Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[pogi]

35 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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?

I don’t know who Josh Weed is and have never supported making public judgments about another’s personal spiritual state of being or testimony that they themselves have not publicly commented on - be that Dan or an LGBTQ individual, or otherwise.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

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?

I took Josh and his wife at their word. I was worried that public awareness and pressure would make their lives more difficult as it has made a lot of people’s lives difficult, in and out of the Church when they become public figures, especially in this day and age when there is no real way to protect yourself besides withdrawing from a public online presence. It’s hard to avoid thinking you might have made a mistake when people are constantly telling you that you did or second guessing yourself.   I have no opinions on his divorce and leaving the Church save to be sadden by it. I was not there and cannot evaluate the whys and wherefores of his decision. I only hope his ex wife was fully involved in the decision and it was mutual. 

[InCognitus]

I finished the last two hours of the third interview with Dan this morning during my walk, and here are some highlights from the interview that stood out to me:

26:41 - An interesting discussion about humans being predisposed to believe in deity and studies that show that even atheists default to that view if not given sufficient time to process a particular event (my summary:  there are no atheists in foxholes). 

1:19:10 - Related to questions about the different accounts of the First Vision:  Dan says he is an advocate for suspending judgement on things where we don't know all the facts and we are operating from a position of faith, and we should set aside the common binary positions that something is absolutely true or it's absolutely false, and find somewhere in between.  There is no value to the notion that if Joseph Smith saw God, then immediately everything should have been crystal clear to him.  Actual real experiences don't work that way.

1:23:23  - Dan debunks the modern popular definition of atheism, which is that it is "an absence of a belief in gods" (I missed watching the video of this portion while I was listening during my walk, but in preparing this post I noticed that the smirk on Dan's face during this segment is priceless ).

1:46:51 - John comes to the realization for the first time (in 18 years of doing what he's been doing) that the uncharitable ex-Mormon views and the angry hyper-orthodox views of Mormonism are similar (i.e. current DezNat, hyper orthodox Youtubers, etc.).  Reflecting back to the binary approach, really.

1:52:22 - John asks Dan about how the current prophets and apostles run the church.  Dan responds that he's not in their position and therefore isn't burdened by their responsibilities, so he does not see everything they are seeing and worrying about, or what they are tasked with improving or changing or maintaining.  He says that if he were suddenly put into a church administration position like that, he says he is sure his perspectives would change.  Positionality has a lot to do with how we see things.  Dan says he has spoken with church leaders in the past and has usually come away with more respect for them and their position as a result of those conversations.  He says having such a position is not a burden he would wish upon his worst enemy because he could not imagine how difficult it must be to prioritize the concern for the one over the ninety-nine, but also be in the position that they are.  So he is not in any position to criticize any of their doings.

1:55:48 - John asks Dan if he was called to be a bishop or a mission president, if he would be inclined to accept a calling like that.   Dan says that someone would have dropped the ball if he ever receives a calling like that, but says that he has never turned down a calling in the church in his life, and that has been a priority of his, to serve where he is asked to serve, in whatever capacity he is asked to serve.  

2:24:48 - Dan comments on what faith is - We are not being asked to historically prove anything, we are asked to have a testimony.  Brigham Young said a testimony is not about the data or the facts, a testimony is something different from that.  

I found it interesting.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I finished the last two hours of the third interview with Dan this morning during my walk, and here are some highlights from the interview that stood out to me:

26:41 - An interesting discussion about humans being predisposed to believe in deity and studies that show that even atheists default to that view if not given sufficient time to process a particular event (my summary:  there are no atheists in foxholes). 

1:19:10 - Related to questions about the different accounts of the First Vision:  Dan says he is an advocate for suspending judgement on things where we don't know all the facts and we are operating from a position of faith, and we should set aside the common binary positions that something is absolutely true or it's absolutely false, and find somewhere in between.  There is no value to the notion that if Joseph Smith saw God, then immediately everything should have been crystal clear to him.  Actual real experiences don't work that way.

1:23:23  - Dan debunks the modern popular definition of atheism, which is that it is "an absence of a belief in gods" (I missed watching the video of this portion while I was listening during my walk, but in preparing this post I noticed that the smirk on Dan's face during this segment is priceless ).

1:46:51 - John comes to the realization for the first time (in 18 years of doing what he's been doing) that the uncharitable ex-Mormon views and the angry hyper-orthodox views of Mormonism are similar (i.e. current DezNat, hyper orthodox Youtubers, etc.).  Reflecting back to the binary approach, really.

