Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Quote

I think stuff like watching Dan publicly speak against the divinity of Jesus Christ and the origins of the Book of Mormon (as taught by the Church), on a podcast run by the most visible anti-Mormon alive today, and following it up by stating that he is influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" and that this is - in his words - a "sweet spot," and him pretty much affirming Dehlin's speculation about Dan's tenure at BYU being adversely influenced by his (Dan's) conduct (conduct inimical to faith in the Restored Gospel, and incompatible with employment at BYU), are pretty reasonable grounds for someone "to question {his} current testimony and the future of one's faith.

In fact, it would be willfully obtuse to not have such questions.  He's putting this stuff out for public consumption, after all.  He's a smart fella.  I think he knows what he's doing, and what impressions he is giving.

Whatever personal/private speculations you may hold,

"Speculation" means "the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence."

I have repeatedly summarized and pointed to the "evidence" which Dan has published to the world.  

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

it is not appropriate (and potentially hurtful) to publicly question another’s testimony or faith based on their unorthodox views of the gospel or political leanings.

See my comments above re: being willfully obtuse.

My original comment was pretty darn milquetoast and qualified:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

Everything he has said has been in the public sphere.  Meant for public consumption and discussion and debate.

Dan is a pretty smart guy.  He's gone on both Mormonism Live! and Mormon Stories, two of the most patently anti-Mormon presences on the Internet at present.  And he said a bunch of things that his hosts are thrilled about and are repeating all over the place.  He has even publicly described his efforts as influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, in his words, a "sweet spot."

Meanwhile, several days ago I asked: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."  Dan is becoming pretty prolific in creating and posting content, but so far the response I have received is . . . crickets.  Including from you.

Again, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. 

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

It acts as a repellent, pushing those we disagree with away rather than pulling them in with brotherly kindness and a Zionistic unity despite diversity.  

Diversity of what?  How does Dan publicly bragging about influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" advance "Zionistic unity?"

And what's with this "pushing" stuff?  AFAIK, Dan isn't even aware of this discussion.

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Until he himself has publicly proclaimed his lost faith/testimony, please keep your divisive and hurtful speculations to yourself.  

Tell you what, I'll let you say what you feel inclined to say, and not attempt to shame or coerce you into silence.  And I'll ask you to reciprocate the sentiment.

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

The “I told you so” gloating if he confirms your very public speculations simply isn’t worth it.

Again:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

Again: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

What other purpose does this serve?

Why is critiquing Dan's commentary about the Church (and about the Gospel, the scriptures, Jesus Christ, etc.) off-limits?

I have previously explained my perspective:

Quote

I also think it's appropriate that the Latter-day Saints not be deliberately obtuse about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing.  We've seen this play out over and over.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  Natasha Helfer-Parker.  These folks

• A) initially represent themselves and Latter-day Saints speaking to other Latter-day Saints from a faithful and observant perspective;
• B) who are speaking publicly to address this or that issue while also affirming and strengthening the faith of the Saints, but
• C) over time came to have or feel entitled to a sense of influence and authority over other Latter-day Saints; and they
• D) either began to use that influence, or else they had always intended to use that influence, to persuade other Latter-day Saints to listen to them and not to the General Authorities of the Church regarding important social/moral issues (as I put it above: "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren"); and
• E) gradually became more overt and assertive in their efforts, all the while trading on their membership as part of their personal and basis for influence; but
• F) eventually force the hand of their local leaders, resulting in a membership council and a loss of membership; and
• G) they then seize upon that loss of membership to garner even more attention, and to gain even more influence, only now they pivot to being full-throated opponents of the Church.

Wow.  The foregoing almost looks like a chiasmus, with the inflection point being the "voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

{P}erhaps one "benefit" is to express the sentiments of "I hope he has a change of heart" and "I wish him the best."  This is not posturing.  I mean it.

Dan has made himself a public figure, and in the Dehlin interview he made public statements about matters of faith.  He put those statements out for public attention and consumption.  I didn't hack his emails, nor did I betray any confidences.  I just listened to what he is saying and contrasted it with what prophets and apostles have said (as did this video, which I find pretty well-reasoned).

I am not condemning him ("I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best").  I am, instead, reading his published-to-the-world statements, such as these:

Quote

1. "To the degree that faith is evidence of things hoped for and not seen, you should not expect the data to support what you have faith in.  And they don't.  The data point pretty firmly in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon.  That is why I talk about the Book of Mormon as something that is, the data indicate is a product of the nineteenth century. ... That's what I would argue the data indicate."

2. Regarding "a literal Jesus, who died and was resurrected, and was the Son of God," Dan states:

"Resurrection is another thing that, from an academic point of view, that's a physical impossibility.  And so without extraordinary evidence for that, there's no way a scholar can say 'Yes, this makes sense,' because it doesn't.  It violates everything we know about the operation of the universe.  So the bar for that kind of evidence is even higher, and we don't have data that come anywhere near getting us over that bar.  So from a scholarly point of view, the resurrection is not something that is supported by the data.  The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth, who was probably an apocalyptic itinerant preacher, who probably preached against the Roman Empire, and preached the coming of the Kingdom of God imminently, and was executed because of it.  And then we have Jesus' followers afterwards spreading stories about him coming back to life and ministry before leaving again."

3. Dehlin asks: "Going back to the end of your employment with the Church, I could just see how all sorts of maybe even good or well-intended church leaders would say 'We gotta get Dan out of here because the implications of what he's teaching is not, in the long term, good for orthodox Mormon faith."  Dan responds:

"As long as I have supporters and detractors across the entire spectrum, I'm probably sitting in a sweet spot.  I'm probably doing something right if I'm offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful."

Dehlin responds: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on."

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

I claim no stewardship over Dan McClellan.  That said, he published these statements to the world.  He is speaking publicly with the intent of influencing his audience - a substantial portion of which are Latter-day Saints - to his point of view.  I think it unreasonable to willfully blind ourselves to what he is saying, or to not acknowledge that some portions of what he is saying are incompatible with listening to the prophets and apostles. 

