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 October 14 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 October 14 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 October 14 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 October 14 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 October 15 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

[SeekingUnderstanding]

FWIW Dan explains why he is a full tithe payer:

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2026/10/20/why-i-tithe/

[smac97]

On 10/20/2026 at 9:34 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

FWIW Dan explains why he is a full tithe payer:

https://danielomcclellan.wordpress.com/2026/10/20/why-i-tithe/

Interesting stuff.  Thank you for sharing it.

Quote

I’ve gotten a number of messages in the past from people who have told me they support my work in principle, but know that to be an active member in good standing almost certainly means I am paying tithing, so they cannot purchase an online class of mine, or they can’t buy my book, or they can’t even contribute to the views my content gets on a specific platform because they will not fund, directly or indirectly, anti-LGBTQIA+ institutions. That’s totally fair and I have never had any complaints about that.

That's a delicate and well-stated position.  He is not saying the Church is an "anti-LGBTQIA+ institution," and is instead attributing that sentiment to others.

That said, elsewhere he refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” so, yeah.

Quote

I’m well aware of the debates that have been ongoing for years about the ethics of paying tithing to the LDS Church or even remaining a member of any standing, and I know there are thoughtful, insightful, and well-meaning folks on all sides of those debates.

That's a nice thought.  Would that he could extend it to other topics, such as elective abortion.  As it is, and based on his statements on this board, he seems unable or unwilling to grant that there are "thoughtful, insightful, and well-meaning folks on all sides of" that issue.

Quote

I’m certainly not going to fault or argue with anyone who is protecting their own peace or trying to better live up to their own moral intuitions by refusing to financially support the Church, by leaving, or even by advocating for others leaving. 

In a sense, I agree with him on this point.  In the end, we much each do what we think is right.

That said, Latter-day Saints who are "advocating for others" to leave the Church are being, well, subversive.

Quote

I grew up in a family that frequently went through financial struggles and instability, and I can recall a particularly acute period of financial stress after I graduated from high school and was living at home. My mom was a member of the Church at the time, and because of that, our family of seven had access to the Bishop’s Storehouse, meaning I got to know a lot of their food products intimately. I came to know and love their salsa and their granola cereal, and to tolerate or hate most of the rest of the stuff my mom would bring home. But when the need was there, the Church fed our struggling family. Tithing is one of the two main sources of funding for that program. I am not paying tithing because I think I need to pay the Church back, of course, but I have known many individuals and families over the years who—like my own family—have been able to keep adequate food on their tables because of the Bishop’s Storehouse, including members of marginalized and vulnerable groups, and I think that is a valuable program that merits support.

I agree with him on this point.

He goes on to endorse the use of tithing to support "initiatives the Church is involved in in developing nations around the world" and subsidizing education

Quote

Next, there are all different kinds of ways people can become entangled with the Church and its members, networks, institutions, and programs that are not visible or even relatable to folks in different corners of the internet. The same is true of a variety of different organizations and institutions that many of us patronize or engage to one degree or another every day that contribute to harm, including Google, AT&T, Amazon, Chevron, NBC, and many others. There are a wide variety of circumstances that may make it incredibly difficult for individuals and families to avoid or to sever such entanglements. ... {W}hat I’m trying to stress here is that people can be in all different kinds of circumstances that influence how they curate those entanglements, and I tend to find greater value in prioritizing harm reduction rather than binary purity tests for folks whose circumstances we just don’t know. The fact that someone chooses to continue to be an active participant in the Church is neither an endorsement of everything the Church does nor an indication they have not wrestled long and hard between the implications of those entanglements and what will be best for them and their families in their particular circumstances. 

Very sensible, this.  Particularly the bit about "binary purity tests."

Quote

The last thing I want to share has to do with my broader decision to remain an active member of the Church. The Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda has bothered me for more than 20 years, and in that time, I’ve tried my best to get better informed, to raise objections, and to spread awareness. This has brought me into direct personal contact with a wide variety of members, former members, and non-members who are queer, who are parents of queer kids and adults (living and dead), and who are LGBTQIA+ activists, artists, politicians, content creators, filmmakers, etc. I’ve been humbled by the courage, the strength, the thoughtfulness, and the compassion of these folks who have to live in a world they experience in a way that I never will. I’ve also been amazed by the diversity of their experiences and their ideas for the future.