1:52:22 - John asks Dan about how the current prophets and apostles run the church.  Dan responds that he's not in their position and therefore isn't burdened by their responsibilities, so he does not see everything they are seeing and worrying about, or what they are tasked with improving or changing or maintaining.  He says that if he were suddenly put into a church administration position like that, he says he is sure his perspectives would change.  Positionality has a lot to do with how we see things.  Dan says he has spoken with church leaders in the past and has usually come away with more respect for them and their position as a result of those conversations.  He says having such a position is not a burden he would wish upon his worst enemy because he could not imagine how difficult it must be to prioritize the concern for the one over the ninety-nine, but also be in the position that they are.  So he is not in any position to criticize any of their doings.

1:55:48 - John asks Dan if he was called to be a bishop or a mission president, if he would be inclined to accept a calling like that.   Dan says that someone would have dropped the ball if he ever receives a calling like that, but says that he has never turned down a calling in the church in his life, and that has been a priority of his, to serve where he is asked to serve, in whatever capacity he is asked to serve.  

2:24:48 - Dan comments on what faith is - We are not being asked to historically prove anything, we are asked to have a testimony.  Brigham Young said a testimony is not about the data or the facts, a testimony is something different from that.  

I found it interesting.

I'm so glad you posted this, I rely on these for my lack of ability to put it all down. I listened as well, and was going to mention in the third one, Dan does express a faithful approach, and nothing I heard was contradicting it.

Edited September 5, 2023 by Tacenda

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm so glad you posted this, I rely on these for my lack of ability to put it all down. I listened as well, and was going to mention in the third one, Dan does express a faithful approach, and nothing I heard was contradicting it.

I lamented not taking better notes on the first two interviews.  I tried to find sections of the interview later that I wanted to comment on, and gave up due to the sheer amount of skimming and re-listening I would need to do.

For this 4.25 hour video I memorized or jotted down time stamps as I listened (which is awkward to do when listening while walking), but even doing that it was still painful to navigate a four and a quarter hour video on Youtube to find the time-stamp locations later.  Those interviews are LONG!!

Edited September 5, 2023 by InCognitus

[Couganova]

My only major beef with him is that he bastardizes the word "data."

[InCognitus]

22 hours ago, Couganova said:

My only major beef with him is that he bastardizes the word "data."

I guess it depends on what definition of "data" you have in mind?

 

Edited September 6, 2023 by InCognitus

[Damien the Leper]

On 9/1/2023 at 4:56 PM, BlueDreams said:

Personally, I like that dan doesn't take an apologetic approach as it creates its own form of value and space of  engagement within larger academic communities. It's nice to have intellectual diversity within the church. It's its own indirect defence for the church. 

 

These are my spaz thoughts. 

 With luv, 

BD

This is how I feel about our Jesuit brothers in the Catholic faith.

[PacMan]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:28 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Actually, no. I don't renegotiate the text.  I just want to know what it says by those that said it.  And you're completely backwards.  Dan is comfortable wresting (renegotiating) the text to protect his relative moralities.  That's very postmodern.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Actually, no. I don't renegotiate the text. 

As I said, you are in denial then. Your life. You do you. You just lack the self awareness and credibility to critique Dan’s work. 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Dan is comfortable wresting (renegotiating) the text to protect his relative moralities.  That's very postmodern.

You don't understand postmodernism. You don't understand what it means to renegotiate texts. You don't even understand the idea of moral relativism.

Let's just discuss the renegotiating issue, since I don't think I have gotten to it yet in this thread. Negotiation of meaning most often refers to a break down in communication that gets repaired through discussion. This breakdown usually occurs because of differences in experience between the two parties that are communicating. It happens all the time in normal speech communication. When we deal with the negotiation of meaning in a text, we are reading the text and interpreting it in the context of our own experience. Sometimes, though, that negotiation runs into problems. One of the more fully explored ways in which this happens occurs when people see themselves differently than the larger population (racism is an example of this issue). In any case, within biblical studies, the problem occurs because we normally read the text in translation and through the lens of our own religious experience. When we renegotiate texts (like biblical texts) it is an attempt to understand the text through a different experience - and in particular (at least for Dan) through the lens of his studies in ancient texts and the communities that produced them. This renegotiation can produce very different readings of the text - especially where we (speaking collectively of modern humanity) have appropriated the text in defense of our own practices and attitudes (racism, sexual orientation, etc.) - things that are not reflective of the authors of that text in its original context.

