Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

If you are going to simultaneously praise Jacob Hansen (as you've done elsewhere in this thread) for being thorough and well reasoned

Jacob Hansen professes to be a Latter-day Saint devoted to his faith.  And I think he is well versed in his familiarity with the doctrines and history. And I think he cares a lot about the Latter-day Saints and the institutional Church.  In the end, he is sharing his perspective on the Church, and defending it.  When I listen to Jacob's content, he is clear about his faith and his perspective.  Is he looking for clicks?  Yes.  Garnering attention is the name of the game.  I don't fault him for that, particularly since I think Jacob's content is not only "thorough and well reasoned," it is decorous.  His splashes don't have the increasingly hammy/mugging flavor I'm seeing in Dan's channel.  But even more important than that, he is civil in his disagreements.  Take a look at this:

I asked Grok to sum up the taunts and insults the pastor dished out, and the same for Jacob:

Quote

Pastor (Aaron Simpson) to Jacob / LDS position

• “Men who are above reproach don’t start fake banks and rob people of hundreds of thousands. Men who are above reproach don’t rape 14-year-old girls. And yes, if Joseph Smith was alive in the Old Testament, it would have been glorious and beautiful to beat him to death with rocks.” (2:10–2:31)
• Calls Joseph Smith’s teachings “a demonic lie.” (3:13)
• “Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.” (4:48)
• “You’re saying the approved line that gets people to nod their head, but it doesn’t actually mean anything.” (5:05)
• “Because he was a false prophet liar.” (5:21)
• “That’s the dumbest analogy I’ve ever seen. Like seriously, you look like a little kid.” (5:26–5:35)
• “Man, you’re a jerk sometimes.” (12:43–12:50)
• “You don’t have a glorified body. That receding hairline says you don’t have a glorified body right now.” (13:16–13:22)
• Continues the hairline/“Buddha bald” taunt. (13:29–13:40)
• “What you’ve been told to do is magic underwear… not drinking coffee.” (14:31–14:41)
• “Gosh, are you a 5-year-old?” (15:09)
• “This just explains your ignorance.” (15:16–15:24)
• “You earned that jerk thing earlier.” (16:30)
• “You have a dead nature in sin, which is why you believe a false prophet and follow an idol… You were to die today, you would rightly and justly go to hell.” (21:44–22:00)
• “Joseph Smith preaches a false god because he is a con man pedophile thief.” (25:02–25:10)
• “God hates you… by spreading the false gospel of Mormonism.” (25:41–25:51)
• “If you were to die, you would be part of the enemies that would be under Christ as his footstool. You would glorify him in your eternal suffering.” (27:18–27:26)
• “Not only a victim of the lies of Joseph Smith, you are also an accomplice… you offer men sinfully the same things Satan did.” (27:35–27:48)

Jacob to the pastor

• Repeatedly calls the Trinity language meaningless or like “a square triangle.” (4:42, 14:09–14:25, and surrounding exchanges)
• “Man, you’re a jerk sometimes.” (in context of interruptions, ~12:43)
• “I think you know that what you are saying is reprehensible.” (31:28)
• Characterizes the pastor’s theology as the “fruits of the creedal tradition” that produces a God who will “burn me to hell forever” and contrasts it with a loving God (closing section, ~28:46–32:02)

The pastor’s remarks are predominantly personal (appearance, character, eternal damnation, accusations of following a “pedophile” and “thief,” calling Jacob a kid/jerk/5-year-old, saying God hates him). Jacob’s are mostly attacks on the coherence of the Trinity language and the implications of the pastor’s soteriology, with one “jerk” comment and one “reprehensible” characterization.

Jacob sticks to the argument and the facts, (substantially) avoids ad hominem and insults and putdowns.  I was impressed by and proud of his behavior.

In contrast, I was pretty disappointed by and unimpressed with the pastor.  

Of the two participants in the above video, I think Dan hews substantially more toward the pastor's behavior.  Free with personal taunts and insults.  He regularly dunks on amateurs, and then adds taunts and insults to finish up.  He imputes terrible motives onto the people he is critiquing, and then attacks them for it.

 

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

and criticize Dan for appealing to clicks, I suggest you need to look at more of Hansen's content, especially on Twitter/X. Hansen is orders of magnitude more guilty of the aforementioned "sins" than Dan, IMO.

I'm not on X much, but I'll give it a go: 

From October 23:

Quote

The trouble with Dan is that he is sometimes wildly wrong.

But he is often spot on. 

This is the latter.

October 19:

Quote

Yet the Catholic Church is dogmatic in its theology.

Also October 19:

Quote

Oof. This is an infallible declaration of the Catholic Church. 

Do you all really believe this?

—————

The Council of Florence In Cantate Domino (1442), the council declared:
"All those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives."

October 16:

Quote

Rule number 1- find people in the other religions in secondary education who are part of the blue church and don’t really care very much about the dogmas of their faith but prioritize left wing social activism. 

Rule number 2- Publicly dunk on James White because his theology is nuts and he is not in the blue church.

October 13:

Quote

THEY did not have a baby. They purchased sperm from a man and then got one of them pregnant and now are robbing a child of a life with their father. 

