judge/jury).  

Ideally, I think "critical bible scholarship" ought to function in a similar way.  As Hamblin put it:

Quote

Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.

How often do they succeed?  How often to they refrain from injecting personal biases and presuppositions into their exegesis?

Interpreting an ancient text, originating in a different language and time and culture, about matters that are largely untestable, with all sorts of gaps strewn throughout our efforts to understand, is going to be a tricky business.

You and I have gone the rounds in what I have described is your apparent fondness for scientism (see, e.g., here).  It's not much of a stretch to put critical bible scholarship and its devotees on an exceedingly high pedestal, and to revere such things as pristine and untainted by any biases, presuppositions, etc.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Of the many people you know who "have a thorough understanding of the history and doctrines of the Church and who continue to fully embrace" it, how many "did Bible"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "did Bible."  I assume you mean "pursue an academic degree from an institution requiring, inter alia, utilization of critical bible scholarship as the basis framework for the degree."

We have all sorts of Latter-day Saints in academia, including fields that touch on the provenance / legitimacy of the Bible as a scriptural text.  Many of them seem to do just fine.  The issue, then, seems to come by way of built-in skepticism and naturalistic assumptions, subjectivity, selective/arbitrary approaches, and so on.

See, e.g., these comments:

Quote

In pointing out resonances between LDS understandings and modern biblical scholarship, I am perhaps guilty of heading into the “dead end” Kugel warns of in an essay on his website “Apologetics and Biblical Criticism Lite,”⁸ which is intended as an online appendix to How to Read the Bible. He warns against picking and choosing from modern biblical scholarship only those things that bolster favorite notions, because the exact same methods that help build comforting buttresses for faith also lead to conclusions requiring cherished beliefs to be rethought or abandoned. According to Kugel, the modern scholarly view of the Bible as an internally flawed and somewhat haphazard anthology of remnant scraps of old folklore and feverish visionary rantings, cobbled together over many centuries by politically motivated redactors and interpreted later to be something it is not, seriously undercuts the traditional view of scripture as a miraculous, God-directed composition that speaks authoritatively to us today.

Fair enough. One must be cautious. Moreover, much of what Kugel claims the Bible is and how it was put together could be downright disturbing to faithful Latter-day Saints even with the acknowledgement of errors and corruptions in the human transmission of the biblical record. However, I would suggest that much of the potential discomfort for Mormons would come from the naturalist leaning of modern scholarship rather than the scholarship itself. Ironically, for a book that is centrally about drawing out interpretive assumptions, 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.

(Emphasis added.)

And here (from a non-Latter-day Saint perspective) :

Quote

Sparks argues that evangelicals can and should assimilate the “assured results” of historical-critical scholarship into their doctrine of Scripture.  He also demonstrates a broad knowledge of historical scholarship and a profound appreciation for those who have labored in the field. What he fails to consider is that those who conduct such work usually labor from a worldview that is, at several points, diametrically opposed to a biblical worldview.

The observation, however, that those who work in the area of historical-critical scholarship usually come at the Bible from assumptions not in accord with Scripture’s own should not be seen as simplistic recourse to the claim that historical-critical scholars are devoid of the Holy Spirit—an approach to biblical scholarship that Sparks strongly rejects.

The conservative argument usually goes something like this: “Biblical critics are not Christians, and, as Paul has said, ‘The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Cor. 2:14 NIV). End of argument. According to this line of thought, the critics err because they do not share our assumptions and/or because they lack the resources of the Holy Spirit. So we may safely ignore their pagan view of ‘scholarship.'”

If there is one perspective that I am challenging in this book, it is the fideistic perspective embodied in the argument that I have just described (GWHW, 303).

While we can join with Sparks in rejecting an approach to scholarship that uses theological reasons to escape rigorous engagement with historical-critical research or to justify unhelpful generalizations (e.g., “pagan scholarship”), we must also point out the validity of this deduction from 1 Cor 2:14. Scripture is replete with evidence suggesting that one’s spiritual condition will sway one’s intellectual commitments. Those who were blind to Jesus’ identity sought to undermine the historicity of his resurrection (Matt 28:13-14).  It may sound unsophisticated to the larger academy, but Scripture is clear that unregenerate man actively suppresses the truth (Rom 1:18-20). There is a kind of healthy suspicion believers might have when those who reject the God of the Bible undertake the study of his Word.