This is not a postmodern process. This is not about protecting relative moralities. But you continue to use these terms because you believe that they are pejorative - they are for you buzz words that only have meaning for you in the context of an attack on someone.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Couganova]

On 9/6/2023 at 5:25 PM, InCognitus said:

I guess it depends on what definition of "data" you have in mind?

 

Whoever created that infographic is an idiot. There are statistics for all of those categories. Don't ever show up at a data science conference or you will be laughed out of town.

Edited September 25, 2023 by Couganova

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, Couganova said:

Whoever created that image is an idiot. There are statistics for all of those categories. Don't ever show up at a data science conference or you will be laughed out of town.

Thank you for your very relevant and timely addition to this thread. 

[Couganova]

Dan McClellan told the Mormon Stories community the LDS temple is a Masonic ritual with ancient elements are few and far in between.

No way on earth he believes that. 

He's the one who's told me to read The Lost World of Genesis one, where there's a citation of Moshe Weinfeld saying the Israelites could've used Genesis 1 as temple inauguration liturgy, which is one of the basic building blocks of the endowment.

He's obviously dumbing down his message for the OSF community.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Couganova said:

Dan McClellan told the Mormon Stories community the LDS temple is a Masonic ritual with ancient elements are few and far in between.

Did you hear him say this or did someone paraphrase him?  Just curious.

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you hear him say this or did someone paraphrase him?  Just curious.

He said something like that (I think) in the last Mormon Stories video interview (if I remember correctly).  If it weren't for the 4+ hours of interview time to search through, I'd try to find it!

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, InCognitus said:

He said something like that (I think) in the last Mormon Stories video interview (if I remember correctly).  If it weren't for the 4+ hours of interview time to search through, I'd try to find it!

And Mormon Stories?  If Mr. Dehlin were any kind of an interviewer at all, rarely, if ever, would it take him six hours ( !!!!! ) to do an interview. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by Kenngo1969

[Couganova]

On 8/27/2023 at 2:51 AM, smac97 said:

I've wondered about this.  I suspect he does not want his own presuppositions and faith-based beliefs about the Bible to be scrutinized in the ways he (publicly) does to others people's presuppositions and beliefs.

This.

[Rain]

34 minutes ago, Couganova said:

This.

Does he do that with their beliefs or only about the things that are actually in the bible.  From what I've seen of him he doesn't scrutinize their beliefs, but only about what they say the bible says.

[Benjamin McGuire]

52 minutes ago, Couganova said:

This.

I attempted to address this indirectly back when this was posted. I'll be a little more direct here -

Smac97's suggestion is wrong. There is a significant and important distinction between personal beliefs and larger religious belief systems - and reasons why (at least in an academic setting) it is important to separate the two in discussion. Only one of these (discussions of personal belief and discussions of religious belief systems) has a place in academic studies. This may come as something of a surprise to those who engage in social media - because from the perspective of monetizing social media, it is all about the brand - it is all about the individual (and what they think and believe). In academia, there is a place for the study of religion - for the study of religious belief systems and the way that they function, and so on - and there is no real room there for personal belief. When personal belief creeps in, it creates bias that is difficult to disentangle.

The problem is expressed generally in this way - is it possible to look at the question of comparative religion (the academic study of religion) from the perspective of personal beliefs and choices without beginning with the basic assumption that my own choices and beliefs are superior to the choices and beliefs of others? I won't asy that it isn't possible - but to avoid the problem, those engaged in these religious discussions do so by removing their personal belief set - so as not to create even the risk that they are discussing these issues in a biased way.

So when Smac97 sees this reluctance to engage personal belief - it is primarily because his experience is not the academic discussion of religion, but a discussion based primarily on personal belief. And there isn't anyone here (I think) who doesn't see some degree of bias in Smac97's perspective. This is not an indictment of Smac97's beliefs or his point of view. This forum is not an academic forum with an expectation of unbiased presentation.

There is a lot of effort expended here (in this forum) to try and find unbiased accounts that confirm belief. One of our posters here, for example, has recently cited an awful lot of Michael Heiser, the biblical scholar who passed away earlier this year. That use of Heiser's material in support of LDS belief is problematic - and while that isn't overly problematic in forum like this, it would be a lot more problematic in an academic context.