I am concerned that Dan is setting himself up as "a voice of influence and authority that is {intended to be} alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

I am concerned that Dan is attempting to use his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his personal opinions (on sociopolitical issues).

I am concerned that Dan is publicly bragging/gloating that his efforts include "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - in his view - a "sweet spot."

I am concerned that nobody seems able to point to any recent effort by Dan to create or provide faith-affirming content / commentary / messaging to the community of faith of which he is a member.

I am concerned that Dan seems to be following the same general progression we've seen taken by Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, and so on.

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Isn’t it more Christlike to pull rather than push against one who you worry may be going astray?

I have no stewardship over Dan, nor any personal acquaintance with him.

Some years back I encountered a friend who was sitting the church building's foyer reading Denver Snuffer's Passing the Heavenly Gift.  I asked him if he was aware of Denver's then-recent comments about the Church, and he said no.  I encouraged him to go do a bit of reading about Denver's overall doctrinal position.  The friend later came back to me and expressed shock and Denver's stance on the Church being in a state of apostasy (this was, IIRC, just before or after his excommunication). 

Around this same time the Interpreter Foundation published a few essays critiquing Snuffer's published-to-the-world comments:

• Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part One of Two) (Gregory L. Smith)
• Passing Up The Heavenly Gift (Part Two of Two) (Gregory L. Smith)
• Dissenters: Portraying the Church as Wrong So They can be Right Without It (Brian C. Hales)
• A Response to Denver Snuffer’s Essay on Plural Marriage, Adoption, and the Supposed Falling Away of the Church – Part 1: Ignoring Inconvenient Evidence (Brian C. Hales)
• A Response to Denver Snuffer’s Essay on Plural Marriage, Adoption, and the Supposed Falling Away of the Church – Part 2: Façade or Reality? (Brian C. Hales)

Part of publishing your thoughts to the world is the possibility/likelihood that people will read your thoughts, give them some consideration, and reach some conclusions about them.

I suspect Dan knows this.

I also suspect that Dan knows that Latter-day Saints who read his recent glut of published-to-the-world remarks and social media content - much of which is not reasonably described as "faith affirming" (else I think someone would have responded to my inquiry about same), and some of which Dan himself has publicly bragged is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful" - might begin to think that he is following the same progression we have seen with Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, Helfer-Parker, and so on.

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Isn’t it better to publicly proclaim hope rather than doubt in another’s faith?  Perhaps you should consider Uchtdorf’s plea to first doubt your doubts in this case.  

Again:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

Again:

Quote

"If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."

Well?  Can you help me out here?

On 9/1/2023 at 5:34 PM, pogi said:

Then, if he chooses to stay, there will be no loss of face or need for repentance, and if he leaves, nothing will be lost.

As I have said before:

Quote

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." 

I am not condemning him.  I am not disparaging his character.  But I think he has given strong indications - similar to indicia we've seen from past "influencers" like those noted above (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel) - of taking an incrementally-antagonistic approach that leads to estrangement from the Restored Gospel.  

If I am wrong in this assessment, I will happily eat crow.  But if I'm correct, then a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate.

If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2023 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." 

Sorry, but that’s ridiculous. 

First, you are engaging in mind-reading, and worse, you are accusing him of something that any Latter-day Saint would recognize as pride-driven apostasy, setting himself up as “superior” to church leaders. You of course follow this rather bad-faith character assault with a hope that you’re wrong (the implication being that you’re not). 

Why do you do things like this? Is it possible for you to disagree with someone without impugning their character? As I’ve said before, you greatly weaken your arguments and impact by repeatedly making things personal. Not helpful. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by jkwilliams

[jpv]

On 8/23/2023 at 1:54 PM, CA Steve said:

Apologetics is bad.

Questions about whether Mormonism is true are bad.

Boundry maintenace is bad.

Data should be followed over dogma.

+ a lot or personal backstory.

We should be more open to alternate point of views.

The church is built on the corpses of sacred cows.

Curious if he says his own religious beliefs. 

 

Be surprised if he does. 

[Nevo]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

I like Dan

Me too.

I don't always agree with him, but I find a lot to admire about him. I've been around a few biblical scholars in my life, and have encountered many more online and in print. I don't know of anyone who has done a better job of distilling and synthesizing scholarship for a popular audience than Dan. And he doesn't "dumb it down." He's very good at packaging scholarly ideas in ways that interested non-specialists can grasp.

I've been reading critical biblical scholarship for 20+ years and I still learn a ton from Dan's videos (his second video with Dehlin is especially valuable). I've read quite a bit, but Dan is on another level. He's one of those scholars who seems to have read everything. His book, based on his Ph.D. dissertation, is outstanding. 

But what struck me most in his first 5+ hour interview (yes, I watched the whole thing) was his discretion. He refused to overshare and steadfastly maintained confidences. He barely talked about his family. And had nothing but good things to say about his conversion, the Book of Mormon, the members of his ward, the Institute teacher he had before his mission, etc. He spoke fondly of his mission experiences, his time at BYU, his colleagues in the Church office building, and his interactions with members in far-flung areas of the globe. He said he considered John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein friends (and spoke particularly highly of Thomas Wayment, a kindred spirit). He declined John's invitation to reassess or deconstruct his conversion experience. At one point, he expressed support for getting temples closer to the worldwide membership. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't get a "wolf in sheep's clothing" vibe. Rather, I thought he came across as a really decent, standup guy. Someone who takes confidences and relationships seriously and isn't all about "clicks" and fame. Certainly there were no bombshells in the interview.

I think his "wokeness" arises from a genuine concern for the marginalized and powerless. I don't think it's a pose. I actually think he has more in common with Micah and Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets than many of his "faithful" detractors.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Nevo

[Tacenda]

29 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Me too.

I don't always agree with him, but I find a lot to admire about him. I've been around a few biblical scholars in my life, and have encountered many more online and in print. I don't know of anyone who has done a better job of distilling and synthesizing scholarship for a popular audience than Dan. And he doesn't "dumb it down." He's very good at packaging scholarly ideas in ways that interested non-specialists can grasp.

