Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Like calling someone a lying subversive wolf in sheep’s clothing?

Yes.

Not sure I have accused him of lying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 09:01 PM by smac97

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure I have accused him of lying.

When you accuse him of being subversive about faith, etc over and over again and post a definition of “tending or intending to subvert, overthrow, destroy, or undermine an establishedsystem, government, authority, institution, or set of beliefs"” when he has said he’s not out to destroy anyone’s belief, that seems a pretty clear accusation of lying to me.

Edited Wednesday at 09:15 PM by Calm

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

When you accuse him of being subversive about faith, etc over and over again and post a definition of “tending or intending to subvert, overthrow, destroy, or undermine an establishedsystem, government, authority, institution, or set of beliefs"” when he has said he’s not out to destroy anyone’s belief, that seems a pretty clear accusation of lying to me.

Not to me.  But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

From knowing his posting style, I suspect he is using “offering reasons” in the sense that people can find reasons by themselves to stay or leave.  Perhaps one of his explanations leads them to see the Church claims as unsupported or another finds his approach as informing their faith, giving them more reasons to study scripture and seek God (my own reaction).

Immediately before the disputed "sweet spot" statement, Dan describes having both supporters and detractors across the religious spectrum. He then explains that he is putting data out there and that people will interpret it in different ways. 

That context supports a reading in which he sees his role as providing evidence without dictating what conclusions people must draw from it.

But smac is not unreasonable to focus on the words "doing something right." Those words express a favorable assessment of his position. The question in my mind, however, is what he (Dan) thinks he's doing right.

There are at least two plausible interpretations:
- The charitable interpretation: He's doing something right because he is presenting evidence consistently, without tailoring his conclusions to satisfy either religious believers or skeptics.
- The critical interpretation: He's doing something right because his work supplies arguments that help people justify either maintaining or abandoning religious faith, and he considers both outcomes desirable.

I don't think the quote alone can definitively establish which interpretation he intended. His accompanying explanation about presenting data and allowing people to interpret it supports the first, although it doesn't completely eliminate the second.

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

There are at least two plausible interpretations:
- The charitable interpretation: He's doing something right because he is presenting evidence consistently, without tailoring his conclusions to satisfy either religious believers or skeptics.
- The critical interpretation: He's doing something right because his work supplies arguments that help people justify either maintaining or abandoning religious faith, and he considers both outcomes desirable.

I think it’s more “the most consistent with the rest of his comments and behaviour, past and present, interpretation” and “the cherry picking, taken out of context interpretation” myself to be blunt.

Edited Wednesday at 09:43 PM by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.

Not sure I have accused him of lying.

Thanks,

-Smac

Wolf in sheep’s clothing is inherently lying. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Not to me.  But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Most of the time I can see others’ POV, even the times I don’t think it’s reasonable.  But not seeing it at all here.  You defined “subversion” as destroying and he said he wasn’t destroying.  How is that not lying in your view?

Edited Wednesday at 10:54 PM by Calm

[california boy]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't.  I've been coming here for 20+ years in large part to listen and talk to people who do not share, or are even critical and/or hostile to, my faith.

It would be nice if you stuck to telling me what your thoughts are, rather than mischaracterizing mine.

I have no real qualms with Dan's social media contact on biblical scholarship as such, or with his refusal to share his personal beliefs.  Rather, I have qualms with what I see to be subversive efforts against the Church.

Not really.  Conclusory pronouncements about "the data" and the Book of Mormon are not "scholarly" in any real sense.

It would be nice if you stuck to telling me what your thoughts are, rather than mischaracterizing mine.

I would prefer that he not subvert the efforts of the Church.  I'll own that.  At least not while he is a Latter-day Saint.  He certainly has the right to do that, though.

Actually, it's mostly the stuff outside the parameters of Dan's "job" that I find problematic.  I mostly value his comments on biblical scholarship.

Thanks,

-Smac

I was commenting on your call to have Dan excommunicated because you think he is subverting members and is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Dan's job is not to tell faith based stories, but rather to give insight, context, understanding of biblical times and how scholars view the origins of the BoM.  Others, such as church leaders have a job of making the origins of the BoM faith based and ignore all the data that Dan brings up.  

I don't think his job is to pick and choose what you want to hear him say because you find his data does and a scholarly evaluation does not support the faith based viewpoint you have or of the Church.  

