Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I find this to be quite a facile assessment.

No, it is an accurate description of that biblical text.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

From the vid comments: "My personal opinion, Dan is consciously subversive. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He likes the organization, but doesn't believe in it, and would see it hollowed out to a husk. Where all spirituality and meaning is stripped and all that is left is the oranizaion. He would cut the rose from the plant that produced it, and intellectually monitor it as it withered."

I share that assessment, unfortunately.  I think Dan is subversive.  He's not even shy about it, really.  How else to characterize someone who professes to be a "believing" Latter-day Saint repeatedly declaring (bragging?) on prominent social media platforms that he is "offering ... reasons" for Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith?

Dan takes his professional work seriously. If the facts give someone reasons to doubt the culprit is reality.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is intellectually lazy, IMO.  He's far too prone to make conclusory declarations with no real effort to explain how he gets there.  Apparently it's a "Trust me, I'm a scholar" sort of thing.

LOL, have you watched Dan’s videos (Grok doesn’t count)? Or read any of this books? He is very methodical. He does his best to avoid spin. He will tell you what the text says and what the intentions appear to be based on the majority of the scholarship. He does this even when he dislikes what the Bible is saying.

The irony is that a lot of his opponents attack him claiming he is a Mormon shill. Occasionally he has a good laugh about that and says that Mormon viewers don’t like what he is saying about as much as most Christians do.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

He expressed this same sentiment (probably doing something right if I’m offering {} reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful") on Dehlin's podcast.  So it wasn't a one-off.

He is talking about Christians in general and yeah, he does do that because that is what the data points to. He won’t lie or obscure things to make people feel better. He is good at his job.

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Disappointing that Dan has done this, but not surprising.

So you’re just gonna assume Grok gave you the full context there then?

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope he finds his way back.

You do know he is still active and participating in the Church right?

He did put out a video as to why he doesn’t do a lot of textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, his views on the book, and some linguistic work he did do on the Book of Mormon:

Oh, and if you want to have a lot of fun look up his video on trans issues.

[smac97]

The Tribune:

LDS scholar appears on Joe Rogan’s podcast — but not all his fans are celebrating

Quote

“For all I know,” Dan McClellan says about his appearance, “it might have been the wrong decision.”

I would have preferred to see a Latter-day Saint who professes faith in the things that are distinctive and important to the Restored Gospel and to the lives of observant and faithful Latter-day Saints.

As it is, we got Dan, who has things to say about our faith along these lines:

Quote

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

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

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

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

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

Based on the Trib article, it sounds like Rogan wasn't really interested in McClellan as a member of the Church.  If so, I hope someday he books someone else, someone who will speak and act like, well, a Latter-day Saint.

Quote

The resulting two-and-a-half-hour episode, posted Wednesday, represents one of — if not the — biggest media breakthroughs for a Latter-day Saint scholar of religion.

But not all of McClellan’s 1.6 million social media followers are celebrating.

‘I just don’t talk about that’

As is his wont, McClellan neither hides nor focuses on his status as a member of the Utah-based faith in the episode, briefly noting near the beginning of the episode that he converted at age 20 and enlisted as a missionary a year later.

...

Rogan, for his part, seems uninterested in the church, never asking directly about it. He inquires only near the very end about McClellan’s own beliefs — or, as he puts it, “your version of this.”

It’s a question McClellan is clearly practiced at sidestepping, conceding that he is a “religious man” and nothing more.

“I just don’t talk about that,” he explains about his personal beliefs, “and in no small part because I do believe that it is as Jesus in the New Testament says: ‘When you pray, go into your closet and pray in secret, and your father will reward you openly.’”

The same Jesus about whom Dan said this:

Quote

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

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

Dan is competent on the biblical text and the historical context. The problem is that I think Dan seeks to implicitly encourage his listeners to take that competence and shift it over to his philosophical claims about what is possible, then treats the philosophical claim as if it were a finding of biblical scholarship.  He does the same with sociopolitical issues.  He's a smart guy and knows a lot about the Bible, so we ought to privilege his say-so about sociopolitical issues like elective abortion, same-sex marriage, trans issues, and so on.

The first half is not a historical conclusion. “Physical impossibility” and “violates everything we know about the operation of the universe” are prior commitments about the uniformity of nature, our pristine and complete understanding of nature, and the exclusion of divine action. Historical method can assess the best explanation of the available evidence under a given set of assumptions. It cannot, by itself, establish that a resurrection is impossible. Once that impossibility is stipulated, the rest of the paragraph is just the stipulation restated: the evidence is insufficient because it would have to overcome a bar that has already been set beyond the reach of any historical data. That is a methodological choice, not a result delivered by "the data."

The second half is more careful, and it is the part that actually falls within his field. The broad consensus that there was a historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher and was executed is real. The further claim that the resurrection narratives are later stories generated by his followers is a reconstruction, not a bare datum. The earliest material (the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Corinthians 15, the empty-tomb tradition, the appearance claims) is early enough and widespread enough that many scholars treat belief in the resurrection as part of the earliest Christian movement rather than a later invention. Dan’s version is one interpretive option; presenting it as simply “what the data show” elides the interpretive step.