I've been reading critical biblical scholarship for 20+ years and I still learn a ton from Dan's videos (his second video with Dehlin is especially valuable). I've read quite a bit, but Dan is on another level. He's one of those scholars who seems to have read everything. His book, based on his Ph.D. dissertation, is outstanding. 

But what struck me most in his first 5+ hour interview (yes, I watched the whole thing) was his discretion. He refused to overshare and steadfastly maintained confidences. He barely talked about his family. And had nothing but good things to say about his conversion, the Book of Mormon, the members of his ward, the Institute teacher he had before his mission, etc. He spoke fondly of his mission experiences, his time at BYU, his colleagues in the Church office building, and his interactions with members in far-flung areas of the globe. He said he considered John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein friends (and spoke particularly highly of Thomas Wayment, a kindred spirit). He declined John's invitation to reassess or deconstruct his conversion experience. At one point, he expressed support for getting temples closer to the worldwide membership. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't get a "wolf in sheep's clothing" vibe. Rather, I thought he came across as a really decent, standup guy. Someone who takes confidences and relationships seriously and isn't all about "clicks" and fame. Certainly there were no bombshells in the interview.

I think his "wokeness" arises from a genuine concern for the marginalized and powerless. I don't think it's a pose. I actually think he has more in common with Micah and Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets than many of his "faithful" detractors.

Nevo, you are the bomb! I remember a lot of this, but too inept to realize that this is faith promoting by not downgrading the faith but rather aligning. I couldn't answer the question to the other poster when they replied to a post. Thanks ever so much.

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, pogi said:

Whatever personal/private speculations you may hold, it is not appropriate (and potentially hurtful) to publicly question another’s testimony or faith based on their unorthodox views of the gospel or political leanings.   It acts as a repellent, pushing those we disagree with away rather than pulling them in.

Until he himself has publicly proclaimed his lost faith/testimony, it is best to keep speculations private.   The potential “I told you so” gloating if he confirms your very public speculations simply isn’t worth it.   Isn’t it more Christlike to pull rather than push against one who you worry may be going astray?   Isn’t it better to publicly maintain hope rather than doubt in another’s faith?  Otherwise, what is to compel you to “go after the one” when you’ve hedged your betts against him and doubt?   Perhaps you should consider Uchtdorf’s plea to first doubt your doubts in this case (and mine).  Then, if he chooses to stay, there will be no loss of face or need for repentance, and if he leaves, nothing will be lost on your part.

 

one word that Smac 97 originally quoted from Dan and then now has taken out repeatedly when quoting him from Dehlin's thing is the word "probably" Dan said he is "probably" in a sweet spot and is probably giving reason for others to leave or whatnot but Smac 97 is pepetuating the idea that Dan is always doing that not probably

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Me too.

I don't always agree with him, but I find a lot to admire about him. I've been around a few biblical scholars in my life, and have encountered many more online and in print. I don't know of anyone who has done a better job of distilling and synthesizing scholarship for a popular audience than Dan. And he doesn't "dumb it down." He's very good at packaging scholarly ideas in ways that interested non-specialists can grasp.

I've been reading critical biblical scholarship for 20+ years and I still learn a ton from Dan's videos (his second video with Dehlin is especially valuable). I've read quite a bit, but Dan is on another level. He's one of those scholars who seems to have read everything. His book, based on his Ph.D. dissertation, is outstanding. 

But what struck me most in his first 5+ hour interview (yes, I watched the whole thing) was his discretion. He refused to overshare and steadfastly maintained confidences. He barely talked about his family. And had nothing but good things to say about his conversion, the Book of Mormon, the members of his ward, the Institute teacher he had before his mission, etc. He spoke fondly of his mission experiences, his time at BYU, his colleagues in the Church office building, and his interactions with members in far-flung areas of the globe. He said he considered John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein friends (and spoke particularly highly of Thomas Wayment, a kindred spirit). He declined John's invitation to reassess or deconstruct his conversion experience. At one point, he expressed support for getting temples closer to the worldwide membership. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't get a "wolf in sheep's clothing" vibe. Rather, I thought he came across as a really decent, standup guy. Someone who takes confidences and relationships seriously and isn't all about "clicks" and fame. Certainly there were no bombshells in the interview.

I think his "wokeness" arises from a genuine concern for the marginalized and powerless. I don't think it's a pose. I actually think he has more in common with Micah and Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets than many of his "faithful" detractors.

Thank you for summarizing what I've been trying to figure out how to articulate from what I observed from Dan's first 5 hour interview.  Your comments mirror my thoughts exactly.  I would add only one other thing that I observed, which is that in that interview Dan was never shy about making the point that even though the data may not support a particular important belief [i.e. the resurrection of Jesus], some things need to be taken on faith.  It was never implied that the important belief can't possibly be true because the data doesn't support it, but that there is always room for faith.  That stood out to me.

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think @mfbukowski might want a word. 
 

I only bring this up because over the years his postmodernist view of Mormonism has been fascinating to me. 

If people understood it, the relativism of Postmodernism could erase all the issues which apologists have invented.

These are only a few examples, each one requires a philosophical support system which Postmodernism supplies:

History is an irrelevant issue- all that matters is the significance of the text 

Translation issues disappear, seeing it all as revelation. Like color, what we see is not "in the world" but in our minds

Revelation including testimony is as "real" as any human experience; we interpret the world and create our own "truth" -- since we cannot escape how the world appears to find any other "truth".

Alma 32 say that truth is that which is "sweet" and is efficacious to us. and in accordance with the commandments.

Moroni teaches us to find our own " truth" by asking God for  religious truth, not probing  "the world" because all we can know about "the world" is already filtered through our minds, and that is unchangeable.

Prophets continually teach us to grow through our "own testimonies"- our own truth as we experience it, not as others follow the "world".  We see the world now as if we are seeing a mirror "darkly"- reflecting our carnal selves, but after we are enlightened, we shall see all "face to face".

All of these are postmodern principles AND central to the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Also, I believe that postmodernism grew from philosophies which were born exactly parallel in time to provide a philosophical basis for religious restoration, with Kant and then on this continent, with William James and the pragmatists, and in Europe with the rise of Phenomenology.

So it seems to me that intellectually God was getting us ready for " The Latter Days " providing postmodernism at the exact time the world needed it.

