Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Despite my affection for the Church, I do sometimes strive to assess it via impartial means. 

I have yet to see it.

In all of this, you are still missing my point. I'll just have to accept that it isn't something that you are interested in looking at. And we can end the discussion.

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

Despite my affection for the Church, I do sometimes strive to assess it via impartial means. 

I have yet to see it.

Ah, well.  As one fellow recently put it: "There isn't anything that isn't biased."

In August 2022 I said this (in relation to the Paul Adams matter) :

Quote

I genuinely love and am devoted to the Church.  I believe it is foundationally and broadly good and beautiful.  In its roots, trunk, branches and leaves.  It is not, however, perfect.  It needs to constantly check itself, and improve and grow, and correct errors and defects.

And sometimes the Church really messes up, as seems to be the case here.  For me, there is generally no "blood is thicker than water" or "I'm with you, right or wrong" sort of sentiment about the Church.  I wrote this back in 2020 (about a pretty dumb lawsuit against the Church filed in California) :

Quote

I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit.

That said, there are a lot of frivolous lawsuits filed against the Church.  Those filed by Cook and Gaddy come immediately to mind.  And these are just the recent ones.  

Another participant chimed in, and I responded:

Quote

Quote

I agree with this but am curious if you can point out an instance where the Church needed to take its legal lumps? 

McKenna Denson's suit was a possible one.  Respondeat superior and all that.  If liability had been established, and the statute of limitations was somehow tolled or deemed inapplicable...

Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have.  The deal with SLC was clearly unconstitutional.

Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here).

Late last year I said (regarding the story about the Church's financial stockpile): "I'm sure the IRS will sort out whether the Church has complied with the law.  If the Church has not complied with it, it needs to be held accountable."  

I'm sure there are more instances than these.
...
I am not discrediting all lawsuits against the Church.

While the news items I linked to were slanted, and while I would generally prefer news articles to be more Joe "Just-the-Facts-Ma'am" Friday than Upton "Muckraker" Sinclair, sometimes we (the Church) need an outsider's critique.

• "{S}ometimes the Church really messes up, as seems to be the case here."
• "For me, there is generally no 'blood is thicker than water' or 'I'm with you, right or wrong' sort of sentiment about the Church."
• "I am not discounting all the litigation filed against the Church.  Sometimes the Church and/or its agents/representatives errs legally.  When and if that happens, and can be established through evidence and argument, the Church needs to take its legal lumps like anyone else.  So I don't begrudge anyone who has a legitimate (or at least colorable) grievance against the Church and avails himself to filing a lawsuit."
• "Also, the Church lost in the Main Street Plaza case, as it should have."
• "Also, the Church erred in its daily reporting requirements during Prop 8, and as a result paid a small fine (see here).  I'm sure there are more instances than these."

Again: "Despite my affection for the Church, I do sometimes strive to assess it via impartial means."  I think the foregoing demonstrates that to some extent.

I acknowledge my partiality for the Church and its doctrines, history, practices, etc.  I don't hide it.  As you aptly noted, "{T}here isn't anyone here (I think) who doesn't see some degree of bias in Smac97's perspective."  Again, I neither adopt a pretext of nor feign impartiality on this point.

Dan, I think, is feigning impartiality.  Not about the Church, but about "biblical scholarship."  He uses it as a cloak and cover for him to, on social media, (mis)appropriate the prestige that naturally arises from his impressive command of that scholarship and apply it (the prestige) to lend undue credence and probative weight to his personal opinions on matters not particularly relating to or arising from that scholarship (such as, for his example, his condemnatory pronouncements about and value judgments on/against people whose perspective on sociopolitical issues diverge from his).

I don't think you are addressing this.  I'll just have to accept that it isn't something that you are interested in looking at.  

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

In all of this, you are still missing my point.

And I think you are missing mine.  

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I'll just have to accept that it isn't something that you are interested in looking at.

Well, no, I don't think it's that.  You seem to be wanting to defend Dan as to matters X, Y and Z, whereas my critique of Dan as more to do with matters V, W and X.  There is some overlap between what I am saying and what you are saying, but not enough to keep the discussion viable.  I think we are mostly talking past each other. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And we can end the discussion.

Okey doke.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2023 by smac97

[Stargazer]

On 8/23/2023 at 3:51 PM, Tacenda said:

And the church changes according to the men running it and their personal revelations IMO, or opinions. 