Children are entitled to be raised by a mother and father who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

October 13:

Quote

“We abandoned our covenants with Jesus Christ and decided to deprive a child of having a father and we are the good guys in the story” 

October 12:

Quote

So you are a Latter-day Saint… if you “identify as” a Latter-day Saint.

That’s it? 

Huh…

October 12:

Quote

Wut…

Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say."

October 11:

Quote

Dan was talking about me today but apparently he does not want me to respond.

Dan you are welcome on my channel anytime. I would be happy to discuss your perspective and work through out different opinions.

October 10:

Quote

I mean…

Exmo subreddit literally proving @ThoughtfulSaint correct lol

“It’s a good thing Dan stays a Mormon so he can bring more people out of this cult”

Sounds like some ExMos have looked at what Dan is saying and think his staying in the Church is "so he can bring more people out" of it.

Boy, ExMo Reddit threads discussing Dan are . . . illuminating.  They seem to have drawn conclusions about Dan and the Church.  These are the impressions Dan is giving former Latter-day Saints:

• I still don’t think it is possible to do what Dan does in public and answer these questions with his priesthood leaders honestly.
• I believe that since he views all religion as nothing more than a cognitive tool humans developed since the beginning of time, he has no problem participating in the religion from that point of view.
• I listened to his mormon stories interview and concluded that he probably doesn't believe the church is true.
• I genuinely believe he views it as a social club (because in reality that's what it is). So he treats it like a social club.
• I don't think Dan has come out directly and talked about his current beliefs, but it's probably safe to say he doesn't literally believe Mormon truth claims. He could be in the church for social and cultural reasons.
• My guess is that he’s a nonbeliever.
• Whatever funny business he's doing to remain in good standing as a Mormon is, in my view, a heroic act of interfaith dialogue that is maybe a little tricky, but is fundamentally about catching bad faith indoctrination in a meaningful way. I don't care how he justifies it to himself or his church. He's doing the No-Lords work so much better than any millennial atheist icon ever did. 
• I think it’s pretty straightforward, he is a cultural Mormon. He claims to be a theist - but it’s clear he doesn’t believe in Mormonism.
• If you listen to him. He uses his education and platform to discredit Monotheism and Christianity as well as the Bible. 
• He has been clear many times that he doesn't hold to a literal belief in the truth claims nor doctrine of Mormonism. It is essentially his cultural/social structure.
• I believe he knows the church is not true. I think he figured out that he is able to help the most misguided church members by staying in the church on paper...
• I assumed he was ex Mormon. I was shocked when I found out he wasn't
• I would be VERY surprised to learn he wasnt PIMO. I just cant fathom he actually beleives in the church...
• He walks a line so thin that both sides like him. I admire that. But as a Exmormon he has the knowledge to directly show the church is false.

Anyway, back to Jacob: His X channel going back several weeks does not contain the same sort of dunking-on-amateurs and gratuitous digs and insults that I have seen in Dan's content.  Perhaps a sampling error.  I'll keep looking.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So you want

Your summaries and paraphrases of my ideas are almost always inaccurate, substantially so.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

things to exist in a kind of limbo where textual criticism and historical study can be dismissed when it is problematic but brought in when you find it valuable but spiritual/ecstatic experiences overrule everything. Heads I win, tails you lose.

No.

When I need to nail a nail into a piece of wood, I just a hammer, not a saw.  When I want to cut a piece of wood, I use a saw, not a hammer.

The scientific method and standard historiographical methods are all quite good and useful in their sphere, but they are not the only tools available.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I assume this is some deep moral cost and that it somehow discredits Dan somehow.

No.  I do look at this, though:

Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say."

This, we are told, is "data > dogma."

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The law and our justice system is, in many ways, deeply absurd.

Okay.  It certainly has its flaws, but it's the best system, or one of the best, devised so far.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The best lawyers I associate with know and understand this so I don’t put a lot of credit into your ‘I am big serious man discussing important things reclining in my chair in my smoking jacket while toying with my monocle’ bit.

I'm skeptical that the lawyers you know would disagree with my characterization of how court proceedings and briefs are in terms of tone and decorum.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You’re wrong. His approach hasn’t changed much at all. You just dislike him more because he is saying things that are factually correct that you do not like.

I think his approach has changed a lot.

I think he likes to use his "I'm a scholar" bona fides to bolster and lend undo credence and probative weight to issues about which reasonable minds can disagree.

But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.  Please provide some "factually correct" things he has said which I do not like.

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dan is taken seriously as a scholar.

I acknowledge that.  I take him serious as a scholar.

I take him less seriously when he makes forays outside of his realm of expertise.

I also take him less seriously given his, shall we say, inconsistent application of "data > dogma."

I also take him less seriously when he dunks on amateurs and resorts to snipes and digs, as this materially detracts from what I thought he was positioning himself to do, which was to thoughtfully distill and present the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience.  He does that still, which is why I pay attention to him.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think so.  Serious topics deserve serious discussion.

I'm sorry to hear that.  I have attended dozens of depositions, and conducted many of them.  While I have seen tense moments, I haven't seen any attorney misconduct, and incivilities are measures (no shouting, etc.).