And that is, in my view, the principal flaw in Dan's schtick.  He positions, through leveraged credentialism and bolstering, his opinions as "the data."  Listeners are then invited to treat a negative conclusion about the resurrection as the output of neutral academic expertise rather than as the product of a naturalistic prior plus a particular reading of the sources. Biblical scholarship can tell us a great deal about what the earliest Christians claimed, when those claims appear, and how they developed. It does not uniquely qualify someone - Dan - to rule the resurrection out as a physical impossibility, nor does it convert that ruling into a scholarly finding that all non-dogmatic scholars must accept. The distinction between those two things is the core of the critique.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Sunday at 06:14 PM by smac97

[Eschaton]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is an accurate description of that biblical text.

Dan takes his professional work seriously. If the facts give someone reasons to doubt the culprit is reality.

LOL, have you watched Dan’s videos (Grok doesn’t count)? Or read any of this books? He is very methodical. He does his best to avoid spin. He will tell you what the text says and what the intentions appear to be based on the majority of the scholarship. He does this even when he dislikes what the Bible is saying.

The irony is that a lot of his opponents attack him claiming he is a Mormon shill. Occasionally he has a good laugh about that and says that Mormon viewers don’t like what he is saying about as much as most Christians do.

He is talking about Christians in general and yeah, he does do that because that is what the data points to. He won’t lie or obscure things to make people feel better. He is good at his job.

So you’re just gonna assume Grok gave you the full context there then?

You do know he is still active and participating in the Church right?

He did put out a video as to why he doesn’t do a lot of textual criticism of the Book of Mormon, his views on the book, and some linguistic work he did do on the Book of Mormon:

Oh, and if you want to have a lot of fun look up his video on trans issues.

In my experience on the LDS side it's the ignorant fundamentalists who have the problem with Dan McClellan. LDS members with more critical thinking skills understand that there's a difference between saying, as an academic, "the data don't support X" and actually denying the spiritual validity or reality of X. Those types of members tend to like Dan. But fundamentalists don't get nuance, and insist that any expertise that doesn't support their personal beliefs has to be wrong or part of a conspiracy against them and so must be snuffed out.

On the side of mainstream Christianity, Dan again runs into some ignorant criticism from the other kind of fundamentalists, who just assume because Dan is LDS that everything he's writing is biased in favor of Mormonism, even though what he says regarding Biblical scholarship is neutral and bog standard stuff you'd get in any halfway decent or better Biblical studies course.  

So fundamentalists on the LDS side think he's anti-Mormon, and fundamentalists on the mainstream Christian side think he's a Mormon apologist. Go figure. 

Edited Sunday at 07:27 PM by Eschaton

[Calm]

On 10/10/2026 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

find this to be quite a facile assessment.

And you asked Grok.

[Calm]

20 hours ago, The Nehor said:

LOL, have you watched Dan’s videos (Grok doesn’t count)? Or read any of this books? He is very methodical. He does his best to avoid spin. He will tell you what the text says and what the intentions appear to be based on the majority of the scholarship. He does this even when he dislikes what the Bible is saying

This…

I don’t understand why people insist faith must inform everything someone says or they don’t have real faith.

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Tribune:

LDS scholar appears on Joe Rogan’s podcast — but not all his fans are celebrating

I would have preferred to see a Latter-day Saint who professes faith in the things that are distinctive and important to the Restored Gospel and to the lives of observant and faithful Latter-day Saints.

So when asked scholarly questions he should bear his testimony?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Based on the Trib article, it sounds like Rogan wasn't really interested in McClellan as a member of the Church.  If so, I hope someday he books someone else, someone who will speak and act like, well, a Latter-day Saint.

They could grab any rando LDS person for that. Why would anyone want to listen to that?

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The same Jesus about whom Dan said this:

Accurate.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dan is competent on the biblical text and the historical context. The problem is that I think Dan seeks to implicitly encourage his listeners to take that competence and shift it over to his philosophical claims about what is possible, then treats the philosophical claim as if it were a finding of biblical scholarship.  He does the same with sociopolitical issues.  He's a smart guy and knows a lot about the Bible, so we ought to privilege his say-so about sociopolitical issues like elective abortion, same-sex marriage, trans issues, and so on.

It is not based on a philosophical claim or biblical scholarship. The conclusion is based on how historians operate. They take the data they have from a lot of fields (archaeology, textual criticism, etc.) and try to reconstruct what we can say is probable.

Also most of this stuff of sociopolitical issues start with him doing a deep dive into the Bible as to what it says about those issues and he is brutally factual there even when the Bible says something he doesn’t like. Then often shares his thoughts on the issue. I don’t think you have spent any time listening to him. You seem to have built up an image of some strawman “enemy within” apostate who you are bitter about because he disagrees with you about your culture war nonsense.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The first half is not a historical conclusion. “Physical impossibility” and “violates everything we know about the operation of the universe” are prior commitments about the uniformity of nature, our pristine and complete understanding of nature, and the exclusion of divine action. Historical method can assess the best explanation of the available evidence under a given set of assumptions. It cannot, by itself, establish that a resurrection is impossible. Once that impossibility is stipulated, the rest of the paragraph is just the stipulation restated: the evidence is insufficient because it would have to overcome a bar that has already been set beyond the reach of any historical data. That is a methodological choice, not a result delivered by "the data."