To the extent that Dan is working to create an academic presence in his social media, it would be a bad choice for him to connect his presentation of academic discussions on religion and religious texts to his personal belief. Don't misunderstand me, I am not sure that doing an interview with Dehlin was a fantastic choice either, but I think that he managed to get more of his (Dan's) agenda achieved than John's agenda.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[smac97]

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

 

Quote

Quote

I like Dan, but I'd encourage anyone to be cautious with him.  While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.  He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories but simply states ipse-dixit that something is because he says that's the way it is. 

Further, my expectation is not that LDS scholars are first apologetic, but that they at least provide some summary of competing arguments rather than simply challenge traditional church doctrines.  Dan's MO is to challenge.  In fact, he seems to go out of his way NOT to explain or find theological catharsis.

I'd be interested in Dan stating definitively that he does (or does not) believe whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, that Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and that he both saw and was ministered to by John the Baptism, and the ancient apostles in angelic/translated form--Peter, James, and John.

I've wondered about this.  I suspect he does not want his own presuppositions and faith-based beliefs about the Bible to be scrutinized in the ways he (publicly) does to others people's presuppositions and beliefs.

By "faith-based" I mean deeply-rooted underpinnings that every person of faith must, sooner or later, admit are based on largely undefined and undefinable "gut" feelings.  For example, ascertaining whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World is not empirically testable, nor is it a matter ultimately resolved by appealing to scriptural text.  In the end, meaningfully professing faith in Christ is a matter of faith, and I think the resiliency and endurance of that faith turns on whether it is based on personal revelation from the Spirit.

This.

 

I attempted to address this indirectly back when this was posted. I'll be a little more direct here -

Smac97's suggestion is wrong.

All right, let's see it.  

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a significant and important distinction between personal beliefs and larger religious belief systems - and reasons why (at least in an academic setting) it is important to separate the two in discussion.

I quite agree.  My point has been, and is, that Dan is not speaking "in an academic setting," but rather on various social media platforms.

My point has also been that Dan is not always differentiating "between personal beliefs and larger religious belief systems," and is instead sometimes conflating them.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Only one of these (discussions of personal belief and discussions of religious belief systems) has a place in academic studies.

I agree.  My point is that because Dan's social media content is not being presented in an "academic setting," our assessment of that content need not be through that lens.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This may come as something of a surprise to those who engage in social media - because from the perspective of monetizing social media, it is all about the brand - it is all about the individual (and what they think and believe).

It's not surprising to me.

What is a little more surprising is characterizing Dan's social media content published via YouTube, TikTok, MormonStories, etc. as arising "in an academic setting."  

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

In academia, there is a place for the study of religion - for the study of religious belief systems and the way that they function, and so on - and there is no real room there for personal belief. When personal belief creeps in, it creates bias that is difficult to disentangle.

I agree.  In academia. 

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The problem is expressed generally in this way - is it possible to look at the question of comparative religion (the academic study of religion) from the perspective of personal beliefs and choices without beginning with the basic assumption that my own choices and beliefs are superior to the choices and beliefs of others? I won't asy that it isn't possible - but to avoid the problem, those engaged in these religious discussions do so by removing their personal belief set - so as not to create even the risk that they are discussing these issues in a biased way.

Yeah, not really buying that.  Dan's "personal belief set" - by which I refer to his sociopolitical worldview and opinions - are shot through many of his social media posts.  No harm in that, since he is posting in a social media setting and not an "academic" one.  But I think it's problematic for Dan to try to have his cake and eat it too.  He regularly discusses issues "in a biased way," yet I think he also wants to present his commentary with a veneer of supposed academic neutrality.  And he wants to do all this in a "social media," not "academic," setting.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

So when Smac97 sees this reluctance to engage personal belief - it is primarily because his experience is not the academic discussion of religion, but a discussion based primarily on personal belief.

Well, no.  I'm not altogether unfamiliar with academic scholarship.  I just don't think that what Dan is presenting on social media is an impartial and clinical presentation of that scholarship.  

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And there isn't anyone here (I think) who doesn't see some degree of bias in Smac97's perspective.

As we are not in an academic setting, I neither adopt a pretext of nor feign impartiality about the Church and its history, doctrines, practices, etc.  I'm not sure I would call that "biased" (as that term has connotations of unfairness, prejudice, closed-mindedness, disproportionality, etc.).  

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

This is not an indictment of Smac97's beliefs or his point of view. This forum is not an academic forum with an expectation of unbiased presentation.