Depositions are a tough thing to the extent there is no referee - the judge - to step in and stop problems.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

2 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’m interested in understanding your experience.  Are you an attorney or were you the deponent?
 

I’ve taken hundreds of depositions and defended hundreds more.  While attorneys may occasionally engage in spirited debate among themselves during depositions, I don’t remember ever seeing a deponent being mistreated.  I certainly would never have let my client be mistreated by opposing counsel in a deposition.  
 

Nor would I have allowed mistreatment of a proposed expert witness for my client during their deposition.  That said, I have seen a few expert witnesses become frustrated, occasionally bordering on indignation, when an attorney digs into the basis of their opinions during a deposition.  That digging is done both to test the validity of the expert’s opinion and to determine how effective the expert would be on the witness stand at trial.

Good expert witnesses are accustomed to, and unfazed by, opposing counsel putting their opinions under a microscope.

I have testified 81 times as an expert. Most of the attorneys behave professionally. There are numerous instances in which I have had to endure personal attacks. I have to take it while remaining calm and composed; and for the most part I have. I have been yelled at. I have been impugned both verbally and in motions in limine. I have been lied about and misrepresented on many, many occasions. Spare me the notion that ALL attorneys behave ethically; it simply is not the case.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree about Dan and thanks for the mention…Will check Janega out.  Always looking for scholars with wit.

Most of her stuff is video and podcasts now. She doesn’t use her blog much but it is some of her best work:

https://going-medieval.com

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your summaries and paraphrases of my ideas are almost always inaccurate, substantially so.

No.

When I need to nail a nail into a piece of wood, I just a hammer, not a saw.  When I want to cut a piece of wood, I use a saw, not a hammer.

The scientific method and standard historiographical methods are all quite good and useful in their sphere, but they are not the only tools available.

No.  I do look at this, though:

Dan McClellan: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say."

This, we are told, is "data > dogma."

I am 99% sure I know exactly what he is talking about. Note the ultra-specific word choice. He refuses to say Jesus is a failed prophet but is perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet. In other words whomever wrote the gospel got it wrong. Jesus did give prophecies that didn’t happen.

Three of the gospels have Jesus promising the end of days before “this generation” is gone. It didn’t happen. This isn’t as controversial or as blasphemous a statement as you want to make it be.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  It certainly has its flaws, but it's the best system, or one of the best, devised so far.

I'm skeptical that the lawyers you know would disagree with my characterization of how court proceedings and briefs are in terms of tone and decorum.

LOL, no.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think his approach has changed a lot.

You are wrong.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think he likes to use his "I'm a scholar" bona fides to bolster and lend undo credence and probative weight to issues about which reasonable minds can disagree.

In general Dan presents the scholarly consensus on the texts and is not holding up his scholarly credentials and going out on a limb. When he is speaking for a minority view he makes that clear. So no, you are misrepresenting how he communicates.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

But I'm willing to listen to what you have to say.  Please provide some "factually correct" things he has said which I do not like.

Enjoy:

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I acknowledge that.  I take him serious as a scholar.

I take him less seriously when he makes forays outside of his realm of expertise.

I am not convinced you are capable of competently distinguishing between the two. You can’t even communicate the things he says and represents correctly and are trying to drag him through the mud based on your ‘vibes’ of what you imagine he is trying to do.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also take him less seriously given his, shall we say, inconsistent application of "data > dogma."

You are such a petty little man.

Also CFR

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also take him less seriously when he dunks on amateurs and resorts to snipes and digs, as this materially detracts from what I thought he was positioning himself to do, which was to thoughtfully distill and present the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience.  He does that still, which is why I pay attention to him.  

He dunks on amateurs because those amateurs are spreading disinformation. He also dunks on professionals that are spreading misinformation. Equal opportunity dunker.

Dan is educational and kind when dealing with good faith questions. He can be ruthless at exposing bad scholarship. Both are good. And it doesn’t detract from what he is doing. It is part of why so many from all kinds of faith traditions like him. He shares the truth about the text and what the author was most likely trying to communicate whether Dan likes what the text is saying or not. Dan doesn’t like the anti-gay stuff. He really doesn’t like all the pro-slavery stuff in the Bible but he is ruthless about those that try to downplay it or minimize it. It is there.

You are tied heavily to your dogma. Dan tends to really tick off people who prioritize their dogmas over the data about the actual text. Hence why he irks you. He shares the best data the experts have put together.

[bluebell]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dan tends to really tick off people who prioritize their dogmas over the data about the actual text. Hence why he irks you. He shares the best data the experts have put together.

Dan irks me on occasion as well, and I don't think it's because I have prioritized dogma over data.  I think sometimes his online persona just annoys me that day for whatever reason.  His videos are sometimes performative--which is not at all an insult, they need to be and they should be if he's going to find any success on social media--and his way of performing is not always my cup of tea or what I find useful.  Again, not an insult because my feelings are not the standard for what actually is useful, even if my feelings on what I find useful are completely valid.

Dan probably makes missteps as much as the next scholar and I don't think there's any harm in a respectful discussion on his public posts or videos where people disagree about his affectiveness or even discuss how his public views mesh with church teachings.  I'm guessing that kind of stuff doesn't bother Dan at all or he wouldn't be so public.