Yes, and there's an interesting book (a long book) by Michael Ash that discusses how the Lord's revelations are filtered through the minds of his prophets. "Rethinking Revelation and the Human Element in Scripture: The Prophet's Role as Creative Co-Author". It's not difficult to read, and is even kinda fun, but is definitely long. 770 pages in print edition.

[BlueDreams]

Thought people might be interested in this. The algorithms of youtube suggested a video for me of a digital fireside that Dan Mcllelan participated in. It's from ~6 months ago and the first is just clips from Dan's part in it. The second is the far longer full fireside.

In it, Dan talks about the spirit, how he experiences the spirit most when contemplating Jesus in the gospels and how the people around Jesus were experiencing these event (something like that), How that's a different lens then when he's looking for more academic answers with a more technical lens but how that can still be informative, etc. I've only started the fireside video (he's the last speaker and it's time stamped), but he starts with a very humble prayer that's a more traditional english Latter-day saint prayer than I usually say. Formally addresses heavenly father, uses thee's and thy's, and asks that they can have the spirit to help them understand or grow in the gospel (paraphrasing from memory).    

 

 

Here's a link to the full fireside

 

With luv,

BD

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by BlueDreams

[ttribe]

^^But, but...WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

Did I do that right?

[InCognitus]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I’m in complete agreement with you here.  I believe Dan has been attacked unfairly about his beliefs.  As I posted earlier in the thread, I also understand why he has taken the position to not discuss his personal beliefs outside of his own ward and stake.  That decision makes total sense to his academic objectives. 

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I agree and understand why Dan avoids bringing up anything related to Mormonism in his discussion of the Ancient Israelite religion for the reasons you describe above. 

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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."

I’m a little confused by what you wrote above.  I’m not sure if you understood me to be saying that LDS doctrine itself is a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism, or if you are reading between the lines and think that I am possibly inferring that unintentionally.  To be clear, I don’t think LDS doctrine does this (so I hope I wasn’t inferring that).  Rather, I was saying that the research by both Michael Heiser and Dan McClellan offers a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism for some of the reasons I explain below.  

The difference I see between Michael Heiser and Dan McClellan is that Dan seems to do a lot better job of trying to portray the Ancient Israelite religion as the insiders understood it (as you describe above).  And part of that is because of Dan leaving his personal beliefs completely out of the picture, and Michael Heiser doesn’t do that much at all (at least not in his book The Unseen Realm). 

But both are making Bible scholarship more accessible to the average person, through social media, books, and other ways.  This is a good thing, as it is making these studies more widely known.  And with Heiser, his target audience seems to be the average Protestant Christian (which may be another reason he doesn’t fully let go of his personal beliefs in his presentations and in his interpretations of the ancient Israel religion).  

In fact, the only reason I read The Unseen Realm is because a long-time non-LDS Christian friend of mine (he’s an Anabaptist) suggested that I read Heiser’s book as a way that he and I could discuss our differences and interpretation of early Christian beliefs from a different perspective.  My Christian friend had used The Unseen Realm in a Bible study in his church along with Heiser’s more popular level book, Supernatural: What the Bible Teaches About the Unseen World.  This level of influence by Heiser’s work is remarkable, and I welcome it, since Heiser at least starts out with the intention of breaking down some traditional Christian thinking (but he’s only willing to go so far).  These studies may help all of us (Latter-day Saints included) to understand the Bible and its ancient context better, but they don’t do much for how these things might apply to us in our modern theology (that's an entirely different discussion).

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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).

Regarding the idea that “if we go back far enough, we find pure religion, that is reflected and restored in modern Mormonism”, I really don’t believe that.  I think there are some aspects of what was restored in Mormonism that are foundational (i.e. priesthood, an organized leadership, and particular set of doctrines).  But what was actually revealed by God in any given period of world history depends on what the people of that time could abide, and consequently it would have been applied and understood by the people of that time far differently than we do today.   

Today in the church we don’t interpret and teach the scriptures the same way as the people who wrote them.  We are taught to liken the principles in the scriptures to us and use them for our own personal revelation and guidance in our lives.  There is nothing wrong with this, because it is not the mission of the church to try to figure out what people believed in the past.  Rather, the mission is to bring people to salvation in Christ and to become true representatives of him and teach us of our relationship to God and how to be receptive to revelation from him.  So, we should not expect everything we find in ancient beliefs to fit perfectly with how we view and teach things today.

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism's rejection of traditional monotheism has virtually nothing in common with the pantheistic view of ancient Israelites. 