The world and even the church don't yet see the benefits, but even this period of religious decline DEMANDS a different way to see religion; the youth are leading us into the Latter Days which is how it should be.  

Either we adopt it or lose it all.

We must put away our childish ways and accept a new truth that can take religion into our new world.

It's all the same Doctrines, just seen from a different perspective that few even see, but they will, they must before the world is fully secularized.

The changes in thought are already done; we just need to adapt to new interpretations or lose it all.

And it's not just us- it's all religions, but we are already starting to get it with this idea of seeking our own "truth" that puts us ahead of the others

 

 

Edited September 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

Me too.

I don't always agree with him, but I find a lot to admire about him. I've been around a few biblical scholars in my life, and have encountered many more online and in print. I don't know of anyone who has done a better job of distilling and synthesizing scholarship for a popular audience than Dan. And he doesn't "dumb it down." He's very good at packaging scholarly ideas in ways that interested non-specialists can grasp.

I've been reading critical biblical scholarship for 20+ years and I still learn a ton from Dan's videos (his second video with Dehlin is especially valuable). I've read quite a bit, but Dan is on another level. He's one of those scholars who seems to have read everything. His book, based on his Ph.D. dissertation, is outstanding. 

But what struck me most in his first 5+ hour interview (yes, I watched the whole thing) was his discretion. He refused to overshare and steadfastly maintained confidences. He barely talked about his family. And had nothing but good things to say about his conversion, the Book of Mormon, the members of his ward, the Institute teacher he had before his mission, etc. He spoke fondly of his mission experiences, his time at BYU, his colleagues in the Church office building, and his interactions with members in far-flung areas of the globe. He said he considered John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein friends (and spoke particularly highly of Thomas Wayment, a kindred spirit). He declined John's invitation to reassess or deconstruct his conversion experience. At one point, he expressed support for getting temples closer to the worldwide membership. Maybe I'm wrong, but I didn't get a "wolf in sheep's clothing" vibe. Rather, I thought he came across as a really decent, standup guy. Someone who takes confidences and relationships seriously and isn't all about "clicks" and fame. Certainly there were no bombshells in the interview.

I think his "wokeness" arises from a genuine concern for the marginalized and powerless. I don't think it's a pose. I actually think he has more in common with Micah and Isaiah and other Old Testament prophets than many of his "faithful" detractors.

Well said.  That is very much the impression I get…though minus the level of familiarity with Bible scholars even if friends with a few and neighbours of more.

[Calm]

13 hours ago, InCognitus said:

even though the data may not support a particular important belief [i.e. the resurrection of Jesus], some things need to be taken on faith.  It was never implied that the important belief can't possibly be true because the data doesn't support it, but that there is always room for faith.  That stood out to me.

Yes!  This is the other aspect that I have always found so valuable in Dan’s work.

This is faith promoting to me because this approach resonates so much more for me than those who may note probabilities drop too low or those who become dismissive of a source that doesn’t help their position even if it doesn’t detract because there is an expectation a source would be supportive if credible.  It feels like a balance achieved without effort (meaning it is not forced) while other positions have to overwork for balance because their attitudes unintentionally inflate the value of opposite arguments unintentionally so often.

Edited September 2, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have no stewardship over Dan, nor any personal acquaintance with him.

This might be a good thing to remember, while you are criticizing ideas you don't fully understand.

Edited September 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[BlueDreams]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Everything he has said has been in the public sphere.  Meant for public consumption and discussion and debate.

Dan is a pretty smart guy.  He's gone on both Mormonism Live! and Mormon Stories, two of the most patently anti-Mormon presences on the Internet at present. 

He's also been on several more positive-LDS oriented podcast, including faith matters and on by a non-lds protestant that tends to be very positive and kind to the church. 

This is cherry picking information to bolster your assumptions that he's likely on his way out. A claim that looks really weak when you look at a larger evidence pool. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

And he said a bunch of things that his hosts are thrilled about and are repeating all over the place.  He has even publicly described his efforts as influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, in his words, a "sweet spot."

Meanwhile, several days ago I asked: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."  Dan is becoming pretty prolific in creating and posting content, but so far the response I have received is . . . crickets.  Including from you.

Again, it looks like Dan is on his way out. I hope I'm wrong in that assessment. 

....

I am concerned that Dan is publicly bragging/gloating that his efforts include "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - in his view - a "sweet spot."

I'm blocking most of these together. You are basing most of these on one very cherry picked quote from Dan. The full quote doesn't support your concerns. He has said similar things in several venues, all of them to infer looking for signs that he hit a sweet spot of data neutrality...that his same words can disrupt or bolster the atheist and the believer in different ways. His public persona is not meant to sway someone towards faith or away from God. 

You don't seem really familiar with his work beyond the ones most sociopolitical most of them aren't really for or against faith or religiosity. Even on his sociopolitical ones, where you may get more of an idea of his political stances based on subtext he doesn't actually something along the lines of "I believe x so thus you must also" moreso that the scriptures used to bolster certain social stances are no where as clean cut as the appear. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."

I am concerned that nobody seems able to point to any recent effort by Dan to create or provide faith-affirming content / commentary / messaging to the community of faith of which he is a member.

That's really not the point of his public persona. You're not going to find one because he's not trying to enter a theologian or apologetic circle. It's like saying "no one has pointed me to a nice ocean front in Utah...therefore Utah must be super against beachfronts" it's not what Utah is or does. Someone in Utah might not like beaches, but the lack of beaches isn't a great indicator that that's a consistent truism or sign of anti-beachness.

 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned that Dan is setting himself up as "a voice of influence and authority that is {intended to be} alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

How? Honestly that seems laughable to me based on what I've seen him do. He gives no religious answers, just points out assumptive hole around biblical literature, and let's people decide what they'll do with that. He is by no means trying to take on a prophetic voice or even theological guidance for people. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am concerned that Dan is attempting to use his scholarly bona fides to unduly bolster his personal opinions (on sociopolitical issues).