It is a historical conclusion. There is some special pleading here that we should definitely factor in the possibility of the supernatural when reaching historical conclusions when it involves Christianity’s traditional claims but no one is going to bat for the miracles of the other wandering wise men of the period or for miracles credited to being performed by polytheistic deities.

It is a high bar but supernatural events have to have a LOT of evidence to prove. That is just how historical research works and the evidence for the resurrection is pretty weak.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

The second half is more careful, and it is the part that actually falls within his field. The broad consensus that there was a historical Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher and was executed is real. The further claim that the resurrection narratives are later stories generated by his followers is a reconstruction, not a bare datum. The earliest material (the pre-Pauline formula in 1 Corinthians 15, the empty-tomb tradition, the appearance claims) is early enough and widespread enough that many scholars treat belief in the resurrection as part of the earliest Christian movement rather than a later invention. Dan’s version is one interpretive option; presenting it as simply “what the data show” elides the interpretive step.

The resurrection narratives are assumed to be later stories because they are later stories. Yes, the idea that Jesus came back to life was prevalent early and the most likely point of origin for those stories is Peter (and possibly Mary). And cases of people seeing dead loved ones aren’t that rare. The empty tomb narrative is also late. There are a few problems with the empty tomb narrative. The biggest one is that is not how crucifixion victims were treated. They were thrown into mass graves. Now is it possible that someone begged for the body of Jesus and got it? Maybe. Or maybe that was a later rationalization. There was no one controlling the story. Peter was around but how was he going to reasonably counter people getting stuff wrong? He was probably dead before the Book of Acts and the gospels showed up. The Pauline letters say almost nothing about the life of Jesus. As far as we can tell Paul was focused on Jesus dying and being brought back to life and what that meant. Paul had one short time with Peter and the two did not seem to get along. I get the impression Peter just wanted him to just go and evangelize anywhere else.

Also, there are lots and lots and lots of papers and books and videos by experts discussing the evidence of the resurrection. He didn’t “elide” that interpretive step. He is in line with most of the scholarship. You really have some perverse need to make Dan dishonest.

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And that is, in my view, the principal flaw in Dan's schtick.  He positions, through leveraged credentialism and bolstering, his opinions as "the data."  Listeners are then invited to treat a negative conclusion about the resurrection as the output of neutral academic expertise rather than as the product of a naturalistic prior plus a particular reading of the sources. Biblical scholarship can tell us a great deal about what the earliest Christians claimed, when those claims appear, and how they developed. It does not uniquely qualify someone - Dan - to rule the resurrection out as a physical impossibility, nor does it convert that ruling into a scholarly finding that all non-dogmatic scholars must accept. The distinction between those two things is the core of the critique.

Your flaw is that he presents the scholarship correctly and it doesn’t confirm your favorite dogma and he should support that dogma because that is what good LDS do. You also personalize this as if Dan is the one ruling it out. No, the historical consensus rules it as very improbable and he passes that along.

There are plenty of scholars that will tell you what you want to hear. There are big flaws and a priori assumptions in their work too though so if you want to be consistent you would have to throw them out too. The most common one I see thrown around is claiming that the martyrdom of all the apostles/disciples prove it must have been real because no one dies for something they don’t believe is true. No one is claiming that Peter didn’t believe it. Or James. Or Paul. Also as a technical point Peter recanting wouldn’t have saved him. He and other Christians were reportedly being scapegoated for a crime so him disavowing Christianity wouldn’t have led to him being spared. And the rest of the apostles/disciple vanish from the historical record very quickly and accounts of their martyrdoms only pop up centuries later and many include things like dragons so there aren’t a lot of people taking those stories seriously but some apologists love endlessly repeating that they were all martyred when they won’t defend the only accounts we have of them being martyred. That is pretty dishonest.

So you haven’t found a flaw in his schtick. Nor do I think you know enough about the state of the field or what Dan actually does to accuse him of dishonesty and trickery. The stuff Dan says is pretty much what Christian clergy who go to good educational institutions learn to get their degrees. This isn’t hidden stuff. Well…..except that clergy rarely share all this with their congregations for……reasons. Probably reasons similar to why you don’t like what Dan says.

 

 

To be fair I do have one beef with Dan. Why has he not created a t-shirt with his line, “Leave my trans homies alone” on it? I’ll buy it!

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

In my experience on the LDS side it's the ignorant fundamentalists who have the problem with Dan McClellan. LDS members with more critical thinking skills understand that there's a difference between saying, as an academic, "the data don't support X" and actually denying the spiritual validity or reality of X. Those types of members tend to like Dan. But fundamentalists don't get nuance, and insist that any expertise that doesn't support their personal beliefs has to be wrong or part of a conspiracy against them and so must be snuffed out.

On the side of mainstream Christianity, Dan again runs into some ignorant criticism from the other kind of fundamentalists, who just assume because Dan is LDS that everything he's writing is biased in favor of Mormonism, even though what he says regarding Biblical scholarship is neutral and bog standard stuff you'd get in any halfway decent or better Biblical studies course.  

So fundamentalists on the LDS side think he's anti-Mormon, and fundamentalists on the mainstream Christian side think he's a Mormon apologist. Go figure. 

A lot of the ire he gets comes from correcting misinformation. A lot of his videos are countering apologists who get things wrong about the Bible. He also does some correcting of skeptics who get the Bible wrong. One example of the latter was a video debunking the idea that Jesus was based on the Egyptian goddess Isis.