I am curious what these "ideas for the future" involve relative to the Church.

Quote

While I frequently hear former members talk about their own need to leave the Church for their safety, their peace of mind, or any one of a number of other reasons, I’ve been surprised by how many current members have told me they intend to stay not only because it is just as much their community as anyone else’s and they want to try to effect whatever change they are able to from the inside, but also because they want to provide safe spaces for others, and particularly queer youth, whether closeted or otherwise, who do not have an alternative community or as much agency regarding their activity in the Church.

These folks stay because, in their view, the Church "is just as much their community as anyone else's."  I would like to better understand what this means.  Same goes for staying in the Church "to provide safe spaces for others."

"{A}nd they want to try to effect whatever change they are able to from the inside."  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt here.  For me, the fundamental reason I stay in the Church is because I believe it is what it claims to be.  That it also does all sorts of wonderful things to improve society is a natural and intrinsic "by their fruits"-style outgrowth of that fundamental reason.  I too want to effect positive change within the Church, but not in an adversarial or subversive or "loyal opposition" sort of way.  

Quote

I didn’t feel like that was my role for a long time, but I wanted to do my best to ensure I never made anyone else feel like I was not a safe person. As I have grown more outspoken within church settings about the harm facilitated by the Church, I’ve become aware of some folks around me who think of me as someone who will hold space for them. As one example, almost five years ago, after I started teaching Sunday school during the Old Testament year, I noticed a shift in who was attending the class. People I frequently didn’t see at church at all would be in my class (and some folks who were usually in class would now frequently have other places to be).

"{M}ore outspoken within church settings about the harm facilitated by the Church."  I would like to better understand what he means by this.  Because he correlates this outspokenness with people concluding he "will hold space for them," I more or less infer some things about that.

I am currently my ward's Sunday School teacher (one of them, I teach ever other week).  I have been in the ward a long time, so I think I'm a known quantity.  I would be troubled if I had said things or behaved in ways "within church settings" that would alienate people from attending Sunday School. 

Then again, I would be troubled-but-still-okay-with-it if I had this effect while teaching the doctrines of the Restored Gospel in a representative capacity for the Church, and not in my personal capacity.  There are, I think, instances in which Christ was not "safe," when He said things that people disliked, but which were nevertheless true and therefore needed to be said.  There are, then, instances in which Latter-day Saints, as disciples of Jesus Christ, will be required to say things that are true but unpopular.

The Rich Young Ruler listened and "went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions" (Matthew 19:22).  Jesus was not, it seems, "safe" in that instance. 

In John 6, Jesus preached the Bread of Life sermon, and "{f}rom that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him" (John 6:66).  Again, not "safe" (subjectively, anyway).

Christ's healing on the Sabbath and defending it (e.g., the man with the withered hand in Mark 3:1–6; the woman bent double in Luke 13:10–17; the man born blind in John 9). The response in Mark 3 is that the Pharisees immediately began plotting with the Herodians how to destroy Him.  Not "safe."

Driving out the money-changers and overturning tables in the Temple (Mark 11:15–18; John 2:13–22).  Not "safe."

Declaring “I and the Father are one” and accepting the charge of making himself equal with God (John 10:30–33; John 5:18). The response was an attempt to stone him for blasphemy.  Not "safe."

That what Jesus was doing was right was not, in the moment, as important as whether observers/listeners subjectively felt.  I have long had qualms with the concept of "safety" to the extent it is used in the context of "Person X saying something that I don't like or don't want to hear."  It excuses the listener from evaluating whether what Person X is saying is valid, and instead adjudicates Person X's message on its subjective and individualized impact.

I think the prophets and apostles have spent many years working very hard to be as kind and compassionate and accommodating as possible as to matters for which there is substantial social and political disagreement (re-defining marriage, the Law of Chastity, abortion, etc.).  But in the end, they are bound to teach and propound the revelations, some of which are not popular, and some of which can cause some to feel not "safe," or even feel resentments, even anger and hatred.