This one I could at least see. But it should be noted that I still don't really know what his political stances even are. I assume left of center, but how left and what that even means for him, I can't tell from the many many videos I've watched of his. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I am concerned that Dan seems to be following the same general progression we've seen taken by Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, and so on.

I have no stewardship over Dan, nor any personal acquaintance with him.

I'm not. I have not seen a clear pattern in Dan that I've seen in the others you've mentioned. 

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also suspect that Dan knows that Latter-day Saints who read his recent glut of published-to-the-world remarks and social media content - much of which is not reasonably described as "faith affirming" (else I think someone would have responded to my inquiry about same), and some of which Dan himself has publicly bragged is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful" - might begin to think that he is following the same progression we have seen with Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, Helfer-Parker, and so on.

This reminds me of when I've talked about me not feeling really comfortable with both a pro life or pro choice stance. I usually discuss that most here/online. But this funny thing happens where people who lean more one side or another (usually more pro-life here) read or engage me as more pro-choice than i really am. Usually because the contrasting arguments are coming from a pro-life orientation. Or the fun optical illusion with colors that if you change a background color the same front shade color may look lighter or darker. 

Dan has been fairly consistent from what I can see of his public persona and ideas. This summary I found of another podcast interview he did sums it up pretty well:

"For those that wonder why we might want to learn the details of the Bible if we primarily want to engage it devotionally, Dan gives an intriguing answer — the more we learn, the more foreign we’ll realize the Bible is, and the more uncomfortable we’ll become. And the more uncomfortable we are, the more we’re forced to grapple with problems and contradictions — something we’ve found can be a truly meaningful struggle that takes one “further up and further in” to a life of deep faith."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/faithmatters.org/why-we-cant-cherry-pick-the-bible-a-conversation-with-dan-mcclellan/%3famp=1

I tend to agree with him, I've really enjoyed exploring and grappling with a foreign Bible and differing takes on it. The experience has built my faith and principles in different ways. So when I've listened to his stuff I've never felt uncomfortable or super concerned about the bulk of his material surrounding biblical scholarship. You are seeing this material from a different lens. One that's generally more of a conservative take than mine on both sociopolitical and likely religious matters. That same shade of grey on Dan Likely comes off more dark for you than it does to me. 

I assume Dan probably assumes people make a ton of assumptions about his "real" stance with religion based off their background no matter what and he's fine with that because it doesn't matter to him. He's not trying to be a theologian. He doesn't like apologetics. And he's not open to being one for anybody. It out backgrounds that determine what shade we're really seeing and how we engage with his public persona. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited September 2, 2023 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

That's really not the point of his public persona. You're not going to find one because he's not trying to enter a theologian or apologetic circle. It's like saying "no one has pointed me to a nice ocean front in Utah...therefore Utah must be super against beachfronts" it's not what Utah is or does. Someone in Utah might not like beaches, but the lack of beaches isn't a great indicator that that's a consistent truism or sign of anti-beachness.

👍👍👍👍👍

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, several days ago I asked: "If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it."  Dan is becoming pretty prolific in creating and posting content, but so far the response I have received is . . . crickets.  Including from you.

Of course this was not addressed to me, but hard as it is to believe, not everyone here even reads your posts.

And I am sure that you seem to not view mine, similarly. 

Edited September 2, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

He's also been on several more positive-LDS oriented podcast, including faith matters and on by a non-lds protestant that tends to be very positive and kind to the church. 

This is cherry picking information to bolster your assumptions that he's likely on his way out. A claim that looks really weak when you look at a larger evidence pool. 

I'm blocking most of these together. You are basing most of these on one very cherry picked quote from Dan. The full quote doesn't support your concerns. He has said similar things in several venues, all of them to infer looking for signs that he hit a sweet spot of data neutrality...that his same words can disrupt or bolster the atheist and the believer in different ways. His public persona is not meant to sway someone towards faith or away from God. 

You don't seem really familiar with his work beyond the ones most sociopolitical most of them aren't really for or against faith or religiosity. Even on his sociopolitical ones, where you may get more of an idea of his political stances based on subtext he doesn't actually something along the lines of "I believe x so thus you must also" moreso that the scriptures used to bolster certain social stances are no where as clean cut as the appear. 

That's really not the point of his public persona. You're not going to find one because he's not trying to enter a theologian or apologetic circle. It's like saying "no one has pointed me to a nice ocean front in Utah...therefore Utah must be super against beachfronts" it's not what Utah is or does. Someone in Utah might not like beaches, but the lack of beaches isn't a great indicator that that's a consistent truism or sign of anti-beachness.

 

How? Honestly that seems laughable to me based on what I've seen him do. He gives no religious answers, just points out assumptive hole around biblical literature, and let's people decide what they'll do with that. He is by no means trying to take on a prophetic voice or even theological guidance for people. 

This one I could at least see. But it should be noted that I still don't really know what his political stances even are. I assume left of center, but how left and what that even means for him, I can't tell from the many many videos I've watched of his. 

I'm not. I have not seen a clear pattern in Dan that I've seen in the others you've mentioned. 

This reminds me of when I've talked about me not feeling really comfortable with both a pro life or pro choice stance. I usually discuss that most here/online. But this funny thing happens where people who lean more one side or another (usually more pro-life here) read or engage me as more pro-choice than i really am. Usually because the contrasting arguments are coming from a pro-life orientation. Or the fun optical illusion with colors that if you change a background color the same front shade color may look lighter or darker. 

Dan has been fairly consistent from what I can see of his public persona and ideas. This summary I found of another podcast interview he did sums it up pretty well:

"For those that wonder why we might want to learn the details of the Bible if we primarily want to engage it devotionally, Dan gives an intriguing answer — the more we learn, the more foreign we’ll realize the Bible is, and the more uncomfortable we’ll become. And the more uncomfortable we are, the more we’re forced to grapple with problems and contradictions — something we’ve found can be a truly meaningful struggle that takes one “further up and further in” to a life of deep faith."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/faithmatters.org/why-we-cant-cherry-pick-the-bible-a-conversation-with-dan-mcclellan/%3famp=1

I tend to agree with him, I've really enjoyed exploring and grappling with a foreign Bible and differing takes on it. The experience has built my faith and principles in different ways. So when I've listened to his stuff I've never felt uncomfortable or super concerned about the bulk of his material surrounding biblical scholarship. You are seeing this material from a different lens. One that's generally more of a conservative take than mine on both sociopolitical and likely religious matters. That same shade of grey on Dan Likely comes off more dark for you than it does to me. 