I believe I hinted at this when I said that both Michael Heiser’s and Dan McClellan’s “research goes far beyond anything that LDS doctrine has answers for (or at least not officially).”  

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

We have far more in common, in our [orthodox] understanding of God, with Christianity than we do with ancient Israel.

I agree.  

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

For us to find those parallels and then argue that they are meaningful to our belief today is a significant form of parallelomania.

I don’t think I used Heiser’s material as a way to argue that the views of ancient Israel are meaningful to our restoration beliefs of today (at least I hope I didn’t).  In the few times that I’ve referred to Heiser’s works, I think all but one of those was in a discussion about the meaning of Psalm 82 and the meaning of the “denial statements” (the “one God” rhetoric) in relationship to other gods in the Hebrew Bible.  Since the meaning of Psalm 82 was so pivotal to Heiser’s approach to the ancient texts I thought it was relevant to reference him in that context.  I did this not to support the LDS view (because I don’t really know what an official LDS view on Psalm 82 would be), but to show that the human judges interpretation of that Psalm just doesn’t make any sense in the ancient context (despite James E. Talmage’s statements about human judges in Jesus the Christ and Articles of Faith).   In one post where I referenced Heiser related to Psalm 82 and the problem of the human judges interpretation, I also included some LDS views on the Psalm from David E. Bokovoy and Daniel McClellan.  

The only post where I referenced Heiser in a different context (that I can recall) is when I pointed out that he had stated in The Unseen Realm that “We aren’t just God’s children and co-rulers with his Son. We’re Jesus’ siblings—and each of us will meet the council with him at our side."  Heiser made that statement toward the end of his book where he was trying to bring all the ancient Israel views into context with New Testament and modern Christian thinking.  In that post I said that it is interesting that Christian scholars are coming to understand some of the same things that we believe as Latter-day Saints, but I was not inferring that there is a restoration parallel component to that particular teaching.  The LDS doctrine that Jesus is our brother is a belief that has been attacked by other Christians because they see it as diminishing the divinity of Christ, and I simply find it interesting that some other Christians are now accepting that belief as something compatible with Christianity.  

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

It is a complicated issue, but I think it’s something that needs to be considered.

One of the problems is that Christians of all kinds continue to make use the “one God” rhetoric of the Hebrew Bible to support the idea of modern monotheism.  But if the texts are considered in their original context and compared to other similar phrases used in the Old Testament, they really don’t support that view.  At the very least modern readers could say, “the Israelites believed there were multiple gods back then, but we don’t believe that anymore”.  Or, we could reconsider some of our traditions (as Heiser claims to have done) and find a way to fit the ancient view into our modern thinking. 

As for progressive religious beliefs, any Christian should recognize that religious beliefs have had a progression, as was the case when the old covenant transitioned to the new in Christ.  And we as Latter-day Saints definitely embrace the idea of progressive revelation and religious beliefs.  But the tricky part comes in knowing the difference between changes brought on by human innovation and philosophical reasoning compared with God inspired development of doctrine.

The problem I see with the changes that have occurred in later Jewish and Christian history is that some of them are significant pivotal changes that impact a full array of dependent doctrines.  The adoption of strict monotheism led to the need to solve the problem of how Jesus and his Father are one God in the doctrine of the Trinity.  The introduction of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch made it impossible for there to be any ontological connection between the sons of God and their Father.  These doctrines changed forever the way that Christians viewed their relationship to God and their prior held views on theosis.  What is significant about Joseph Smith’s restoration is not in the details of the so-called parallels to early Christianity, but with the recovery of a few profound pivotal doctrines that reshape our entire thinking of our relationship to God and view of the ancient world. 

The parallels may be interesting, but I believe there is greater value in studying the differences between the views we hold today and those that we can recover from the religion of ancient Israel and teachings of early Christianity, as there may be truths we can discover that may help us shed some of our own traditional thinking (and I’m talking about Latter-day Saint thinking here).  

Edited October 4, 2023 by InCognitus

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

^^But, but...WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

Did I do that right?

I mean it did seem suspicious when he ended his part of the fireside with two book recommendations by LDS authors (including one that a GA contributed to) for biblical commentary and by sharing his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus....

He did mention coffee (tables), and used the phrase "the marginalized" so I guess you can still make the case 

 

Seriously though, I appreciated the fireside. Very uplifting and gave me some ideas for how to help me study and experience Jesus more. 