I think the most backlash he gets is from countering what amounts to political and cultural propaganda that abuses the Bible. This for example:

 

A personal favorite is a response to culture warriors dunking on some people (possibly sarcastically) praying to a non-binary God. Always fun to see some mainstream Christians talk about the incomprehensible God with no physical body and insist that God is male thereby going back to the more ‘primitive’ belief that Jews and early Christians held about an embodied God because they need that metaphor to get angry and scream about blasphemy instead of chuckling at the silliness and rolling their eyes and moving on. Gotta demonize those satanic queer people for the blasphemy of saying something we also believe.

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Eschaton said:

In my experience on the LDS side it's the ignorant fundamentalists who have the problem with Dan McClellan.

I don't really know many Latter-day Saints who even know who Dan is.  He used to post here, and I had a number of direct interactions with him which substantially diminished my regard for his viewpoints and pronouncements.

I don't think I am a "fundamentalist" (as in "a person who believes in and strictly adheres to a literal, traditional, and non-negotiable interpretation of scriptures, dogmas, or core principles").  I believe in the Restored Gospel, but I understand there are many aspects of it that need to be construed and evaluated, not merely rotely accepted as "literal."  As for "tradition," I think it has a place, but not in any "strict" sense.  Revelation should matter more than tradition.  Same goes for negotiability of scriptures and "core principles."  

23 hours ago, Eschaton said:

LDS members with more critical thinking skills understand that there's a difference between saying, as an academic, "the data don't support X" and actually denying the spiritual validity or reality of X.

I think Dan has frequently gone beyond "the data don't support X."

I also think Dan often uses pretensions about "data" to smuggle in and bolster his personal opinions.

I also think Dan is subversive.

23 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Those types of members tend to like Dan. But fundamentalists don't get nuance, and insist that any expertise that doesn't support their personal beliefs has to be wrong or part of a conspiracy against them and so must be snuffed out.

I don't think this is an accurate characterization of things.  

23 hours ago, Eschaton said:

On the side of mainstream Christianity, Dan again runs into some ignorant criticism from the other kind of fundamentalists, who just assume because Dan is LDS that everything he's writing is biased in favor of Mormonism, even though what he says regarding Biblical scholarship is neutral and bog standard stuff you'd get in any halfway decent or better Biblical studies course.  

That's the thing, I think Dan is rather frequently not "neutral."  

23 hours ago, Eschaton said:

So fundamentalists on the LDS side think he's anti-Mormon,

I think he is subversive, yes.  Based on what he has said.  Here is an assessment I posted two years ago.  He's been behaving mostly the same way since then.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 10/10/2026 at 12:06 PM, smac97 said:

From the vid comments: "My personal opinion, Dan is consciously subversive. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He likes the organization, but doesn't believe in it, and would see it hollowed out to a husk. Where all spirituality and meaning is stripped and all that is left is the oranizaion. He would cut the rose from the plant that produced it, and intellectually monitor it as it withered."

I share that assessment, unfortunately.  I think Dan is subversive.  He's not even shy about it, really.  How else to characterize someone who professes to be a "believing" Latter-day Saint repeatedly declaring (bragging?) on prominent social media platforms that he is "offering ... reasons" for Latter-day Saints to abandon their faith?

I think it is interesting that you vociferously defend the Cornell frat boys from rape adjacent behavior (posting paragraphs and paragraphs), but you feel free to mind read and cast aspersions on someone here that you disagree with philosophically. 

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think it is interesting that you vociferously defend the Cornell frat boys from rape adjacent behavior (posting paragraphs and paragraphs),

I have done nothing of the sort.

I have, instead, proposed that we set aside emotionalisms and invectives and mobocratic rage, and that we assess the issues dispassionately, clinically, and on the evidence.  I find it unfortunate that you cannot bring yourself to do this, and that you instead conflate this call with "defense" of rape (or "rape adjacent behavior").  This is particularly so given that I have specifically and emphatically condemned the text messages, and nowhere have I defendant any wrongful conduct at the frat house at Cornell in October 2024.

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but you feel free to mind read and cast aspersions on someone here that you disagree with philosophically. 

Again, here is an assessment of Dan which I posted two years ago.  He's been behaving mostly the same way since then.

I am critical of Dan due to his behavior and the things he has said.  For example, 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).

I have explained in substantial detail elsewhere what I think of Dan, and why.  

As for him being subversive relative to the truth claims of the Church, the phrase "res ipsa loquitur" comes to mind.  He comes across as nothing like an advocate of the Church, nor ambivalent about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, here is an assessment of Dan which I posted two years ago.  He's been behaving mostly the same way since then.

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing:

Quote

For my part, as regarding Latter-day Saints listening to Dan McClellan, I think that a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is warranted.  I mean, he's saying this stuff out loud.  In public.  He openly admits that he is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot."

Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there. Except there is a bit missing from your quote isn't there. What's hiding in the "..."? Here is Dan:

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

So good work being able to objectively decide that Dan is actually lying when he represents his positions but then bending over backwards to defend the frat boys offering "free p****" to their 50 closest friends. You do you.

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Again, here is an assessment of Dan which I posted two years ago.  He's been behaving mostly the same way since then.