Smac and I differ because he tends to moralize his disagreements with people (as in, if someone doesn't say what he thinks they should say or believe what he thinks they should believe then he often implies that it's some kind of moral failure on their part) and I don't often think that is an accurate route to go.  I don't believe that Dan is doing anything immoral in the way that he presents data or shows up online but I think that it's valid to discuss his impact on people's faith and I also think that it's valid for Smac to believe that Dan is doing more harm than good, even if I disagree with Smac on that.  I've seen other very nuanced public latter-day saint "influencers" who are not at all dogmatic who have also had fair criticisms of Dan.  

Disagreeing with the way Dan does stuff is not a sign that someone doesn't like the best data that experts have put together.  

[The Nehor]

For those curious here is Dan recently in educator mode answering good-faith questions:

 

[MustardSeed]

He’s easy to watch for me. Interesting- 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For those curious here is Dan recently in educator mode answering good-faith questions:

 

Thanks

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

For those curious here is Dan recently in educator mode answering good-faith questions:

 

I really enjoy these kinds of videos from him.  

[smac97]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am 99% sure I know exactly what he is talking about. Note the ultra-specific word choice. He refuses to say Jesus is a failed prophet but is perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet. In other words whomever wrote the gospel got it wrong. Jesus did give prophecies that didn’t happen.

Three of the gospels have Jesus promising the end of days before “this generation” is gone. It didn’t happen. This isn’t as controversial or as blasphemous a statement as you want to make it be.

Under methodological naturalism, the method "brackets" religious truth claims, supernatural causation and divine knowledge. An apocalyptic announcement that the kingdom would arrive imminently is therefore evaluated by whether the predicted transformation of the present age is visible in the subsequent historical record. When scholars conclude it is not, they can report that the expectation was unfulfilled by ordinary historical standards. That is a descriptive claim about the fit between the reconstructed proclamation and later events.

Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” however, adds a normative judgment. It presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. Historical scholarship can say “the prediction as reconstructed does not match the subsequent course of events under naturalistic assumptions.” It cannot, without stepping outside its own rules, declare that the speaker was therefore religiously false or that no divine action occurred.

Dan’s statement collapses that distinction. By moving directly from a historical assessment of unfulfilled expectation to the label “false prophet,” the claim functions as a religious evaluation presented in the language of data-driven scholarship. The method can support the first step; the second step is a value judgment that the method is not equipped to authorize.

Dan’s videos and posts seem to regularly select the most stark, counter-intuitive formulation available under critical scholarship (“the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet,” “the data do not support the resurrection,” “Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not Jesus”) and present it as the straightforward result of “the data.” The wording is precise enough to be defensible inside the guild—where everyone already understands the methodological naturalism and the limited scope of historical claims—yet blunt enough to land as a religious verdict for a general audience.

The equivocation is useful. “False prophet” can mean either (a) a historical figure whose reconstructed predictions did not materialize under ordinary standards or (b) a religiously unauthorized or demonic deceiver. By refusing to flag which sense is in play, or to note that the second sense lies outside the method, the statement generates maximum friction with confessional viewers while remaining technically retractable as “just scholarship.” 

Whether the motive is primarily pedagogical provocation, audience growth, or both, the rhetorical effect is the same: a value-laden label is delivered as if it were a neutral empirical finding, producing the controversy that keeps the content circulating.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Dan is educational and kind when dealing with good faith questions.

Perhaps at times.  He often comes across and pretty mean-spirited when addressing people whose sociopolitical worldview varies from his.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

He can be ruthless at exposing bad scholarship.

I appreciate his addressing "bad scholarship."  

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And it doesn’t detract from what he is doing.

I think some of his social media antics are detracting from him as a scholar.

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You are tied heavily to your dogma.

I don't think that is correct.

In Latter-day Saint usage, the Restored Gospel is structured around continuing revelation rather than a closed, fixed body of propositions. Living prophets and apostles can receive and declare new revelation; the canon is open; and doctrine is understood to be clarified or expanded “line upon line” as circumstances and understanding change. Personal revelation and individual agency are also treated as operative, so members are expected to seek confirmation rather than simply assent to a finished creed.

“Dogma,” in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation, does not sit easily with that framework. Early Latter-day Saint leaders explicitly rejected creedal formulations as incomplete or corrupted, and the Church’s institutional practice has been to treat official teachings as binding for the present while remaining subject to additional light. The result is a system that claims revelatory authority but resists the idea of a permanently closed doctrinal deposit.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Under methodological naturalism, the method "brackets" religious truth claims, supernatural causation and divine knowledge. An apocalyptic announcement that the kingdom would arrive imminently is therefore evaluated by whether the predicted transformation of the present age is visible in the subsequent historical record. When scholars conclude it is not, they can report that the expectation was unfulfilled by ordinary historical standards. That is a descriptive claim about the fit between the reconstructed proclamation and later events.

Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” however, adds a normative judgment. It presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. Historical scholarship can say “the prediction as reconstructed does not match the subsequent course of events under naturalistic assumptions.” It cannot, without stepping outside its own rules, declare that the speaker was therefore religiously false or that no divine action occurred.