 

With luv, 

BD

Edited October 3, 2023 by BlueDreams

[smac97]

On 9/27/2023 at 4:23 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

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.

I haven't faulted Dan for "{not} discussing Mormonism at all."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Quote

^^But, but...WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

Did I do that right?

I mean it did seem suspicious when he ended his part of the fireside with two book recommendations by LDS authors (including one that a GA contributed to) for biblical commentary and by sharing his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus....

He did mention coffee (tables), and used the phrase "the marginalized" so I guess you can still make the case 

 

Seriously though, I appreciated the fireside. Very uplifting and gave me some ideas for how to help me study and experience Jesus more. 

With luv, 

BD

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

An excerpt:

Quote

Content Creator: When God told Adam about the 2:07 tree of knowledge he told him that if he 2:08 ate the fruit he would surely die which 2:10 was a flatout lie because that's not 2:12 what happened so God is a liar 2:15 interesting.

Dan: So I too have concluded that 2:17 God is lying in Genesis 2:17 because 2:20 their statement that 'on the day you eat 2:23 of it you will certainly die' simply does 2:26 not happen and that is the consensus 2:29 view of scholars who have looked at this 2:31 passage.  However, not everyone concludes 2:33 this means this is a lie...

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

An excerpt:

Thanks,

-Smac

Why would you expect his (largely) academic discussions of the Biblical text to align with his expressions of personal faith? Are you suggesting he should censor the former to avoid any possible harm to others’ faith. I honestly don’t know what you are saying. 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would you expect his (largely) academic discussions of the Biblical text to align with his expressions of personal faith?

I do not have that expectation of Dan.

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Are you suggesting he should censor the former to avoid any possible harm to others’ faith. I honestly don’t know what you are saying. 

Dan (paraphrased by BlueDreams) : "his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus...."

Also Dan (his own words: "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17."

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why would you expect his (largely) academic discussions of the Biblical text to align with his expressions of personal faith? Are you suggesting he should censor the former to avoid any possible harm to others’ faith. I honestly don’t know what you are saying. 

This of course is an important distinction to confirm here, as well as the biblical belief that for the Lord, "a day" is a thousand years (to us).

Adam therefore DID die in the "day"(A thousand years) he partook of the fruit, since he lived to the age, it says of 930 years.

Literalism and presentism are continuing errors in Biblical discussions.  I am not sure how this could be an issue, to accuse God of lying on this basis with these participants.

Edited October 3, 2023 by mfbukowski
Clarification

[jkwilliams]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I do not have that expectation of Dan.

Dan (paraphrased by BlueDreams) : "his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus...."

Also Dan (his own words: "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17."

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I have no idea what you’re getting at. I’ll bow out. 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

 

Dan (paraphrased by BlueDreams) : "his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus...."

Also Dan (his own words: "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17."

 

Again, I have no idea what you’re getting at.

Again (in partial response to this) : "Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?"

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I’ll bow out. 

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 3, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I mean it did seem suspicious when he ended his part of the fireside with two book recommendations by LDS authors (including one that a GA contributed to) for biblical commentary and by sharing his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus....

He did mention coffee (tables), and used the phrase "the marginalized" so I guess you can still make the case 

 

Seriously though, I appreciated the fireside. Very uplifting and gave me some ideas for how to help me study and experience Jesus more. 

 

With luv, 

BD

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

An excerpt:

Thanks,

-Smac

But, but...reasonable doubt must be created that Dan is, in fact, a...WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, ttribe said:

But, but...reasonable doubt must be created that Dan is, in fact, a...WOLF IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!

Sneering mockery is not an argument.

"Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?" is a reasonable question.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

An excerpt:

Thanks,

-Smac

No. Funny enough, this also showed up on my Youtube suggestions as an option and I watched it before I listened to the fireside. 

 I think mixed messaging is seen if one maintains and insists on a very simplified traditionalist orientation with the bible. Plenty in the comment section seemed to have come from such a background and couldn't land into a complex narrative that maintained faith.

But It doesn't have to if you give space for messy stories. Dan has. I don't question it because I have as well. He is talking from an academic Lens solely in that clip. That is not a faith lens. He is talking more with a faith and spiritual development lens in the fireside that intertwines with the discomfort and questions that we have academically around the bible. 