I didn't take it as an indictment, so no worries there.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

To the extent that Dan is working to create an academic presence in his social media, it would be a bad choice for him to connect his presentation of academic discussions on religion and religious texts to his personal belief.

But that's sort of my point.  Much of his social media content is about individuals and their "personal belief{s}," which he critiques and parses out, often in less-than-flattering - and sometimes even overtly hostile - ways.  His tools of choice are A) his command of biblical scholarship (which is considerable and formidable) and B) his pretext of speaking objectively and dispassionately.  Impartially.  Academically.  "Data > Dogma."

It is this second part that I find problematic because 1) I think his commentary is often larded with his own personal beliefs and presuppositions, often including value judgments of other people's beliefs and presuppositions, and 2) he nevertheless apparently wants to position himself as merely purveying "data" by striking a pose as an "academic," and 3) he wants to do all this in social media posts rather than in an "academic setting."

I have previously compared Dan to Neil DeGrasse Tyson (see, e.g., here, here, and here).  A few excerpts that may be salient to this discussion:

Quote

If and when a "scientist" lets non-scientific considerations prioritize politics and opinions over the science, the data, the facts, then he has injected his assumptions into the discussion, he has put them on the table.

I can't help but wonder if Dan has looked at Tyson-as-both-Scientist-and-Populist-on-Social-Media and thought of something like this: "Hmm, I sort of want to do that.  I want to be a McClellan-as-both-Biblical-Scholar-and-Populist-on-Social-Media kind of figure.  I want to break down biblical scholarship into smaller pieces that are more easily understood and digested by interested neophytes.  However, Tyson has forayed into discussions on topics well outside his area of expertise, which over time may distract from his original objectives.  To avoid that, I will deliberately narrow the focus of my commentary to the Bible."
...

Neil DeGrasse Tyson seemingly can't help but allow his sociopolitical viewpoint to bleed into - even direct - his commentary on topics outside of astrophysics.  I think someone angling to be a social media populist my get concerned that commentary on the subject matter of the populist's expertise (in Tyson's case, astrophysics) would run out of material, or would start losing the interest of the masses.  Or perhaps the populist would start to feel like "Hey, I'm a smart guy regarding astrophysics, so perhaps I should start spouting off on other topics..."  And those "other topics" would, naturally, include matters of import to the populist, including trendy subjects. 

Tyson has succumbed to this, I think.  Is Dan headed the same way?

(Another poster corrected me on my use of "populist," which should perhaps be "popularist" instead.)

If Tyson were limiting himself to clinical/objective/academic discussion of astrophysics, and if Dan were limiting himself to impartial/objective/academic discussion of biblical scholarship, I would have very little to say in this thread.  My point is that I think Dan is not limiting himself in this way.  Social media is not an "academic setting," and even if it were, Dan often behaves and speaks in ways that cannot be reasonably characterized as impartial/objective/academic.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Don't misunderstand me, I am not sure that doing an interview with Dehlin was a fantastic choice either,

What's the difference, though?  Whether on one social media platform (being interviewed by Dehlin) or another (his various YouTube videos), Dan is still A) purveying his perspective in a non-academic setting, and B) which perspective is informed by both his academic training/skills and his personal beliefs and presuppositions, and C) is nevertheless apparently trying to package his social media content with a veneer of him just being impartial/objective/academic, of "Data > Dogma."

I previously described Neil DeGrasse Tyson as an academic who enjoys being on social media, but who "seemingly can't help but allow his sociopolitical viewpoint to bleed into - even direct - his commentary on topics outside of astrophysics."  I think Dan may be succumbing to the same error.

On 9/27/2023 at 1:12 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

but I think that he managed to get more of his (Dan's) agenda achieved than John's agenda.

So Dan can at once be impartial/unbiased but also have an "agenda"?

I will close by again quoting some comments by William 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.

(Emphasis added.)

There are also a lot of things about the Bible that "can’t be discussed without any reference to truth-claims," and also many things that can.  I wonder if Dan appreciates or agrees with that distinction.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 8, 2024 by smac97

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a lot of effort expended here (in this forum) to try and find unbiased accounts that confirm belief. One of our posters here, for example, has recently cited an awful lot of Michael Heiser, the biblical scholar who passed away earlier this year. That use of Heiser's material in support of LDS belief is problematic - and while that isn't overly problematic in forum like this, it would be a lot more problematic in an academic context.

That person was probably me.    