Dan’s statement collapses that distinction. By moving directly from a historical assessment of unfulfilled expectation to the label “false prophet,” the claim functions as a religious evaluation presented in the language of data-driven scholarship. The method can support the first step; the second step is a value judgment that the method is not equipped to authorize.

Dan’s videos and posts seem to regularly select the most stark, counter-intuitive formulation available under critical scholarship (“the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet,” “the data do not support the resurrection,” “Isaiah 53 is about Israel, not Jesus”) and present it as the straightforward result of “the data.” The wording is precise enough to be defensible inside the guild—where everyone already understands the methodological naturalism and the limited scope of historical claims—yet blunt enough to land as a religious verdict for a general audience.

The equivocation is useful. “False prophet” can mean either (a) a historical figure whose reconstructed predictions did not materialize under ordinary standards or (b) a religiously unauthorized or demonic deceiver. By refusing to flag which sense is in play, or to note that the second sense lies outside the method, the statement generates maximum friction with confessional viewers while remaining technically retractable as “just scholarship.” 

Whether the motive is primarily pedagogical provocation, audience growth, or both, the rhetorical effect is the same: a value-laden label is delivered as if it were a neutral empirical finding, producing the controversy that keeps the content circulating.

That is a lot of nonsense over why saying Jesus reportedly said that a certain thing would happen within a specific timeframe and it didn’t happen so Jesus was wrong is somehow ultra-complicated and there is a distinction between Jesus being wrong when his prophecy failed and being called a false prophet.

Endless special pleading.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps at times.  He often comes across and pretty mean-spirited when addressing people whose sociopolitical worldview varies from his.

Yeah, he hates fascists. This offends you for some reason.

I miss the days when I was younger where being opposed to fascist was a normal baseline. Alas that these evil days should be mine.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I appreciate his addressing "bad scholarship."  

No you don’t.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think some of his social media antics are detracting from him as a scholar.

You want him to shut up about a lot of things that you find damaging to many church dogmas but are also worried about his credibility? You do this while writing up long pieces of word salad about how he is a bad scholar. Yet you worry that he isn’t showing enough decorum and that might detract from his message. Right….sure…..yeah, I believe you. 

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think that is correct.

And that is why you fail.

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In Latter-day Saint usage, the Restored Gospel is structured around continuing revelation rather than a closed, fixed body of propositions. Living prophets and apostles can receive and declare new revelation; the canon is open; and doctrine is understood to be clarified or expanded “line upon line” as circumstances and understanding change. Personal revelation and individual agency are also treated as operative, so members are expected to seek confirmation rather than simply assent to a finished creed.

“Dogma,” in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation, does not sit easily with that framework. Early Latter-day Saint leaders explicitly rejected creedal formulations as incomplete or corrupted, and the Church’s institutional practice has been to treat official teachings as binding for the present while remaining subject to additional light. The result is a system that claims revelatory authority but resists the idea of a permanently closed doctrinal deposit.

And you don’t know what dogma is either. How shocking. Dogma is not something immutable or unchangeable. The LDS church outside of the very early period doesn’t change any faster than other religions in regards to its dogmas. The LDS Church also changes its dogmas in a very quiet and imperceptible way to avoid disruption. The anti-gay screeds of the 70s and 80s that scared me and a lot of other queer people weren’t overturned by further light and knowledge or revelation. They want away because they were disproven and Church leaders quietly shifted the narrative. I struggle more and more to see how the LDS Church functions differently due to revelation.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a lot of nonsense

Your posts frequently lack substance, and are conclusory.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

over why saying Jesus reportedly said that a certain thing would happen within a specific timeframe and it didn’t happen so Jesus was wrong is somehow ultra-complicated and there is a distinction between Jesus being wrong when his prophecy failed and being called a false prophet.

Dan didn't say any of that.  He said: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say."

I don't think you can have it both ways.  I don't think you can rationally A) hold up Dan as a scholar and paragon of data > dogma and the impartial purveyor of scholarly methodological naturalism, and also B) defend Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” which adds a normative judgment, which presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. 

In the end, though, I think you and I agree.  I think Dan probably does mean something along the lines of what you say.  You're just okay with it, as you are with anything Dan has to say. 

I am glad Dan lives in a time and place where he can say such things, but when he steps in and out of "scholarship" when it suits him, when he follows and then disregards scholarly methodologies when addressing the same topic, when he constantly declares he's all about "data > dogma" and then makes dogmatic statements himself, when he conflates his personal opinions and "the data," when he speaks in conclusory and unsubstantiated ways about matters that merit explanation and substance, when he steps away from thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience, when he says things to stir the pot and provoke and generate social media clicks, when he dunks on amateurs, when he measures in personal invective and taunts into his "I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion" pronouncements, I think he materially diminishes his stature as a scholar, and in do doing makes it harder to take him as a serious and reliable source of information.

Again, I still frequently watch Dan's content for his scholarly assessments.  I just wish he didn't make it unnecessarily difficult.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, he hates fascists. This offends you for some reason.

I miss the days when I was younger where being opposed to fascist was a normal baseline. Alas that these evil days should be mine.

Yesterday I saw this image and thought of the endless "Fascist! / Bigot!" schtick and its paired justification of violence against people who have done nothing more than disagree ideologically on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree:

What are your thoughts about these images?