Life would be so much easier if the tension and pressures imposed on the Church and its members over these issues were eased.  No more ugly disparagements and slanders.  Estrangements and hard feelings, some of them, might begin to resolve.  I recognize that many things the Church of Jesus Christ teaches are difficult for its members and others to accept.  Perhaps this is why Christ said: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  Perhaps this is why He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  Christ also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."   Christ also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

I think that the Latter-day Saints are being called upon to live out-of-step with some of their neighbors on some issues, such issues pertaining to doctrines and beliefs regarding marriage and the Law of Chastity.  Affirming that God commands that sex be kept within the bounds of marriage between a husband and wife, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the marital union, is going to make some people - including some Latter-day Saints - not feel "safe" if they do not agree with those principles.  I think it is incumbent on the Latter-day Saints to discern the Lord's will and follow it, even if it means regularly getting raked across the proverbial coals for it.  Even if doing things like supporting and endorsing the Law of Chastity makes some others feel "not safe."  Christ had warnings for us along these lines.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."

I'd like to think that Dan believes that the Church is what it claims to be.  I really hope.

I'd like to think that Dan accepts the Law of Chastity and endorses it, and encourages others to live according to it, including its constraints against same-sex behavior.  But I don't think he does.

I'd like to think that Dan believes that marriage is between a man and a woman.  But I don't think he does.

I'd like to think that Dan believes that abortion, electively killing in utero babies, is a terrible thing.  But I don't think he does.

Dan acknowledges that the Church is doing a lot of good things, but he apparently does not include within those things (A) teachings about the Law of Chastity which contravene broad sociopolitical trends involving re-defining marriage and endorsing same-sex behavior, and (B) teachings against abortion.  To the contrary, it seems fairly clear that he is putting (A) and (B) into the following characterizations of the Church:

• He refers to “an institution that still harms marginalized, minoritized, and oppressed groups in a variety of ways.”
• He states: “This doesn’t remotely mean I am blind or in any way indifferent to the harm that the Church has done and continues to do with those dollars, and I have spoken out against that repeatedly and consistently in public and private for over 20 years now.”
• He writes: “I particularly abhor the more recent contributions and messaging the Church has made to oppose a citizen-led ballot measure aimed at legislating reproductive freedom in Idaho.”
• He refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” which “has bothered me for more than 20 years.”
• He speaks of “the harm facilitated by the Church.”
• He describes people “who are in the crosshairs of the Church’s oppressive heteronormativity and misogyny.”

I could see some difficulty in ward members being aware of what Dan has said publicly about the Church, and then attend Sunday School and have him teach lessons in a representative capacity on behalf of the Church he so regularly publicly disparages.

Quote

I mentioned it to someone at one point, and they told me they were folks who normally didn’t feel comfortable or even safe in the classroom who wanted to attend on the days I was teaching and knew that it would be a safe space for them. I think about that from time to time, as well as a couple instances where folks have confided in me that I’ve helped them to overcome some their own prejudices. These are obviously not things I can share without coming across as having some kind of savior complex, and no doubt many are convinced that’s precisely my rhetorical goal, but the point really is to share experiences that I’ve had that lead me to feel like my activity and even my former employment in the Church have made things better for some of the people around me whose names and faces I know who are in the crosshairs of the Church’s oppressive heteronormativity and misogyny. That has been a factor in my decision to pay tithing: knowing that I can utilize my presence in the Church and my growing platform for the benefit of those inside and outside the institution.

"I can utilize my presence in the Church and my growing platform for the benefit of those inside and outside the institution."

I would hope he could also use his "growing platform" to benefit . . . the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 22 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That said, elsewhere he refers to “the Church’s anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda,” so, yeah.

You don’t think their approach to same sex marriage, including political involvement qualifies as antiLGBT+ agenda (I am not condemning that behavior even if at this time I see issues with it because I find the arguments against it poorly constructed, I am open to  it has been revealed that God knows something we don’t and that same sex relationships are somehow inherently detrimental to those who participate in them; I am also open to it being similar to the Priesthood Ban where the evidence we now have demonstrates pretty clearly the origin was not revelation, but cultural beliefs imported in)?