Yes, you are very comfortable calling Dan a liar by being a wolf in sheep's clothing:

Quote

For my part, as regarding Latter-day Saints listening to Dan McClellan, I think that a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is warranted.  I mean, he's saying this stuff out loud.  In public.  He openly admits that he is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot."

Very good objective assessment just dispassionately sticking with the facts there.

I give Dan very little thought outside the few threads on this board about him, but "the facts" are there.  He is saying things about the Church that are, in my view, subversive.  From the first link:

Quote

Third, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  From his most recent public offering:

• "The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas."
• "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon."
• "I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement."
• "I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."
• "I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism."
• "The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."
• "The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon."
• "The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas."

As he says, he's been pretty consistent in this.  His interview with John Dehlin sure was an eye-opener, and that was a while back.

I have no stewardship over Dan, but I would not use him as a resource for someone hoping to develop a testimony of Jesus Christ and of the Restored Gospel.  Quite the contrary, I think Dan's commentary is - by his own reckoning - a pretty stark alternative to listening to and following the counsel of prophets and apostles.

Same goes for his public comments about the divinity of Jesus Christ.

I think this is subversive stuff, coming as it is from a self-identified Latter-day Saint.

Per this video, Dan apparently felt it necessary to explain that he is "not an atheist."  It looks, then, like what he says, publicly, on social media and to podcasters like Joe Rogan and, earlier John Dehlin, is not facially congruent with what most folks expect Latter-day Saints to say.  And not just in my view, but for a sufficient number of persons that he felt this public explanation was necessary.  A person with a substantial Social Media presence who has to go out of his way to declare that he is "not an atheist" may well be someone who is giving a lot of people the impression that he is an atheist.

In the same video, posted a few months ago, he says he is an "active member" of the Church.  I am quite willing to take that at face value.  Subversion is, after all, something that happens from within.  But again, that he has to go out of his way to say that he is an active member of the Church may be indicating that he is giving no small number of listeners the impression that he is not active, or that he is active-but-not-believing.

He deliberately and specifically declares his personal beliefs "have nothing to do" with the "scholarship" he shares on social media.  I have noted, quite a few times now, how I think Dan is doing quite a bit more than merely purveying "scholarship."  I also don't really buy the "nothing to do" line, as I think he has his ideological presuppositions and commitments along with the rest of us.

He also goes on to say it is "embarrassing" to other people who say that he is an "apologist" for the Church or the Book of Mormon.  By no means do I take him to be an "apologist," that is, "a person who speaks, writes, or argues in formal defense of a specific belief, institution, doctrine, or political system."  When he does speak about the Church and its doctrines - particularly the divinity of Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon, he certainly does not advance a faith-promoting viewpoint, but he has said quite a bit that seems calculated to demote faith.

Nor do I accept his "Hey, I'm just an impartial scholar, objectively doling out 'data' like some sort of bearded Pez-dispenser" line.  Again, I think he is doing a lot more than doling out scholarship.  Again, he has his ideological presuppositions and commitments along with the rest of us.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Except there is a bit missing from your quote isn't there. What's hiding in the "..."? Here is Dan:

Quote

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

Right.  He professes to be both an "active Latter-day Saint" and publicly declaring - repeatedly now - that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church.  I see that as subversion, don't you?

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So good work being able to objectively decide that Dan is actually lying when he represents his positions

I think what Dan is saying is subversive.  "Objective" is hard in an explicitly religious setting, but what he is saying sure sounds subversive (see the above bullet list, and his publicly-declared happiness that he is "offering ... reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful" in the Church).

As an observant and fairly well-informed Latter-day Saint, I have listened to Dan and find many of his comments to be subversive.  I say this not because I want to insult him as a person, but to note what he has said publicly.

John Dehlin, Natasha Helfer, Jeremy Runnells, Denver Snuffer, Sam Young, Kate Kelly, and many others have sought to subvert the Church while ostensibly members of the Church.  If that is what Dan is doing, he wouldn't be the first one.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

but then bending over backwards to defend the frat boys offering "free p****" to their 50 closest friends. You do you.

I have not done this.  Anyone who engaged in sexual misconduct, as a criminal matter, should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I find the sexual licentiousness of the events of that night be terrible.  I think influences like Hookup Culture and sociological defects in the Greek System have contributed to this, but in the end each adult must be held responsible for his or her own conduct.

I surely would like to see Dan as not merely an "active" Latter-day Saint, but as a sincere and believing and observant one.  His public pronouncements about the divinity of Jesus Christ are pretty hard to square with that.  I don't see him as an advocate for the Church and its most fundamental tenets.  To the contrary, he has said quite a bit to tear down those tenets, particularly as to the divinity of Jesus Christ and the revelatory provenance of the Book of Mormon. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Monday at 11:26 PM by smac97

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

• 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.

All of those appear accurate to me and are based on factual evidence. What is the problem?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

All of those appear accurate to me and are based on factual evidence. What is the problem?

These are ideologically-driven accusations and presuppositions about people Dan has never met and about whom he knows little or nothing.  They are conclusory and, as applied haphazardly as he does, devoid of substantive evidence.  They are intellectually lazy, question-begging, histrionic, unscholarly, politically partisan, "trust me, I'm a scholar, so don's ask me to demonstrate what I am asserting"-esque, pandering and unreasoned.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 01:34 AM by smac97

[Tacenda]

Trying to stay on topic, but Dan was the guest on Joe Rogan's podcast the other day. He did mention he doesn't publicly speak about where he is exactly religious wise. But he's a believer in God/Jesus I believe he said. Now I need to listen again.