I don't know if I'm clear so I'll give two examples that are not Dan. I read a book by a practicing jew who suruptitiously went through the Hebrew Bible and discussed both the academic and traditional religious(jew/Christian) understandings of the texts. He would often note that this gulf between the two can be a difficult place for people to stand in and work out their faith. But he also didn't give "the answer" that would reduce the sense of discrepancy. By the end I assumed that was because there wasn't a single answer to everything. There's negotiations, illuminations, and conflicts that will be there if you dive into it's murky histories. For me that murkiness bred a sense wonder and humility with the text. It also made me more comfortable with my LDS faith in a larger Christian heritage that did simplify the judeo-christian story to an unmoving narrative. One that I don't see supported.  I think my life experience has made me gravitate to messy beautiful stories. And that is the bible. That is our church. Not a clean space of pure inspiration. But one of mess that's shown the framework of God in its development. So when I listen to that clip I don't feel spiritually conflicted or wonder if Dan is. 

 

with luv,

BD 

 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

No.  You are mixing almonds and grapes and thinking something must be wrong because the grape isn’t a nut, when it was never meant to be.

I am pretty certain what he meant was he believes that particular scripture story describes God as lying in that incident and not that he believes God actually lies.   There are other scripture stories where God can’t lie, after all.  

He states Genesis 2/3 was written before Genesis 1 and 1 was written because the authors didn’t like the theological implications of the older trial and error method of creation of 2, which has nothing to do with chapter 1.  (And chapter 4 is yet another story.) They were two separate stories about creation. And then someone stuck them on the same scroll probably so they wouldn’t be lost and now it gets read as one story.

If they are two stories that have nothing to do with each other in Dan’s view, then obviously he doesn’t view it as history or some precise description of the nature of God….so it’s not that big of a deal if this God from the POV of a second ancient group lies or not.  It doesn’t require God himself to be a liar any more than us believing he has a body required him to have a body or others believing he does not have a human shaped form means he doesn’t.

The ancients that contributed Genesis 2 saw God differently than we do. And my guess is they added a lot of fluff to their basic understanding because it seems something humans do, so I shouldn’t expect the scriptures to show a very accurate picture of God.  And they saw God differently than other ancients, including those who wrote chapter 1 who probably also added some ribbons and bells to dress up their image of God to make him appear as worthy of worship as they knew he must be.   Maybe the ones that wrote chapter 2 saw lying differently as well and what mattered more to them is more that you cared for someone and tried to prevent them from being hurt rather than Truth or maybe caring of their own was what was Truth and not facts or accuracy in description.  And that God might lie like a parent lies to a child there are monsters out in the dark so they don’t wander off because they know the child won’t listen to “you can’t go out in the dark because you could get lost” and will only proceed to take off positive they won’t get lost even as they do.

 Our view of God likely isn’t very accurate either, imo.

Dan working with the ancient views should not be confused for his personal view.

I view Genesis as temple rituals (better than Brigham Young “baby stories” imo), so it’s a play more or less, not what actually happened.  Maybe it’s loosely based on real events and maybe it’s more Aesop’s fables or better, NT parables.  I am not sure God even spoke those words or there were two trees (I lean towards “not”) before they became part of a truly inspired portrayal of the relationship between God and Man.  So if God is lying in the temple play as a plot device, it doesn’t have an impact on my actual relationship with him anymore than my dad’s lying as part of the Santa Claus Christmas ritual because now I know he was telling a story even if I didn’t realize it to begin with and in real life where it matters my dad didn’t lie to me.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[ttribe]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Sneering mockery is not an argument.

"Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?" is a reasonable question.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're so close to getting the point...

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You're so close to getting the point...

Hiding the ball isn't an argument, either.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

On 10/3/2023 at 10:04 AM, BlueDreams said:

Thought people might be interested in this. The algorithms of youtube suggested a video for me of a digital fireside that Dan Mcllelan participated in. It's from ~6 months ago and the first is just clips from Dan's part in it. The second is the far longer full fireside.

In it, Dan talks about the spirit, how he experiences the spirit most when contemplating Jesus in the gospels and how the people around Jesus were experiencing these event (something like that), How that's a different lens then when he's looking for more academic answers with a more technical lens but how that can still be informative, etc. I've only started the fireside video (he's the last speaker and it's time stamped), but he starts with a very humble prayer that's a more traditional english Latter-day saint prayer than I usually say. Formally addresses heavenly father, uses thee's and thy's, and asks that they can have the spirit to help them understand or grow in the gospel (paraphrasing from memory).    