At some point evangelicals who so readily embrace the “assured” findings of historical scholarship must concede that the underlying spiritual and intellectual commitments that form the scholars’ worldview will inevitably affect their study of history and the conclusions they draw about the veracity of the biblical narrative. If scholars’ presuppositions about whether or not God exists, the kind of God that exists, the nature of humankind, the direction of history, the possibility of miracles, and the role of reason are in opposition to what Scripture asserts regarding these matters, it is likely that they will make direct and significant challenges to Scripture’s truth claims, whether they are aware of their core intellectual commitments or not.

It appears theologically and epistemologically naïve, therefore, for evangelicals to enter into an examination of historical-critical scholarship without an honest recognition of the profound and fundamental differences that exist between an evangelical and a non-evangelical worldview and how such differences will guide one’s study of the Bible.

"Trust the Experts!", with no assessment of the biases and presuppositions and worldviews those experts bring to the subject matter, doesn't really work. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"The issue" being . . . what?

The issue is the fact that the Bible isn't compatible with modern Christianity.

That's a "fact," is it?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Anyway, Dan McClellan is a unique individual. My point on this thread is that if we want to put him into a group, I think the group he fits in with best isn't the "wolves in sheep clothing" you've mentioned.

On balance, you may be right.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I think he is more like David P. Wright, David Bokovoy, Bart Ehrman, and every Latter-day Saint who has "passed through an academic program on the Bible."

"{E}very Latter-day Saint," you say?  Are you sure?

Kent P. Jackson and Donald W. Parry (here's his CV) come to mind.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Is Dan at risk of being hoisted by his own petard?

I don't know what that means.

The phrase is from Hamlet:

Quote

"Hoist with his own petard" is a phrase from a speech in William Shakespeare's play Hamlet that has become proverbial. The phrase's meaning is that a bomb-maker is blown ("hoist", the past tense of "hoise") off the ground by his own bomb ("petard"), and indicates an ironic reversal or poetic justice.^[1]

Dan goes about critiquing others' "dogmas," but doesn't seem to be short of a steady supply of his own.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

All right. Let's see it.

[Or not. I don't really care.]

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 31, 2023 by smac97

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

It's not that simple. It also has a lot to do with lowering expectations for what a true Church would be like, making compromises between conflicting priorities, putting issues on the shelf, and compartmentalization. In general, the human brain evolved so that we will believe what we need to believe to fit into our tribe, and there are all sorts of cognitive biases that facilitate that. It did not evolve to rationally and dispassionately evaluate truth claims about religion.

I'll just repeat what Bokovoy says a BYU professor told him. “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

Of the many people you know who "have a thorough understanding of the history and doctrines of the Church and who continue to fully embrace" it, how many "did Bible"?

Anyway, Bokovoy goes on to say, "Later I would come to realize that the advice I was given by my former religion professor was not unique. Scholars teaching Bible in conservative divinity school programs are often very similar to those teaching at my own alma mater."

An example of that would be Bart Ehrman. In Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Ehrman as a popularist brings the field of textual criticism to the masses in an insightful and engaging way. What's particularly nice about the book is the introduction, where he tells the story of how he entered Moody Bible Institute as a hard-core fundamentalist, but by the time he graduated from Princeton with his Ph.D. he was an agnostic. He's just another datapoint about the effect that studying the Bible has on faith--any faith.

The issue is the fact that the Bible isn't compatible with modern Christianity.

Anyway, Dan McClellan is a unique individual. My point on this thread is that if we want to put him into a group, I think the group he fits in with best isn't the "wolves in sheep clothing" you've mentioned. I think he is more like David P. Wright, David Bokovoy, Bart Ehrman, and every Latter-day Saint who has "passed through an academic program on the Bible."

I don't know what that means.

All right. Let's see it.

[Or not. I don't really care.]

I think you've done a good "analytic" job of this! 

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I'm just curious what he said that would be faith-promoting. I know that he doesn't share his personal view, but he went on a podcast called Mormon Stories aimed at an audience of Latter Day Saints and former Latter Day Saints.

So, what did he say that would have made a member of the church feel like their faith was strengthened? For example, after fast and testimony meeting, a good Sunday school class, or general conference there are lots of faith promoting things that are shared I could and do recap them with my wife when we discuss the meeting.

It was shared in that video what he said that was NOT faith promoting (no data for Christ being resurrected, etc.). On the flip side, I am curious if anyone can shared some of his faith-promoting comments that he made during his 15 hours on the podcast?

I usually listen when hitting the pillow and may have missed a lot, but I thought he dissected the Bible and used his research to explain it. Which was helpful for a true novice like myself.