[bluebell]

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma.  That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

(but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

[Rain]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma. 

It depends on when you use the second one.  If people use it to say what is present in the bible then yes, one should follow the data.  If people use it as part of their beliefs (like resurrection) then it may make sense to follow the dogma. We would have to know in what context Dan was using it.

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

(but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma.  That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

(but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

So I've seen a lot of Dan's videos over the years. I can't mind read, but my mental model of him is thus: (for the very little that it's worth)

Dan views religion as a faith based affair. It's a personal interaction and negotiation with God and with scripture and with our fellow humans. Leveraging personal religious beliefs to control others is bad. Claiming that the "data" prove "my" religious belief system is right and "yours" is wrong is bad. Leveraging religious beliefs to marginalize the weak and afflicted is exceptionally bad. 

Showing how critical mainstream biblical scholarship views the bible is the theme of his social media work. Just as the "data" don't prove Krishna created the universe, critical biblical scholarship shows they don't prove Adonai (Dan's term for the god of the old testament) doing so either. We shouldn't privilege our personal religious beliefs to show how much better we are than anyone else. We are stumbling through the dark just like everyone else. 

Every single harsh take Dan makes on social media is against someone leveraging their personal religious beliefs to go after or look down on someone else.

Edited 20 hours ago by SeekingUnderstanding

[Eschaton]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma.  That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

(but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

My guess is he means follow the data when it comes to data-driven fields like history or science. Faith isn't data driven, and Dan has never advocated against faith. 

[Doctor Steuss]

38 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma.  That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

(but I again acknowledge my information, which is second hand, could be very flawed and it is very possible Dan never said that)

From what I recall from one of his videos in the past regarding prophesy and miracles, he essentially said that while examining things from an academic standpoint, to give credence to the prophesies and miraculous events of the Bible means that you by default have to allow that same latitude to all holy writ and supernatural claims.  If it's possible that Jesus was resurrected, then it's possible that the resurrection motifs of Inanna, Dionysus, Attis, Odin, Ganesha, etc. are also true and also need to be weighed the similarly, using like approaches.

Essentially, if you are wearing only your fancy academic hat, and are using academic tools to analyze texts and historical events, you can't swap out your tool-bag for a different one, just because it's something that your own tradition (or the predominate cultural tradition) presupposes.  Academic tools, and tools of faith can be rascally to wield simultaneously with consistency and fairness.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I saw someone say Dan has said the data does not support the resurrection or other supernatural teachings, and then that Dan has also said people should follow the data and not dogma. 

On Jesus Christ:

Dan: 

Quote

• On the resurrection: From a scholarly standpoint it is “a physical impossibility.” Without “extraordinary evidence” a scholar cannot affirm it, because “it violates everything we know about the operation of the universe.” The evidentiary bar is higher than what exists, so “the resurrection is something that is not supported by the data.”

Dan:

Quote

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

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

On the Book of Mormon: 

Dan:

Quote

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

Dan: 

Quote

• On the Book of Mormon: “The data pretty firmly points in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon.” He treats it as “a product of the 19th century.”

On religion (broadly):

Dan: 

Quote

• On the nature of religion: Religion “is not something that exists outside of discourse.” It is “like McDonald’s”—something we agree to treat as real, but that “does not exist in the world. It exists only in our discourse and in our imagination.” Humans tell campfire stories about “unseen agents” (deceased kin, imagined creatures, etc.), then build narratives around them because of our capacity for imagination. “So religion is something that only exists in our imagination.”

Dan: 

Quote

• On religion as social practice: He points to hardcore atheists who still light candles, say prayers, and observe Jewish rituals. “That’s what all religion is.” When pressed on whether Mormonism is therefore just a social club, he answers: “Yes, it is a social club. It can be nothing other than a social club… fundamentally that is what created religion at the roots of human evolution.”

Dan: 

Quote

• On labels and testimony: Terms like atheist, agnostic, theist, or Latter-day Saint are “social identities” that do not map one-to-one onto internal beliefs. Even when someone insists they “deeply believe” something, “those beliefs are generated within contexts and for rhetorical reasons, not because we deeply hold those beliefs.”

On his impact on the faith of other Latter-day Saints:

Dan: 

Quote

• On his effect on faith: He says he is “probably doing something right if I’m offering reasons for people to remain faithful and reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful.”

 Dan:

Quote

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

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

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

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

One can believe that Dan is not attempting to subvert the faith of the Latter-day Saints.  For my part, I find the contrary conclusion more congruent with his statements, particularly when he has now repeatedly bragged about how he is providing "reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - for him - the "sweet spot" and evidence that he is "probably doing something right."

John Dehlin, prior to the loss of his membership, spent years playing footsie, but I think plenty of people took him as trying - with some real success - to encourage other Latter-day Saints to leave the Church, and to subvert the efforts of the Church. 

Jeremy Runnells was pretty clumsy with his "Hey, I'm just asking questions" schtick, so his subversive efforts were more obvious. 

Sam Young was very "in your face" with his subversive efforts.