And I suppose I should be clearer in my reasons for posting Heiser.  It's not so much to support LDS belief as much as it is to show that there is a lot more to the biblical view than what the typical Protestant monotheistic perspective allows.  Michael Heiser's and (more so with) Dan McClellan's research goes far beyond anything that LDS doctrine has answers for (or at least not officially).  But both offer a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism.

Edit to add:  This would be an interesting topic to explore further.  I'm wide open to your opinions on this.

Edited September 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[Benjamin McGuire]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yeah, not really buying that.  Dan's "personal belief set" - by which I refer to his sociopolitical worldview and opinions - are shot through many of his social media posts.  No harm in that, since he is posing in a social media setting and not an "academic" one.  But I think it's problematic for Dan to try to have his cake and eat it to.  He regularly discusses issues "in a biased way," yet I think he also wants to present his commentary with a veneer of supposed academic neutrality.  And he wants to do all this in a "social media," not "academic," setting.

I am reminded of something that Ralph Hancock puts in to the assignments for his classes at BYU -

Quote

All essays should reflect careful attention to the course materials (original sources and commentary lessons). The point is not to state your feelings, impressions, or opinions, but to demonstrate knowledge of the course materials and to engage them intelligently. A clear and careful statement of the argument of the text(s) you are responding to is the first priority. Of course your opinions will be reflected in your writing, but your aim should be to demonstrate your understanding of the sources and your capacity to engage their arguments.

Your expectations are problematic. And you will, I think, continue to disagree with me, but your disagreement really doesn't mean all that much to me.

Perhaps a better way to illustrate this issue is in our expectations. If I pick up a book on Mormonism, and at the beginning, the first thing that I read is a brief discussion of the Evangelical chops of the author, I have already developed an understanding (accurate or not) of the contents of the book. We have a certain set of expectations. Evangelicals can certainly write meaningful books on Mormonism - but - the way that this is presented does make a difference. Social media isn't itself unacademic. It is simply less formal. There isn't anything that isn't biased. However, there is a recognized difference in the issue of religious discussion that occurs (if you want, I can even provide some genuinely academic discussions on the issue ...). You seem to be missing the point here though, and that is that whether or not the commentary has a veneer of academic neutrality, if he were to begin with his LDS religious belief, it wouldn't have any veneer of academic neutrality (whether it really did or not).

The fact that you seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between having a personal opinion and having a biased foundation is, as I noted, what makes your point of view wrong (in my opinion of course).

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have previously compared Dan to Neil DeGrasse Tyson (see, e.g., here, here, and here).  A few excerpts that may be salient to this discussion:

It's just not salient. Part of this is because, as I noted earlier, you aren't creating an analogue to what I am discussing here. What I am discussing is what makes discussion (academic and otherwise) about religion unique in some ways (especially unique within the academy - in other discourse, not so much).

59 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I will close by again quoting some comments by William Hamblin:

In another thread on a topic closely related to this, a decade ago, in this forum, I put up a bunch of my thoughts on this issue. Bill Hamblin chimed in there. So I too will close with his comments:

Quote

Ben has it exactly right.

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

And I suppose I should be clearer in my reasons for posting Heiser.  It's not so much to support LDS belief as much as it is to show that there is a lot more to the biblical view than what the typical Protestant monotheistic perspective allows.  Michael Heiser's and (more so with) Dan McClellan's research goes far beyond anything that LDS doctrine has answers for (or at least not officially).  But both offer a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism.

The challenge here (as I have suggested more than once) is that these questions about Dan's personal beliefs are being raised to challenge Dan in a way that doesn't have to directly confront his academic knowledge. They seem to come with the idea of "why should I believe Dan on this if he sin't a faithful member of the Church ..." - and this plays directly into the issue that I am raising here.

Smac97 quotes Hamblin as saying: "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." But here, Dan isn't discussing Mormonism at all. He is deliberately trying to avoid discussing Mormonism. He is trying to understand Ancient Israelite religion as "the insiders understand." Part of the conflict is the problem that we have (that you allude to - more on that in a moment) that some members of the Church don't recognize a difference between Mormonism and Early Christianity, or even Mormonism and ancient Israelite religion.