There are some aspects of the anti-abortion agenda I strongly applaud.  Anti-abortion is not seen as a negative term by those who are anti-abortion.  If it’s a problem with implying it’s against people rather than relationships, are you okay with describing the Church as having an anti same sex/transgender behaviour agenda?

Edited 21 hours ago by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

These folks stay because, in their view, the Church "is just as much their community as anyone else's."  I would like to better understand what this means.

It has been documented that a high percentage of members are Republicans and/or conservative.  I haven’t experienced at church the sense that I am required in some members’ view to toe the line of conservative thought because I am a member, but I have certainly experienced it outside the Church in family gatherings (vast majority are LDS) and among my LDS friends.  

I can understand how some non strong conservatives might feel like they are not seen as proper members of the faith community by those who phrase such things as “you can’t be a good member and be pro choice”.  But the Church does not require such rigid membership standards and accepts a very wide range of political positions among its members.  In some places, conservatives are not even the most numerous in a congregation (easier to experience outside of the US I believe, was for me).

I have also experienced, though in far fewer encounters, that type of push from a liberal position (not in the Church community), so not saying this behaviour is unique to religion or even more common among conservatives than liberals.  I do find liberals typically more varied and less centralized, so to speak, in the US, so that might affect the frequency.  Don’t know.  
 

And for myself, there are several things about the general church culture I would love to see change and I do what I can to promote such change.  This does not me I have any inclination to dictate to leadership what the Church’s positions should be.  Mostly it means I act in the way I believe we should be acting and if misinformation comes up, I find opportunities to correct such.  Mostly this has been in context of trashing other faiths, on a few occasion it was racist comments by kids.

I can see someone believing that their faith community should better reflect what they see as discipleship of Christ, especially if it is declared the best way to follow Christ is found within their faith.  An LDS member may believe the Church’s ordinances, etc are valid, but also believe the primary purpose of the Church is to be the primary example of discipleship of Christ in the world.  And they don’t find such yet in the Church.  Doesn’t mean they don’t applaud many of the things the Church does, just that they see certain aspects as inconsistent.*** It wouldn’t surprise me if many members struggle with the financial side of church operations or believe it should be more politically active to promote laws that will better contribute to what they see as a Zion community (not using Christian here because that implies Christian dominance and while some members who want the Church to be more politically active in my experience definitely want Christian dominance, others are thinking more in terms of how Christ told us to treat each others…which is what Zion means to me).

***basing this on what I have read in both liberal and conservative online LDS communities as well as personal experiences.  There are areas I would like to see the Church more proactive in, but I also know actually effecting positive change in behavior is extremely complicated and too often what we see as common sense approaches have the opposite of the intended effect.  I don’t have the information church leadership does, so I don’t know if they are basing their behaviour on tradition, inspiration, and/or informed wisdom.  Very willing to give the benefit of the doubt in these cases given the level of fantastic stuff I see happening and because of how well the Church has nurtured my faith in God over the years even if I get frustrated at times.

Edited 20 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

You don’t think their approach to same sex marriage,

"their"?

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

including political involvement qualifies as antiLGBT+ agenda (I am not condemning that behavior even if at this time I see issues with it because I find the arguments against it poorly constructed, I am open to  it has been revealed that God knows something we don’t and that same sex relationships are somehow inherently detrimental to those who participate in them; I am also open to it being similar to the Priesthood Ban where the evidence we now have demonstrates pretty clearly the origin was not revelation, but cultural beliefs imported in)?

No.  The Church has publicly supported legal mechanisms to protect gay rights as to housing and employment and such.  Pres. Oaks publicly spoke against a Kentucky county official who announced she would not issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  The Church has specifically and emphatically and publicly spoken against any mistreatment of any person on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Church and some in the LGBT community have divergent and incompatible ideas on some issues.  The LGBT "community," to the extent it exists, is not "anti-Mormon" because of that disagreement.  I think the same should be said in the reverse.

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are some aspects of the anti-abortion agenda I strongly applaud.  

Most people, in the end, favor some constraints on abortion.  That said, I'm not sure the Church has an "agenda" about it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

That what Jesus was doing was right was not, in the moment, as important as whether observers/listeners subjectively felt.

“Not”?

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

“their"?

Church leadership