I assume Dan probably assumes people make a ton of assumptions about his "real" stance with religion based off their background no matter what and he's fine with that because it doesn't matter to him. He's not trying to be a theologian. He doesn't like apologetics. And he's not open to being one for anybody. It out backgrounds that determine what shade we're really seeing and how we engage with his public persona. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

The more I used to I grapple the more I found my own solutions solved by postmodernism. ☆

It was when I was an atheist that I was led most strongly to the validity of direct spiritual experience.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 9/1/2023 at 6:23 PM, PacMan said:

Here's a good definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

And your post clearly tells me that you have no idea what postmodernism is. Probably the most important part of postmodernism is its rejection of meta-narratives - from the link you provided:

Quote

Postmodernism is an intellectual stance or mode of discourse characterized by skepticism toward the "grand narratives" of modernism; rejection of epistemic (scientific) certainty or the stability of meaning; and sensitivity to the role of ideology in maintaining political power.

 Back on August 24th, you posted this in this thread:

Quote

While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.

Do you see the inherent contradiction between these two comments that you make? Having a strong sense of what postmodernism is, it feels to me that you are trying here to weaponize the term as a pejorative. To put it more simply, I think you are full of it ...

[pogi]

On 9/1/2023 at 6:33 PM, smac97 said:

Everything he has said has been in the public sphere.  Meant for public consumption and discussion and debate.

You are making judgments as to his personal spiritual life/testimony.  Where has he put that up for public consumption and debate?  What a terrible thing to debate!  What I said still stands.  

Edited September 4, 2023 by pogi

[PacMan]

Very charitable of you, Ben. 

To the extent I don't know what postmodernism is, I suppose I’m in good company.  Of course, you're the one that stated: "Postmodernism is a notoriously difficult term to define.  So, I am not going to try."

https://www.patheos.com/resources/additional-resources/2010/12/mormonism-a-postmodern-religion-ben-mcguire

Kind of silly to be so dogmatic over something you can't even define, right?

In any event, if you're going to quote my source, don't just offer a prooftext.  To complete the opening paragraph:

"Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism, with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses. The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism; it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization."

There have been enough discourses from general conference (e.g. Elders Ballard, Christofferson) re: moral relativism, for example, to fairly equate postmodernism as pejorative within the gospel context.  There is a truth.  That is God's truth.  And your idea that the Church accepts pluralism is nonsense (and heretical).  The idea that this truth is somehow relative, or illusive, (or elusive) is utter nonsense.  There simply are not multiple ways of approaching truth (see Col. 1:15-20; John 14:6).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1999/11/beware-of-false-prophets-and-false-teachers?lang=eng&para=p19#p19

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2009/11/moral-discipline?lang=eng

Do you agree with them, Ben?

And while seemingly contradictory, that's precisely Dan's viewpoint.  He advocates data, so long as it meets his postmodern view of truth—a worthless, subjective, relative view that apparently doesn’t mean anything anyway.

Edited September 4, 2023 by PacMan

[Benjamin McGuire]

27 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Very charitable of you, Ben.

You pretty much gave up the right for more respect through your rhetoric.

27 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Kind of silly to be so dogmatic over something you can't even define, right?

I'm not being dogmatic (another term that I am beginning to think that you don't understand either).

I think that you are mischaracterizing Dan's point of view. I think that you are mischaracterizing the views of the leaders of the Church. And since you read my brief essay that I wrote 13 years ago, you should have some sense of how I explain that the Church itself has a wide streak of moral relativism. I'll quote what I wrote for you:

Quote

The third trait of Mormonism is that idea that there is no universal standard by which everyone is judged, nor is the LDS Church the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith said, "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." He also noted "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." Mormon theology suggests that all are judged by their individual circumstances. There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases). Everyone is given an equal opportunity for salvation, even if we don't always understand how that opportunity presents itself. This functions both within the faith, and external to it. Even within the membership of the church, uniformity of belief and understanding is not a requirement for salvation.

And yet here you are, trying to be the gatekeeper of orthodoxy, and the one who gets to determine what is essential for the faith. Good luck with that.

[PacMan]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You pretty much gave up the right for more respect through your rhetoric.

I'm not being dogmatic (another term that I am beginning to think that you don't understand either).

I think that you are mischaracterizing Dan's point of view. I think that you are mischaracterizing the views of the leaders of the Church. And since you read my brief essay that I wrote 13 years ago, you should have some sense of how I explain that the Church itself has a wide streak of moral relativism. I'll quote what I wrote for you:

And yet here you are, trying to be the gatekeeper of orthodoxy, and the one who gets to determine what is essential for the faith. Good luck with that.

Ben, other than being insulting, you are wasting a lot of e-ink on saying very little.

My rhetoric?  What postmodernism is antithetical to the gospel (and generally a complete waste of time)?  That's what I think.  Why you take it personally, I do not understand.

Or is it because I criticize Dan's postmodernism?  He subscribes to moral relativism, right?  And that's part of postmodernism correct?  What part of the rhetoric do you find so offensive?

Why do you think I'm mischaracterizing Dan's point of view?  He's the one that's talked about renegotiating the text to break down power structures, blah, nonsense, blah.  What am I mischaracterizing?  Please be specific.

And how am I mischaracterizing Elders Ballard or Christofferson?  Did you even read their talks?  Do you realize that Elder Christofferson actually criticizes the term moral relativism?  And answer my question - do you disagree with them.

And no, I'm not the gatekeeper of orthodoxy.  I'll leave that to God, and his prophets and apostles.  Something that heretical postmodernist would reject.  What about you?

Really, answer my questions.

P.S. The fact that you bring up your article from 13 years ago...is it because you disavow it or are embarrassed by it?

P.S.S. "There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases)."  That's false.