 

 

Here's a link to the full fireside

 

@mfbukowski, I think you would appreciate the beginning of the clip, he talks about how the squiggles acquire meaning, miscommunication and several familiar themes.  Haven’t finished it yet, so don’t know if you will appreciate the whole thing.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am pretty certain what he meant was he believes the scripture describes God as lying in that incident and not that he believes God actually lies.

Additionally later in the video (and further elaborated on in an another video in the topic), he states his view that the authors likely viewed it as an overly zealous threat from a parent. If you do ‘x’ I’m going to ground you for a year!

[Calm]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Additionally later in the video (and further elaborated on in an another video in the topic), he states his view that the authors likely viewed it as an overly zealous threat from a parent. If you do ‘x’ I’m going to ground you for a year!

In the fireside video, he talks about approaching the text with multiple methods at different times and for different purposes.  It is obvious engaging the text is not a one size fits all approach or a one and done, this is the meaning.  Instead we are constantly negotiating with the text.  He speaks at 7 minutes into the clip that his most personal moments with the texts are not when he is approaching it academically, checking out different resources trying to figure out the meaning the authors gave to it, but rather when he inserts himself into the events (he is speaking specifically of the NT) and just let them roll over him.  It helps he has been in the Holy Land and knows the places it speaks about as it can make this more vivid for him.

Obviously this is a very different experience for him than his academic exploration and observations, but it appears he is saying this other way is more spiritually significant to him.  To assume he views the knowledge and insights he gains from two very different approaches as amounting to the same and therefore what he says using the academic method apples when he speaks using the more personal version is conflating where he himself does not and is a major error in understanding him, imo.

It would be like assuming a doctor is describing the same experience when he clinically describes a disease very similarly to what one might find in a textbook and and when he talks about his own experience of this disease, how it has impacted his life, what it means to him, his suffering, etc.  One of my daughter’s diabetes doctor had type 1 himself and he used the same things he prescribed for my daughter.  His personal experience and the compassion and understanding and reassurance that came with it was a fantastic help for her, but the more clinical approach was needed as much and I was very grateful for the research he recommended and the general information he provided since my daughter’s situation was in the end quite different from his.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[Calm]

If anyone has concerns about Dan or is not sure what he is typically discussing, I suggest they listen to his intro video where he discusses what he is doing and why and how.

He says he doesn’t define things as that is artificial.  That should be a big clue right there this is not a typical church religious discussion. 
 

At about 15 minutes, he speaks about univocality and how people so often treat the Bible as one voice, they attempt to harmonize the different stories.  He does not, that too is artificial and not what the authors intended.  They were long dead when the different texts were gathered together under one cover.

James contradicts Paul and to try and harmonize them by claiming James is talking about the fruit of faith is bringing your own meaning to the text and it is unlikely to have been James’ actual intent.  Which should surprise no one as we had apostles contradicting each other early on.

Correlation is harmonizing in real time, lol.

I assume Dan himself doesn’t hold a hundred different ideas about deity and other biblical topics, including a mass that contradict and even correct each other, which is how he is describing the Bible.  And what a relief it is that someone is not trying to get round, triangle, free form, hexagonal, etc pegs into square holes.  If a passage sounds wrong to you, rejoice, there maybe authors in the Bible itself that agree with you. @Tacenda, I think you might enjoy this series as it may help you resolve some of your issues with scripture.  If biblical authors never actually agreed with each other, surely you don’t need to agree with everyone either.

Therefore to assume what he is discussing in these videos is what he personally believes about is a huge misconception of his purpose.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[Rain]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

I do not have that expectation of Dan.

Dan (paraphrased by BlueDreams) : "his testimony of the bible as a living text that when we engage with it can help us build a stronger relationship with God and Jesus...."

Also Dan (his own words: "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17."

Thanks,

-Smac

Context is important.

First he is responding to another video about what is or is not in the bible.  She comes out with God lying.  Would he have said God lied if he was not responding to the video?  I don't know, but given the context I would say there is a good chance he wouldn't have said God lied without her.

Then we have to look at what he was doing.  He was talking about what actually was or was not in those first 4 chapters of Genesis. If you go by text alone then one can conclude that God lied in the story. Or rather stories.

Then he is not saying that God actually lied.  He is saying that the stories show he lied. 

He also later clarifies it as hyperbole as someone already mentioned. 

The way you presented what Dan said lacks context which gives the impression he meant something very different than the meaning the video shows. I would hope most would give him the benefit of the doubt.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Rain