It is also fascinating to me that you make the suggestion that you make here - and while it may not be intentional, you can, perhaps, see how it might be read in such a way - LDS doctrine, you argue, offers "a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism." Do you see how this resonates within the idea of restorationism? How it hints at the idea that if we go back far enough, we find pure religion, that is reflected and restored in modern Mormonism? This is simply wrong (in my opinion). Mormonism's rejection of traditional monotheism has virtually nothing in common with the pantheistic view of ancient Israelites. We have far more in common, in our [orthodox] understanding of God, with Christianity than we do with ancient Israel. For us to find those parallels and then argue that they are meaningful to our belief today is a significant form of parallelomania. To argue that these traditions stand as an argument against the monotheism of other Christian sects is, in a way, a rejection of the idea that religious belief is progressive. It is an argument that the monotheism that Judaism develops and Christianity embraces is a form of apostasy from that earlier pantheism. It is a complicated issue.

[smac97]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

I am reminded of something that Ralph Hancock puts in to the assignments for his classes at BYU -

Your expectations are problematic.

I'm not sure you understand what my "expectations" are.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

And you will, I think, continue to disagree with me, but your disagreement really doesn't mean all that much to me.

That's okay.  I reciprocate the sentiment.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps a better way to illustrate this issue is in our expectations. If I pick up a book on Mormonism, and at the beginning, the first thing that I read is a brief discussion of the Evangelical chops of the author, I have already developed an understanding (accurate or not) of the contents of the book.

Okay.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have a certain set of expectations.  Evangelicals can certainly write meaningful books on Mormonism - but - the way that this is presented does make a difference.

Understood.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Social media isn't itself unacademic. It is simply less formal.

Just a post or two back you said: 

Quote

And there isn't anyone here (I think) who doesn't see some degree of bias in Smac97's perspective. This is not an indictment of Smac97's beliefs or his point of view. This forum is not an academic forum with an expectation of unbiased presentation.

(Emphasis added.)

I agree with this statement, but find it fairly incompatible with your increasingly loosey-goosey re-definition of what counts as "academic" and what does not.  Dan's various comments on social media, and on this board, cannot be reasonably characterized as being presented in an "academic setting."  To suggest otherwise is to water down the term to the point of meaninglessness.  Every venue is, by that measure, an "academic setting."

Again, just a few minutes ago you said: "This forum is not an academic forum with an expectation of unbiased presentation."  So a message board is "not an academic forum," but YouTube and TikTok are (just "less formal")?  That seems like special pleading.  I think it would be more accurate to say that neither this board nor "social media" generally can be reasonably characterized as "an academic forum with an expectation of unbiased presentation."  Moreover, my critique of Dan includes my assessment that he seems to want to be seen as presenting information "with an expectation of unbiased presentation," that he wants to be seen as a Just-the-Facts-Ma'am-style popularist, doing nothing but impartially and dispassionately doling out little pieces of biblical scholarship like some sort of academic Pez-Dispenser.  I think that his social media posts are instead "often larded with his own personal beliefs and presuppositions, including value judgments of other people's beliefs and presuppositions," that he seemingly can't help but allow his sociopolitical viewpoint to bleed into - even direct - his commentary on topics outside of area of academic expertise, and that he is doing this under a veneer of "academic" objectivity. 

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

There isn't anything that isn't biased. However, there is a recognized difference in the issue of religious discussion that occurs (if you want, I can even provide some genuinely academic discussions on the issue ...).

As you like.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You seem to be missing the point here though, and that is that whether or not the commentary has a veneer of academic neutrality, if he were to begin with his LDS religious belief, it wouldn't have any veneer of academic neutrality (whether it really did or not).

I agree.  My critique is less about whether Dan's social media content has (or ought to have) "his LDS religious belief" in them, and more about how his supposedly "academic" commentary is - again - "often larded with his own personal beliefs and presuppositions, including value judgments of other people's beliefs and presuppositions."

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The fact that you seem to have great difficulty distinguishing between having a personal opinion and having a biased foundation is, as I noted, what makes your point of view wrong (in my opinion of course).

I think you are misunderstanding me.  I am not faulting Dan for having a personal opinion.  I'm not sure what you mean by "having a biased foundation," as this is the first time you have used that term.  Despite my affection for the Church, I do sometimes strive to assess it via impartial means.  This is particularly so when we are discussing legal issues affecting the Church.  This is why, for example, I have repeatedly affirmed that if the Church errs in complying with the law, then it "needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else."  I say this not because I am denying my partiality for the Church, but rather because I have the capacity to set that partiality aside and make clinical assessments of its behavior (though I no doubt fail to do this at times).