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Unfortunately, that is not the only example of "BOJAMES" using violent imagery to defend his faith. It seems all of us "Apostates" are also on his kill list:

I can see why seeing something like that aimed squarely at you and yours is disquieting.  If it helps, my wife routinely receives death threats directed towards her personally, at least two or more times a year.  (She is something of a name in the online chicken owner community, and occasionally the militant animal rights people decide to go after her online.)   She's been at it a dozen years, and nobody has made it to her door, much less given actual effort into showing up.  There are always people running their mouths, and there are always actual dangerous people, but I don't think you or any other apostate is actually in any measurable danger.

And if this helps: If someone shows up wishing you harm, you're welcome to hide your apostate self and apostate buddies between me and good brother bojames.  I would gladly help you in any way I could, and hinder and publicly shame and possibly get dude arrested if possible.

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

are you kidding? Dan saying that the name Jesus doesn't mean this it actually means this and it accords to what Elder G. Homer Durham, who used outside LDS scholarship, to show what it actually means. Dan showed that yes, what Elder Durham said was true. Elder Durham used 4 sources to prove his point about the meaning of the name of Jesus-One could say that Dan and Elder Durham were one and the same

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1984/04/jesus-the-christ-the-words-and-their-meaning?lang=eng

Thanks for answering my question and linking to Elder Durham's talk. I'll listen to it.

[ttribe]

17 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I can see why seeing something like that aimed squarely at you and yours is disquieting.  If it helps, my wife routinely receives death threats directed towards her personally, at least two or more times a year.  (She is something of a name in the online chicken owner community, and occasionally the militant animal rights people decide to go after her online.)   She's been at it a dozen years, and nobody has made it to her door, much less given actual effort into showing up.  There are always people running their mouths, and there are always actual dangerous people, but I don't think you or any other apostate is actually in any measurable danger.

And if this helps: If someone shows up wishing you harm, you're welcome to hide your apostate self and apostate buddies between me and good brother bojames.  I would gladly help you in any way I could, and hinder and publicly shame and possibly get dude arrested if possible.

Oh, I don't take it that seriously, but I appreciate the sentiment. It's just always a bit of a surprise to see that kind of thing posted online by a person with whom I might have once shared a pew. Besides, I have a C&C permit for self-protection.

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You and I have gone the rounds in what I have described is your apparent fondness for scientism (see, e.g., here).  It's not much of a stretch to put critical bible scholarship and its devotees on an exceedingly high pedestal, and to revere such things as pristine and untainted by any biases, presuppositions, etc.  

My thoughts on the merits of methodological empiricism are beside the point. My point is that a BYU professor told David Bokovoy, “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "did Bible."  I assume you mean "pursue an academic degree from an institution requiring, inter alia, utilization of critical bible scholarship as the basis framework for the degree."

I'm using the phrase "do bible" in the way that David Bokovoy used it in the quote I just repeated.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We have all sorts of Latter-day Saints in academia, including fields that touch on the provenance / legitimacy of the Bible as a scriptural text.  Many of them seem to do just fine.  The issue, then, seems to come by way of built-in skepticism and naturalistic assumptions, subjectivity, selective/arbitrary approaches, and so on.

See, e.g., these comments:

(Emphasis added.)

And here (from a non-Latter-day Saint perspective) :

"Trust the Experts!", with no assessment of the biases and presuppositions and worldviews those experts bring to the subject matter, doesn't really work.

That's getting pretty far off topic. I'll just make a quick couple of points. First, I feel like by frankly addressing your truth claims rather than "bracketing them," I am showing you the respect that Bill Hamblin seemed to have been talking about in those quotes. Being all post-modern and saying that your beliefs are just as true as anybody else's seems patronizing to me.

Second, you asked, "A person who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God is "biased," but a person who rejects that notion is not "biased?"" 

For me, being biased is a matter of how one thinks, not what, specifically, they think. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That's a "fact," is it?

Basically. Of course you can water down any Christian's beliefs to the point where that weak version of religion is compatible with an open-eyed view of the Bible. The question is just how watered down that really is.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{E}very Latter-day Saint," you say? 

No, I didn't say that. A BYU professor did.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Kent P. Jackson and Donald W. Parry (here's his CV) come to mind.

Yes, it very well may have been one of those two who told Bokovoy, “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The phrase is from Hamlet:

Thanks.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dan goes about critiquing others' "dogmas," but doesn't seem to be short of a steady supply of his own.  

I see. The question is whether or not he can defend his beliefs with valid evidence.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Analytics