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I appreciate his addressing "bad scholarship."  

No you don’t.

I regularly watch his content to glean his scholarly assessments, including his critiques of "bad scholarship."

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think some of his social media antics are detracting from him as a scholar.

You want him to shut up about a lot of things that you find damaging to many church dogmas but are also worried about his credibility?

No.  I have said nothing about wanting him to shut up.  I would hope to take him seriously as a scholar.  He is doing things that make that difficult.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You do this while writing up long pieces of word salad about how he is a bad scholar.

To the contrary, I think he is a good scholar.  My critique is about the things he is doing on social media which diminish and detract from his scholarly stature.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yet you worry that he isn’t showing enough decorum and that might detract from his message. Right….sure…..yeah, I believe you. 

I would like to see him refrain from doing things that diminish him as a scholar.

I have no expectations from him in his capacity as a fellow Latter-day Saint.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

In Latter-day Saint usage, the Restored Gospel is structured around continuing revelation rather than a closed, fixed body of propositions. Living prophets and apostles can receive and declare new revelation; the canon is open; and doctrine is understood to be clarified or expanded “line upon line” as circumstances and understanding change. Personal revelation and individual agency are also treated as operative, so members are expected to seek confirmation rather than simply assent to a finished creed.

“Dogma,” in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation, does not sit easily with that framework. Early Latter-day Saint leaders explicitly rejected creedal formulations as incomplete or corrupted, and the Church’s institutional practice has been to treat official teachings as binding for the present while remaining subject to additional light. The result is a system that claims revelatory authority but resists the idea of a permanently closed doctrinal deposit.

And you don’t know what dogma is either.  How shocking. Dogma is not something immutable or unchangeable.

Me: "'Dogma,' in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation."

Wikipedia: "Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform."

Dictionary.com: "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group."

Cambridge Dictionary: "a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts."

Oxford English Dictionary: "a belief or set of beliefs held by a group or organization that others are expected to accept without argument."

I think I have a bead on it.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The LDS church outside of the very early period doesn’t change any faster than other religions in regards to its dogmas.

The Church encourages its members to think about and study and pray and seek revelation about the doctrines of the Restoration.  We are not expected to accept them without thought or effort or critique.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The LDS Church also changes its dogmas in a very quiet and imperceptible way to avoid disruption.

I think the Church has set aside some (quite few) beliefs which arose due to error or supposition or tradition (rather than revelation), or which have been set aside based on new light and knowledge.  

I am grateful that the Church maintaining its doctrines while improving its understanding and promulgation of them.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The anti-gay screeds of the 70s and 80s that scared me and a lot of other queer people weren’t overturned by further light and knowledge or revelation. They want away because they were disproven and Church leaders quietly shifted the narrative.

And yet the Church still prohibits same-sex behavior.  Seems like the Church has not changed the doctrine, but rather has moderated its tone (I am glad of that) and materially improved its treatment and posture towards same-sex attraction.

The Law of Chastity, though, remains the same now as it did in the 70s and 80s, and before.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I struggle more and more to see how the LDS Church functions differently due to revelation.

I can appreciate your perspective.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

On 10/30/2026 at 9:40 PM, ttribe said:

Spare me the notion that ALL attorneys behave ethically; it simply is not the case.

I’m not sure where you got this idea from my post.  I was sharing my experience, not speaking about, or defending the legal profession.  Your experience has clearly been different than mine which is why I was interested in hearing more about the context around your experience.

As you probably know, as a proposed expert witness, you are represented by counsel of the party who has proffered you as an expert.    Did your counsel ever step in when you believed you were being attacked unfairly?

Can you share an example of unethical treatment?

Have you ever been deposed in a case that went to trial and weren’t asked to testify at that trial?

Edited 9 hours ago by let’s roll

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your posts frequently lack substance, and are conclusory.

Dan didn't say any of that.  He said: "Just because I had never called Jesus a failed prophet doesn't mean I'm not perfectly happy to say the Jesus of the Gospels is a false prophet, which I am perfectly happy to say."

I don't think you can have it both ways.  I don't think you can rationally A) hold up Dan as a scholar and paragon of data > dogma and the impartial purveyor of scholarly methodological naturalism, and also B) defend Dan calling Jesus a “false prophet,” which adds a normative judgment, which presupposes a standard of true prophecy (accurate divine foreknowledge, divine authorization, etc.) and then applies that standard. Those criteria are theological or confessional, not generated by the historical method itself. 

So do you need a masters or a phd in theology before you can say whether a prophecy has failed?

It is absurd to suggest that checking whether a prophecy happened requires some advanced theological training. The Old Testament criteria for a false prophet means Jesus was a failed or false prophet. This isn’t high level stuff here.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In the end, though, I think you and I agree.  I think Dan probably does mean something along the lines of what you say.  You're just okay with it, as you are with anything Dan has to say. 