Kate Kelly was, in my view, more subversive in her conduct (I found her protesting on Temple Square to be particularly problematic).

Denver Snuffer was, I think, fairly subversive in his published writings.

I'm trying to remember how much Natasha Helfer traded on her membership and status as a Latter-day Saint to advance her opinions which were at odds with the truth claims and doctrines of the Church.  Her performative antics at her membership council were pretty offputting.

Dan, in my view, is sort of a conflation of John Dehlin (re: social media presence and self-promotion and being coy for years about what he was doing) and Denver Snuffer (re: advancing intellectual-sounding arguments to subvert the Church's efforts).

I found this YouTube video, from about 6 months ago, interesting and illuminating:

A Grok-generated transcript:

Quote

Transcript

Dan: [0:05] The uh the data pretty firmly points in the opposite direction of a historical Book of Mormon.

Ward Radio: [0:09] And some of these scholars, real science, talk as if they’re scientists and I have a problem with it.

Dan: All right, let’s see it.

Ward Radio: [0:20] Because they’re the conclusions they make oftentimes in a scientific field would never be warranted.

Dan: [0:26] In what scientific field would the conclusion you just quoted me arriving at not be warranted?

Ward Radio: [0:35] Biblical studies rely on historical, textual, and interpretive methods, not empirical testing like physics or biology, okay? In scholarship, you’re not testing hypotheses, you’re not running experiments in the same way that scientists do.

Dan: [0:50] Correct. So, this is mostly true, but there are many times that science does intersect with biblical studies. For instance, when it comes to radiocarbon dating, different features of archaeology. I am a specialist in the cognitive science of religion, which incorporates a lot of insights from the empirical research and experimental data of the cognitive sciences.

[1:12] But, sure, most of the time it’s true that biblical studies is not involved in the hard sciences, and this is why I have repeatedly and consistently pointed out on my channel that when it comes to interpreting ancient texts or reconstructing ancient history, we almost never have the luxury of anything that remotely approximates empirical proof. We don’t have an acid we can dip an interpretation in or a paper that we can rub on it to see if it turns pink and verifies the interpretation. The best we can usually do is just arrive at a consensus about what is most likely. I have pointed that out thousands of times on my channel.

[1:50] So, I mostly agree with what this individual is saying, although there are some fuzzy edges to that that are inaccurate. And so, I’m not sure who exactly they’re talking about. It really doesn’t seem like it should be me they’re criticizing.

Ward Radio: [2:05] And yet, then this is my biggest critique of many scholars.

Dan: And by many scholars, it seems clear this individual means Dan McClellan.

Ward Radio: [2:17] The way that they talk about this stuff online is using language like data that sounds like it’s science when it’s scholarship.

[2:23] Like the data, for example, does not support. The data do not or do support.

Dan: Is supported by the data, not supported by the data, to not be sufficiently supported by the data.

[2:37] So, I use the word data in the broad sense of something that is known as a fact that can be used as a basis for reasoning or from which inferences can be drawn.

[2:51] So, it sounds almost like this is just gatekeeping the use of the word data, which doesn’t necessarily point in the direction of scientific data. Sometimes it does, as for instance, in the third clip that they showed where I was reading the editorial comments about the retraction of an article within a scientific journal.

[3:13] So, sometimes I do use data that way, but overwhelmingly I use it in the broader, more colloquial sense. And the notion that there’s anything misleading or inappropriate about that is bafflingly misguided.

Dan: [3:27] Maybe that’s technically true, but for a lay audience who’s just watching that, does that not have a scientific connotation?

Ward Radio: [3:37] Ah. So, this is literally just trying to gatekeep the use of the word data and suggest that I am being misleading because I use the word data and that might mislead a layperson into imagining that I'm talking about scientific data rather than data more broadly.  Oh, this is just bafflingly misguided.

This seems like a dodge.  Dan is constantly reiterating his status as a "scholar."  He begins many (most?) of his YouTube videos with something like "Hi, my name is Dan McClellan and I'm a scholar of the bible and religion."  And he is speaking to a lay audience via social media platforms.  And he is in that context speaking authoritatively about what "the data" do and do not show.  And yet he expects his listeners to more or less intuit that his constant references to "the data" are broad and colloquial, and not scholarly/scientific?

The Ward Radio guys' core objection—that “data” language carries a scientific connotation for a lay audience even when the underlying work is historical/textual—is not empty, and McClellan’s own response largely concedes the broader usage, but then he immediately dismisses the concern as "gatekeeping."

In the transcript he defines “data” explicitly as “something that is known as a fact that can be used as a basis for reasoning or from which inferences can be drawn.” He acknowledges that this is broader and more colloquial than the empirical/scientific sense, that he sometimes uses the narrower sense, but that “overwhelmingly” he uses the broad one. He also notes that biblical studies rarely has anything approximating empirical proof and that the best one can usually do is a scholarly consensus about what is most likely. That is an accurate description of the methodological limits of historical reconstruction, but it undercuts the rhetorical force of repeatedly framing conclusions as what “the data” do or do not support. In my view, for many viewers the word still signals something closer to tested, measurable evidence than to the interpretive weighing of texts, archaeology, and probabilities that McClellan is actually doing.