Those were my thoughts.  You just don't like them for some reason.

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

I was commenting on your call to have Dan excommunicated because you think he is subverting members and is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  Dan's job is not to tell faith based stories, but rather to give insight, context, understanding of biblical times and how scholars view the origins of the BoM.  Others, such as church leaders have a job of making the origins of the BoM faith based and ignore all the data that Dan brings up.  

I don't think his job is to pick and choose what you want to hear him say because you find his data does and a scholarly evaluation does not support the faith based viewpoint you have or of the Church.  

Those were my thoughts.  You just don't like them for some reason.

Quite a few loaded statements here.

I hope you stop torturing puppies for fun and profit.  Those are my thoughts.  You just don't like them for some reason.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Thursday at 05:55 PM by smac97

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quite a few loaded statements here.

I hope you stop torturing puppies for fun and profit.  Those are my thoughts.  You just don't like them for some reason.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

The puppies are imaginary.  Dan is a real person that you seem to feel it is your duty to go after for subversion and being a wolf in sheep's clothing.  You liken him to others who have been excommunicated by the Church for subversion all because he uses his scholarly approach to questions about the scriptures.  

I'm simply pointing out that if you are looking for faith, visions, the supernatural, you should stick to General Conference and the carefully collated lesson manuals the Church puts out.  For those that are interested in a more scholarly nuanced understanding of the scriptures, then Dan may help with that.  If you don't like what he writes, then look elsewhere to find someone that already agrees with you.  No need to call him names and attempt to rally support in his ousting from the Church.  If that is not your intent, what is the reason you feel the need to attack Dan and his methods?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

The puppies are imaginary.  

Yes.  The unspoken premise - that you torture puppies for fun and profit - is false and imaginary, but I smuggled it in.

So it is with you various statements and their false and imaginary unspoken premises.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Dan is a real person that you seem to feel it is your duty to go after for subversion and being a wolf in sheep's clothing.  You liken him to others who have been excommunicated by the Church for subversion all because he uses his scholarly approach to questions about the scriptures.  

No, that is not my position.  At all.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I'm simply pointing out that if you are looking for faith, visions, the supernatural, you should stick to General Conference and the carefully collated lesson manuals the Church puts out.  

And I'm simply pointing out that you should stop torturing puppies for fun and profit.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

For those that are interested in a more scholarly nuanced understanding of the scriptures, then Dan may help with that.  If you don't like what he writes, then look elsewhere to find someone that already agrees with you.  

You are free to disregard my posts.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

No need to call him names and attempt to rally support in his ousting from the Church.  

There is also no need for you to continue to torture puppies, and yet here we are.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If that is not your intent, what is the reason you feel the need to attack Dan and his methods?

Again: I still watch some of Dan's content, but his social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience.  That is sort of the risk you take when you make yourself a social media content creator.  Clicks count.  Edgy and provocative stuff gets clicks.

I have also pointed to his statements to Dehlin and Rogan and elsewhere, and explained at length why I find them problematic.

I have also said that I am reconsidering my assessment.

I find it interesting that you are coming to the Dan's defense as regarding his devotion to the truth claims of the Church.  If he really does believe in the tenets of our faith, it would be odd to see you white knight for him.

Alternatively, if he is instead subversive in his intent (that is, we assume the worst about his comments re: "offering ... reasons for people {that is, Latter-day Saints} to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and calling this a "sweet spot" and indicative that he is "doing something right," and his appreciation for compliments from the most prominent anti-Mormon alive, who is "cheering" him on), then I could certainly understand why folks like you and SU would - like Dehlin - be happy about "cheering" him on.

That said, I am reconsidering my assessment.  Again, from a previous post:

Quote

Quote

Yeah, only to someone who wants to see it that way.  

You might be right.  My personal interactions with Dan were really quite unpleasant and offputting, so perhaps personality conflicts have unduly affected my assessment of him.  Baseless and inflammatory accusations from online strangers from the likes of anonymous posters like some on this board are standard fare for online discussions, but I guess I expect more from a scholar of Dan's stature.  I also find fair portions of his social media content to be grating insofar as he mixes personal invective and dunking and ridicule into his commentary on biblical scholarship.

Nevertheless, you've made some solid points.  Thank you for your input.

Thanks,

-Smac