I am glad Dan lives in a time and place where he can say such things, but when he steps in and out of "scholarship" when it suits him, when he follows and then disregards scholarly methodologies when addressing the same topic, when he constantly declares he's all about "data > dogma" and then makes dogmatic statements himself, when he conflates his personal opinions and "the data," when he speaks in conclusory and unsubstantiated ways about matters that merit explanation and substance, when he steps away from thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience, when he says things to stir the pot and provoke and generate social media clicks, when he dunks on amateurs, when he measures in personal invective and taunts into his "I'm a scholar of the Bible and religion" pronouncements, I think he materially diminishes his stature as a scholar, and in do doing makes it harder to take him as a serious and reliable source of information.

Again, I still frequently watch Dan's content for his scholarly assessments.  I just wish he didn't make it unnecessarily difficult.

Condescending and pathetic rhetotic.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yesterday I saw this image and thought of the endless "Fascist! / Bigot!" schtick and its paired justification of violence against people who have done nothing more than disagree ideologically on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree:

I don’t believe that white supremacist rhetoric is something upon which reasonable minds can disagree.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about these images?

LMAO!!!!!

Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context. The morally correct thing to do would have been to just punch him in his stupid face.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I regularly watch his content to glean his scholarly assessments, including his critiques of "bad scholarship."

No.  I have said nothing about wanting him to shut up.  I would hope to take him seriously as a scholar.  He is doing things that make that difficult.

To the contrary, I think he is a good scholar.  My critique is about the things he is doing on social media which diminish and detract from his scholarly stature.

I would like to see him refrain from doing things that diminish him as a scholar.

I have no expectations from him in his capacity as a fellow Latter-day Saint.

Bull. You do have expectations of him as a Latter-Day Saint and have opined multiple times as to how what he is doing is wrong. I still don’t believe for a second that you want to take him seriously but just wish he was kinder to the Christian Nationalist traitors so you could do so.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Me: "'Dogma,' in the sense of an immutable set of authoritative statements that cannot be revised or supplemented by further revelation."

Wikipedia: "Dogma, in its broadest sense, is any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform."

Dictionary.com: "prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group."

Cambridge Dictionary: "a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts."

Oxford English Dictionary: "a belief or set of beliefs held by a group or organization that others are expected to accept without argument."

I think I have a bead on it.

Nope, because while that might be what people say about their dogmas they change all the time and are reformed all the time. Some of those are accurate, some are not. It is the internet, what can you do?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church encourages its members to think about and study and pray and seek revelation about the doctrines of the Restoration.  We are not expected to accept them without thought or effort or critique.

LOL.

No, just no. Try to critique a doctrine of the Restoration in a Church setting and see how it goes.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church has set aside some (quite few) beliefs which arose due to error or supposition or tradition (rather than revelation), or which have been set aside based on new light and knowledge.  

Actually there were a lot of them.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am grateful that the Church maintaining its doctrines while improving its understanding and promulgation of them.

Have they though?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet the Church still prohibits same-sex behavior.  Seems like the Church has not changed the doctrine, but rather has moderated its tone (I am glad of that) and materially improved its treatment and posture towards same-sex attraction.

Nope, it changed the doctrine quite a bit. Many apostles and prophets shared the reasons same sex behavior existed and were just outright wrong. Mostly because they copied their rhetoric from other Christian religions. That was a change.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity, though, remains the same now as it did in the 70s and 80s, and before.

Nope, the Law of Chastity has changed a lot. Even within just our dispensation. If you go through all the dispensations it is virtually unrecognizable in the Old Testament. The Law of Chastity is woefully incomplete as well and doesn’t really have any kind of coherent ethic behind it. As it is usually recited marital rape is not against the law of chastity. Many will say it is a violation but is it? If it is when did that change?

[smac97]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

Quote

Yesterday I saw this image and thought of the endless "Fascist! / Bigot!" schtick and its paired justification of violence against people who have done nothing more than disagree ideologically on matters about which reasonable minds can disagree:

What are your thoughts about these images?

LMAO!!!!!

Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context. The morally correct thing to do would have been to just punch him in his stupid face.

I have hoped that your ideological enthusiasm for violence against people whose views differ from yours has some constraints, such that while you strongly and enthusiastically endorse physical violence against people you deem fascists, you do not endorse actually killing them.  That would be something.

But then you included the caveat: "Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context."

This seems to be at odds with your comments about WWII and how killing "fascists" then was good and appropriate and necessary.  If you really think that, and given that you so regularly accuse others of being fascists, why do you not endorse killing them now?  Why is battery an appropriate response to speech you deem fascistic, but killing is not?

In what "context" is killing someone you deem a fascist "{t}he morally correct thing to do"?

I am also curious about your perspective on this story:

Quote

A young woman recited a poem celebrating Charlie Kirk’s assassination with visible glee during a recent “Pick Up the Mic” event at the University of Texas at San Antonio. The young woman then told the speaker he was “brave” to appear without covering his neck.

According to a video recently posted to social media by the speaker, Texas Youth Summit President Christian Collins, the young woman stated that she had “just taken a Plan B” and desired to read a poem she had recently composed.

The poem, derived from the “Night Before Christmas,” spoke of eager anticipation of the “Kirkaversary” and the remembrance of “a shot to the neck.”

“The podcast fell silent, the hot takes grew weary, for tomorrow dear friends is the great Kirkaversary,” she continued.

She then announced a “squirt for Kirk” event in October.