Dan, in his channel intros, routinely identifies him as “a scholar of the Bible and religion,” his podcast and merch are titled “Data Over Dogma,” and the motto is presented as an aspirational contrast to authority or tradition (hewing toward religious authority/tradition). For me, that framing invites the inference that his conclusions rest on a more objective, evidence-first footing than the alternatives. When the subject is something like the historicity of the resurrection—an event that is not empirically testable in the way a radiocarbon date or a controlled experiment is—the same language is applied. Historical arguments about it rest on the usual tools of the discipline (source criticism, contextual probability, absence or presence of certain kinds of corroboration), not on "data" in the harder scientific sense. Treating the resulting scholarly assessment as simply “what the data show” compresses those methodological distinctions. Listeners who are not specialists can easily hear it as a stronger claim than the underlying evidence warrants.

McClellan’s reply in the video treats the objection as mainly linguistic pedantry. That response is, I think, incomplete, particularly from a self-declared "scholar" whose putative objective is to educate his social media audience, most of whom lack relevant scholarly training and credentials. If the goal is public communication and the term ("data") is chosen in part because it carries authority for a non-specialist audience, then the difference between “the data do not support X” and “the current scholarly consensus, based on historical and textual methods, does not support X” is not trivial. The former sounds more decisive and less provisional. On questions that by his own account lack anything close to empirical proof (such as the resurrection), that presentational choice positions Dan as the clearer-eyed, less dogmatic authority. Whether that is primarily a communication shortcut or something closer to equivocation depends on how consistently the limits are flagged; the video itself shows he is aware of the broader usage and of the scientific connotations it can carry.

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

That's circumstantial evidence but if accurate I don't know how Dan could be described as a believing member when he's saying the data supports atheism and members should follow the data.

I don't think he has said "the data support atheism" explicitly.  I think he leaves that as more or less the next step from "the data don't support" the resurrection of Christ, the Church's claimed provenance about the Book of Mormon, and so on.  This has more or less been my assessment for a while.

There is, I suppose, a rhetorical thread-the-needle explanation available. 

Dan could more clearly qualify his meaning and utilization of "data," but then that would drastically reduce the polemical potency that brings in social media views and clicks and popularity. 

He could stop speaking of not-empirically-testable matters of faith as being incongruent with "the data" (by his reckoning and usage, "something that is known as a fact that can be used as a basis for reasoning or from which inferences can be drawn").  Ontologically, whether Christ rose from the dead or not is a "fact," but accepting it or rejecting it as such will always be a matter of faith and perspective.  This is, for me, one of the more serious concerns about Dan's equivocating usage of "the data."

He could explain how he navigates matters of faith as to non-empirically-testable matters of faith, but he goes out of his way to not do that. 

He could stop bragging about how he is providing other Latter-day Saints "reasons ... to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - for him - the "sweet spot" and evidence that he is "probably doing something right."  I don't see that happening, either.

John Dehlin spent years carefully parsing his words so as to provide plausible deniability that he was subverting the efforts of the Church, that he was seeking to tear down the faith of the Saints, to persuade them to listen to him more than to prophets and apostles, to encourage them to abandon their covenants.  But even then, it became pretty clear pretty quickly that he had subversive intent.

Reasonable minds can disagree about whether Dan can be described in similar ways.  For my part, I think he is subversive.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 15 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

My guess is he means follow the data when it comes to data-driven fields like history or science. Faith isn't data driven, and Dan has never advocated against faith. 

Why, if he "has never advocated against faith," did he need to publicly declare to his listeners that he is not an atheist?

Also, how do you reconcile your "he never advocated against faith" thing with his statements about how he is providing "reasons for people to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - for him - the "sweet spot" and evidence that he is "probably doing something right?"

And this:

Quote

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

Dan: "Well, thank you so much."

What do you think John Dehlin was referencing when he said that he and "so many of {his} listeners and friends" are "loving" what Dan is doing? 

If Dan is not "advocating against faith" in the Restored Gospel, then what, in your view, are Dehlin et al "cheering {Dan} on" in doing?  

And what are your thoughts about Dan's response to Dehlin's praise: "Well, thank you so much"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 17 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Leveraging personal religious beliefs to control others is bad. Claiming that the "data" prove "my" religious belief system is right and "yours" is wrong is bad. Leveraging religious beliefs to marginalize the weak and afflicted is exceptionally bad. 

This has been my impression as well.  I can see him saying it’s wrong to use dogma to justify our choices in how we treat others…that’s a paraphrase, I doubt he would say it that way.  And I don’t remember him actually saying that, it’s a vibe for me at this point.

I should add it’s been probably a year or more since I watched his videos, but I used to watch him regularly.  Don’t know why I stopped.  Not hitting YouTube very often.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Eschaton said:

My guess is he means follow the data when it comes to data-driven fields like history or science. Faith isn't data driven, and Dan has never advocated against faith. 

Well stated, I agree.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Why, if he "has never advocated against faith," did he need to publicly declare that he is not an atheist?

Why do Latter-day Saints need to publicly declare we are Christians?

Because people infer all sorts of things when others don’t follow the same rules they do.  They often never question the assumptions they bring to the world, so others’ behaviour can only mean certain things to them.  And in Dan’s case, this often means they refuse to allow the possibility he has actual faith while approaching scripture publicly with academic methodology.

Edited 17 hours ago by Calm