You previously commented about my "perspective" and how it's a pretty obvious one.  I am devoted to the Church, and we are not in an academic setting, so I neither adopt a pretext of, nor do I feign, impartiality about the Church and its history, doctrines, practices, etc.  I certainly have my faults, but putting on a false front of neutrality/impartiality as to the Church ain't one of them.

I think Dan is conflating his "personal opinion," particularly as to sociopolitical issues (which sometimes come across as taking precedence over whatever religious/devotional convictions he has) with his familiarity with and command of biblical scholarship.  I think Dan makes pretensions about presenting biblical scholarship while satisfying - as you put it - generalized "expectation{s} of unbiased presentation" which are generally attendant to an "academic setting," but that in doing so he is actually not approaching issues in an "unbiased" way, and is instead sliding in substantial doses of his personal sociopolitical opinions into his commentary, intermingled with and alongside the "scholarship."

A few examples:

Quote

Many of Dan's posts are indeed steeped in this "power dynamic" rhetoric.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here. 

Similarly, on this board Dan has posted all sorts of "power dynamic" and "oppression" commentary.  See, e.g., here, here, here, here, and many others. 

This stuff, to me, comes across as ideological (that is to say, neo-marxist) concepts - Dan's subjective personal opinions - being conveyed "intermingled with and alongside the 'scholarship.'"

On 9/27/2023 at 4:03 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I have previously compared Dan to Neil DeGrasse Tyson (see, e.g., here, here, and here).  A few excerpts that may be salient to this discussion:

It's just not salient. Part of this is because, as I noted earlier, you aren't creating an analogue to what I am discussing here. What I am discussing is what makes discussion (academic and otherwise) about religion unique in some ways (especially unique within the academy - in other discourse, not so much).

I think it is salient.  Tyson is an expert on astrophysics, and at times he uses that prestige to - on social media platforms - lend undue credence and probative weight to his personal opinions on matters not particularly relating to or arising from his area of expertise.

I think Dan is doing something similar.  He is an expert on biblical scholarship and at times uses that prestige to - on social media platforms - lend undue credence and probative weight to his personal opinions on matters not particularly relating to or arising from his area of expertise (such as, for his example, his condemnatory pronouncements about and value judgments on/against people whose perspective on sociopolitical issues diverge from his).  

By way of example, earlier in this thread I posted the following:

Quote

Quote

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  It is not uncommon to be compared to Reel, Dehlin, and others - just as I see happening with Dan in this thread.  It is really hurtful and unfortunate when people are publicly betting against your faith.

Dan

• has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"
• that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"
• that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"
• that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"
• that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"
• that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, , which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"
• that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"
• that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"
• that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,
• that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

Much of this comes across as both conclusory and dogmatic (and framing moral issues as being about "power asymmetries" and such - rather than as issues to be resolved by the following of God's will - sounds more political and neo-marxist, than doctrinal/religious, particularly when coming from a professed Latter-day Saint).  

Our Hamba Tuhan commented to Dan as follows: (speaking of perspectives on abortion) :

Quote

I hold a PhD in non-Western history, so I'm disinclined to see this from an American-centric perspective full-stop. It seems to me that you've reduced the historical complexity of this issue to a simple projection of your current dislike for the American Republican Party -- which in turn appears to function as an important marker of your social identity.

My perspective on abortion is not derived from or based on a political party platform.  Or from a "conspiracy" centering on "controlling the agency of women."  Or from "racist motivations."  Or from a desire to support "the white nationalist movement."

Dan's various assertions to the contrary are wildly false and ignorant.  I expect more from a person presenting himself as a scholar, of a person who purports to insist on "data over dogma."

I am far from the the only one whom Dan has used social media to target with personal invective, imputed horrible motives, etc.  The commonality of his targets appears to be not so much membership in the Church, or of hewing toward this or that perspective on Christianity, but rather . . . social/political issues.  If someone has an actual or perceived viewpoint that contravenes Dan's views, that someone is a bigot, a misogynist, an oppressor, part of a conspiracy against "the marginalized," and so on.

Dan is, of course, free to opine as he likes.  But his Cloak of the Immovably Impartial Scholar sure seems to slip off more often than you'd think.  Social media tends to have that effect.  It seems difficult for social media influencers, such as Dan, to maintain sufficient "sizzle" to retain attention of the social media hoi polloi.  "Biblical scholarship" will only get you so far, hence the tendency to stray into other areas, to commentate on trendy social issues, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 3, 2025 by smac97