Collins attempted to engage the young woman in dialogue, to which she replied that he was “brave to be out here with no protection, no neck brace.”

Do you endorse what this woman said to Mr. Collins?

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

I think he is a good scholar.  My critique is about the things he is doing on social media which diminish and detract from his scholarly stature.

I still don’t believe for a second that you want to take him seriously but just wish he was kinder to the Christian Nationalist traitors so you could do so.

This is not my position.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 2 hours ago by smac97

[ttribe]

6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I’m not sure where you got this idea from my post.  I was sharing my experience, not speaking about, or defending the legal profession.  Your experience has clearly been different than mine which is why I was interested in hearing more about the context around your experience.

As you probably know, as a proposed expert witness, you are represented by counsel of the party who has proffered you as an expert.    Did your counsel ever step in when you believed you were being attacked unfairly?

Can you share an example of unethical treatment?

Have you ever been deposed in a case that went to trial and weren’t asked to testify at that trial?

1 - Yes, counsel always steps in. Didn't stop the initial action from happening though, obviously.

2 - An attorney withheld evidence then played gotcha games with me about it (the Judge slapped his wrist but didn't sanction him). Since I'd never seen it before, I'd say that was rather unethical. That same attorney then filed a motion in limine with fabrications regarding both my analysis and my testimony. What's worse, I had worked with that attorney a number of times prior to finding ourselves on opposite sides on this case and previously considered him a friend. This is but one example.

3 - No, I've never been deposed and then asked not to testify at trial. Nor has my testimony ever been excluded. I have prevailed in all motions in limine brought against me.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'd like to be encouraged that your ideology has some constraints, such that only endorse some physical violence against people you deem fascists, but not killing them.

But then you included the caveat: "Of course shooting fascists is wrong in this context."

This seems to be at odds with your comments about WWII and how killing "fascists" then was good and appropriate and necessary.  If you really think that, and given that you so regularly accuse others of being fascists, why do you not endorse killing them?

Because we aren’t at war with a fascist state.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Why is battery an appropriate response to speech you deem fascistic, but killing is not?

Because fascism is a shallow ideology based on racial superiority and a tough guy aesthetic. Punching a fascist exposes the weakness of the fascist and opens them to ridicule from their own side.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

In what "context" is killing someone you deem a fascist "{t}he morally correct thing to do"?

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am also curious about your perspective on this story:

The poem is sadly pretty amateurish. The meter is off and the prose is very forced. Hopefully she is still in freshman level classes and can improve over time.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you endorse what this woman said to Mr. Collins?

At first I did not but then he did the “I will pray for you” bit and I decided he had it coming. Anyone who is that pathetically passive aggressive shouldn’t get upset over what other people say. Good response there bro!

The guy is a fascist “debate me” type trying to take over for Kirk who was cut from the same cloth. He isn’t even as good at it as Kirk and that is a pretty low bar. He needs to be punched in the face.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is not my position.

I didn’t say it was your stated position.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because we aren’t at war with a fascist state.

Okay.  So war with a fascist state is a prerequisite for killing fascists.  Are there any prerequisites for physical violence against people you deem fascists?  If so, what are they?

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Why is battery an appropriate response to speech you deem fascistic, but killing is not?

Because fascism is a shallow ideology based on racial superiority and a tough guy aesthetic.

I'm not sure I understand, but I'll leave you to it.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Punching a fascist exposes the weakness of the fascist and opens them to ridicule from their own side.

Would killing a fascist also do that?

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Do you endorse what this woman said to Mr. Collins?

At first I did not but then he did the “I will pray for you” bit and I decided he had it coming.

By way of clarity and confirmation:

Quote

Collins attempted to engage the young woman in dialogue, to which she replied that he was “brave to be out here with no protection, no neck brace.”

Do you endorse this statement?

Also, she made her comments, including that he was "brave to be out here with no protection, no neck brace," before he told her he would pray for her, so how did he "{have} it coming"?

Also, from the article:

Quote

Following the posting of this video, the University of Texas System Board of Regents Chairman Kevin Eltife and System Chancellor John Zerwas released the following statement:

“We have been apprised of the incident at UT San Antonio. Let us be clear — we will not tolerate the incitement of violence or the threat of incitement of violence by any member of our UT community. UT San Antonio will handle this incident consistent with the law.”

Section 22.07 of the Texas Penal Code defines a “terroristic threat” as any statement made “involving violence to any person or property with intent to … place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.”

Are there any parts of this woman's remarks that you do not endorse?

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Anyone who is that pathetically passive aggressive shouldn’t get upset over what other people say. Good response there bro!

I think it was a good response. 

I am troubled that there are so many people out there who endorse violence in response to ideological disagreement.

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The guy is a fascist “debate me” type trying to take over for Kirk who was cut from the same cloth.

So you would endorse physical violence against him?  Because he is, in your view, a fascist?

Do you think Charlie Kirk "had it coming"?

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

He isn’t even as good at it as Kirk and that is a pretty low bar. He needs to be punched in the face.

Ah.  Hadn't seen this.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Would killing a fascist also do that?

Nope, make them a martyr (not saying I endorse any for of violence or even ridicule, just saying)