Joseph Smith: "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles”

Edited September 4, 2023 by PacMan

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Ben, other than being insulting, you are wasting a lot of e-ink on saying very little.

Then the pot calls the kettle black, right?

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

My rhetoric?  What postmodernism is antithetical to the gospel (and generally a complete waste of time)?  That's what I think.  Why you take it personally, I do not understand.

I am not taking it personally. The problem is that you don't understand what postmodernism is. You refer to a wikipedia article that you think means something (am I don't get the sense that you are understanding it very well). You think that the term should be a pejorative - so you are trying to weaponize the language. You aren't actually saying anything at all, other than how you disapprove of Dan and what he is doing on the basis of what you think Dan believes - what comes across to me is that you disagree with Dan on a lot of issues - and since you aren't competent to actually address those issues, instead you try to engage him with insinuation and by using language that you think will trigger others. It's always a bit transparent when you use language incorrectly.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Or is it because I criticize Dan's postmodernism?  He subscribes to moral relativism, right?  And that's part of postmodernism correct?  What part of the rhetoric do you find so offensive?

Who knows if Dan ascribes to moral relativism. I don't think that you can actually define that term without an appeal to wikipedia. But the problem is that Joseph Smith taught moral relativism. When Joseph Smith taught that "God judges men according to the use they make of the light which He gives them." - that is a statement of moral relativism. And the idea is built into our theology - an accountability based on the degree to which we are able to exercise real agency and the extent to which we know that our actions are good or bad. I don't find your rhetoric offensive - I find it to be both ignorant and harmful to an appropriate understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It comes across as a form of boundary maintenance - but it isn't boundary maintenance trying to protect the gospel - it is a boundary maintenance trying to frame true belief inside of a specific perspective. I don't believe that Dan is a postmodernist. And I say that for some of the same things that you have criticized him for (as I pointed out). You are right - I didn't define postmodernism in that blog post I was invited to make all those years ago. Perhaps you can get a better understanding of my views here. At the very least, you might come to an understanding that postmodernism isn't anathema to the gospel - nor does having a postmodern perspective of the gospel mean that someone has fallen off a cliff someplace.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Why do you think I'm mischaracterizing Dan's point of view?  He's the one that's talked about renegotiating the text to break down power structures, blah, nonsense, blah.  What am I mischaracterizing?  Please be specific.

I think that I have been specific. I think that here we get another snapshot. Power structures - the concept comes out of critical theory, which is not a product of postmodernism but modernism. Reading texts and discussing how those text reflect the ways in which the society that produced them, understood them, and used them, is not an act of postmodernism. It is a core part of literary theory more generally. I realize that I am not going to actually say much to you in this statement, but I also know that there are several here who will understand what I am writing here, and recognize how this refutes your mischaracterization of Dan.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

And how am I mischaracterizing Elders Ballard or Christofferson?  Did you even read their talks?  Do you realize that Elder Christofferson actually criticizes the term moral relativism?  And answer my question - do you disagree with them.

The problem isn't with the talks (and yes, I have read them - in fact I listened to both of them when they were given in conference). Here is the issue - let's start with the first one, where we get this:

Quote

Therefore, let us beware of false prophets and false teachers, both men and women, who are self-appointed declarers of the doctrines of the Church and who seek to spread their false gospel and attract followers by sponsoring symposia, books, and journals whose contents challenge fundamental doctrines of the Church.

Dan doesn't seem to be doing this. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you are conflating your own point of view with the "fundamental doctrines of the Church." Discussing the text "to break down power structures" isn't challenging the fundamental doctrines of the Church. Perhaps the real problem for you is that you don't believe that any academic has any authority to explain the scriptures - that they are somehow above reasoned understanding? Who knows. But, whatever the root of your disagreement, what you are doing here is clearly attempting a sort of boundary maintenance. By using a conference address, you want to argue that Dan is other - that he not only believes heresy, but that by teaching it on his podcast, he is rising to the level of a false prophet described here. This is nonsense.

The issue of moral relativism is used in an overly broad sense by Christofferson. What I mean is that he defines it like this:

Quote

The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god” (D&C 1:16).

Moral relativism isn't simply this. We could start by asking a simple question - why couldn't black men in the LDS Church hold the priesthood in 1977, but they could in 1978? One answer to the question is that God required it. And this is a perfectly acceptable answer - but at its core, it means that morality is based on what God wants - which can change from time to time and from person to person - this is the quintessential meaning of moral relativism. We could say that there is an absolute moral framework - but then we would have to recognize that God reveals it gradually, and that we don't actually have a complete understanding of that full framework. This is another definition of moral relativism. I believe that Christofferson is not trying to challenge these other aspects - his talk is more focused. After all, why not, instead, quote Elder Faust on the question of Moral Relativism:

Quote

In addition, the gift of the Holy Ghost is available as a sure guide, as the voice of conscience, and as a moral compass. This guiding compass is personal to each of us. It is unerring. It is unfailing.

See how this reflects a moral relativism? The problem that I see isn't so much about defining moral relativism and its application - the problem is that you believe that what you believe is the moral standard should be held up as the moral standard for everyone else - that you have found the truth and because you have, it puts you in that special place of being able to show everyone else the error of their ways.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

And no, I'm not the gatekeeper of orthodoxy.  I'll leave that to God, and his prophets and apostles.  Something that heretical postmodernist would reject.  What about you?

I don't reject this at all. I really don't care what you personally believe - it has no relevance to the light and knowledge I receive from God through the Holy Ghost. And who else would be in a position to determine orthodoxy? And yet, I am a heretical postmodernist no? What that really means is that I reject the idea that the Church is the only repository of truth. As Joseph Smith taught: "One of the grand fundamental principles of ‘Mormonism,' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." So, perhaps this perspective is justified.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

P.S. The fact that you bring up your article from 13 years ago...is it because you disavow it or are embarrassed by it?

No. I am just pointing out that there is material that is much more recent, that wasn't merely a blog post, but was published in a Mormon journal which vetted its content.

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

P.S.S. "There is no list of specific requirements for salvation that holds true in every case (or even in a majority of cases)."  That's false.

It's not false. But, as I noted in the final two paragraphs of that blog post:

Quote

Not all Mormons will agree with this assessment. Some will say that salvation isn't as open ended as I have suggested, that all must be baptized (except perhaps for a few who can be characterized by their age or mental capacity). They may struggle with revelation as an agent of change. They may prefer absolutes to ambiguity. The hierarchy of church authority provides for them a security of knowing that I cannot offer. To them, Mormonism is decidedly not a post-modern faith.

We may not all be in agreement, but we can disagree and still share a salvific faith. From my perspective, embracing diversity is part of what has led to the growth of Mormonism. This diversity crosses social, ethnic, political, and economic barriers. It helps build narratives that give us a sense of purpose in our lives. It allows us to embrace ambiguity, to appreciate mystery, and to develop a mature faith that challenges us to change.

And as you note -

11 hours ago, PacMan said:

Joseph Smith: "Ordinances instituted in the heavens before the foundation of the world, in the priesthood, for the salvation of men, are not to be altered or changed. All must be saved on the same principles”

Like baptism, right? Except for what we read in Moroni 8:

Quote

And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the bremission of sins. ... he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

Perhaps you could explain to me what ordinances are required for "the salvation of men" that have not been altered or changed? The beauty of such a long and detailed documentary history for the Church is that we can find all sorts of statements to back up our points of view?

Edited September 4, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[PacMan]

On 9/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is that you don't understand what postmodernism is. You refer to a wikipedia article that you think means something (am I don't get the sense that you are understanding it very well). You think that the term should be a pejorative - so you are trying to weaponize the language. You aren't actually saying anything at all, other than how you disapprove of Dan and what he is doing on the basis of what you think Dan believes - what comes across to me is that you disagree with Dan on a lot of issues - and since you aren't competent to actually address those issues, instead you try to engage him with insinuation and by using language that you think will trigger others. It's always a bit transparent when you use language incorrectly.

You're either being purposefully obtuse or simply dishonest.  I don't care whether you agree with the Wikipedia article definition or not.  But what is not tolerable is your repeated aspersions and insults on the heels of your own ineptitude to define postmodernism in some meaningful way.  

Let me make it easy for you.  Do you agree with the following regarding postmodernism:

"Claims to objectivity are dismissed as naïve realism,^[5] with attention drawn to the conditional nature of knowledge claims within particular historical, political, and cultural discourses.^[4] The postmodern outlook is characterized by self-referentiality, epistemological relativism, moral relativism, pluralism, irony, irreverence, and eclecticism;^[4] it rejects the "universal validity" of binary oppositions, stable identity, hierarchy, and categorization"

And at least I provide some definition....as opposed to you who still can't define anything after 13 years.  Even in your more recent "peer-reviewed" (really?) article, the definition of postmodernism still escapes you.

But I guess that's the privilege of being a postmodernist.  You're not bound by anything so you're always right.

[FYI - peer-review is, empirically, a joke.]

https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-rise-and-fall-of-peer-review?fbclid=IwAR0LwIDlHIOwAX6dkI-LHhZdQQSb7vZQhXZPU1zwwF5Rx4WCD0aAum6Lt7Y

On 9/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Who knows if Dan ascribes to moral relativism. I don't think that you can actually define that term without an appeal to wikipedia.

Now you're being both insulting and pathetic.  Wikipedia or not, at least I can define it.

Since you're the king of postmodernism, you tell me if Dan ascribes to moral relativism based on the things he has said.  Of course he is.  He has stated that he renegotiates the biblical text--not based on what it says, but based on the rights and wrongs as he sees them.

On 9/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

No, the issue of moral relativism is used in an overly broad sense by Christofferson.

Glad to know you disagree.  Keep rowing yourself out to that island of one, Ben.

On 9/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Like baptism, right? Except for what we read in Moroni 8:

No.  Not like baptism.  But like baptism for the remission of sins.  If you're not accountable, then you haven't sinned.  And if you haven't sinned, you needn't any sins to be remitted.  One objective standard, equally applicable to everyone.

On 9/4/2023 at 7:46 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps you could explain to me what ordinances are required for "the salvation of men" that have not been altered or changed?

I don't even know what this means.  Altered or changed?  What are you talking about?  Like using potatoes rather than bread for the sacrament?  Or that we perform stake baptisms on the second Saturday, which may happen to fall on odd or even calendar days, unless the stake baptism is held on a different day?  If it's not material to God, then it doesn't matter.  So why does it matter to you?

Oh, because in your mind, if something is changeable, then it is relative and supports your ideal of postmodernism.  Sorry, I don't find that a respectable (or defensible) position.

Edited September 8, 2023 by PacMan

[Smiley McGee]

2 hours ago, PacMan said:

But what is not tolerable is your repeated dispersions and insults on the heels of your own ineptitude to define postmodernism in some meaningful way. 

🙃 Aspersions?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, PacMan said:

Since you're the king of postmodernism, you tell me if Dan ascribes to moral relativism based on the things he has said.  Of course he is.  He has stated that he renegotiates the biblical text--not based on what it says, but based on the rights and wrongs as he sees them.

Actually he says that’s what everyone does. Everyone is forced to renegotiate the text.  He is just honest enough to admit it. If you think you don’t, you are in denial.
 

And Dan has very stark feelings about what’s right (protecting minorities) and what’s wrong (wresting scripture to abuse said minorities). Not very post modern of him. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Self-hypocrisy check:    Subject 1: The state of Dan's testimony, and it's future.   Subject 2: Over a few decades, there have been numerous self-proclaimed LGBTQ active LDS folks who wrote blogs or otherwise put themselves and their testimonies into the public realm.

If I take a critical look at Subject 1, but took issue with folks taking a critical look at subject 2, do I hold a hypocritical double-standard?
If I take issue with folks taking a critical look at Subject 1, but take a critical look at subject 2, do I hold a hypocritical double-standard?

Self-reflection opportunity:  In the current threads, we have folks worried about the state of Dan's testimony, and we have folks taking issue with that worry.  For both 'sides', do you remember if you formed any opinions when Josh Weed and his wife were off happily blogging about their happy active LDS life?  Did you go on to have any other opinions when Josh got divorced and left the church?