Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[phaedrus ut]

 

I know @maklelan was around it at lot in the early years. He was in the church translation department for many years and is now very popular on social media. He's super popular for making scholarly biblical topic understandable. 
Here is his Mormon Stories interview Part 1

 

Phaedrus

Edited September 1, 2023 by Nemesis
I left the link intact to allow the discussion, but I don’t link to anything that deals with dehlin as it would be supporting his business model.

[Tweed1944]

Amazing how much the LDS church has changed since i was a kid. I remember the class manual  where Sperry attacked the multiple authorship of Isaiah. I had an Institute teacher who said it was thought Job was not historical. Nibley was the flavor of the month and a GD teacher had all Skousens books. Meanwhile the Tanners and Dialogue stirred thinks up. Odea in his book on the Mormons mentioned how dangerous it was to send the young scholars to the Ivy League universities. I read Stirling McMurrin's book on the Theological Foundations of Mormonism a man Joseph Fielding Smith wanted  disciplined but President McKay wanted him left alone. Now we have the Stoddards looking for heresies  in Behind Closed Doors. If the  church gets too liberal it will go the way C S Lewis says in Fern Seeds and Elephants the average church member will see no reason to stay. 

[Tacenda]

Mormonstories isn't my go to as much these days, but was delighted to listen to Dan, I only started at 5:00 am this morning so didn't get very far. Very interesting to hear his story and have had communication on this board. Maybe he'll post hopefully!

[Benjamin McGuire]

6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

Amazing how much the LDS church has changed since i was a kid. I remember the class manual  where Sperry attacked the multiple authorship of Isaiah. I had an Institute teacher who said it was thought Job was not historical. Nibley was the flavor of the month and a GD teacher had all Skousens books. Meanwhile the Tanners and Dialogue stirred thinks up. Odea in his book on the Mormons mentioned how dangerous it was to send the young scholars to the Ivy League universities. I read Stirling McMurrin's book on the Theological Foundations of Mormonism a man Joseph Fielding Smith wanted  disciplined but President McKay wanted him left alone. Now we have the Stoddards looking for heresies  in Behind Closed Doors. If the  church gets too liberal it will go the way C S Lewis says in Fern Seeds and Elephants the average church member will see no reason to stay.

It's changed in other ways since I was a kid. The priesthood ban is gone. It's changed even more since my father was a kid. When my grandfather was a kid, we didn't even have a three tiered model of the Celestial kingdom ... should it surprise us that a church that claims to be a 'living' church should change? And should it surprise us that the Church would change in ways that reflect better understandings of difficult things? You cannot be a convert Church and not get change. The biggest difference between the LDS Church of today and the LDS Church of 150 years ago isn't that it changes, it is that often those changes are more reactive than proactive.

C.S. Lewis wasn't really worrying about the liberalism of the Church in that essay (again, I wonder how much of the things you reference you have actually read). There is a fascinating problem here in that Mormonism's theology, at its core, is a truly liberal theology. It had already abandoned much of what Lewis calls the "old orthodoxy" in its origins with Joseph Smith. The very idea of producing new scripture, of correcting old scripture - these are foreign elements to Lewis's perspective in "Fern Seeds and Elephants." The original title of that essay was "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism." And Lewis's primary complaint against modern biblical criticism wasn't whether or not it was useful or whether it worked, but rather his own complaints about how it had been applied to his own body of material:

Quote

Until you come to be reviewed yourself you would never believe how little of an ordinary review is taken up by criticism in the strict sense; by evaluation, praise, or censure, of the book actually written. Most of it is taken up with imaginary histories of the process by which you wrote it. The very terms which the reviewers use in praising or dispraising often imply such a history. They praise a passage as 'spontaneous' and censure another as 'labored'; that is, they think they know that you wrote the one currenete calamo and the other invita Minerva.

What the value of such reconstructions is I learned very early in my career. I had published a book of essays; and in the one into which I had put most of my heart, the one I really cared about and in which I discharged a keen enthusiasm, was on William Morris. And in almost the first review I was told that this was obviously the only one in the book in which I had felt no interest. Now don't mistake. The critic was, I now believe, quite right in thinking it the worst essay in the book; at least everyone agreed with him. Where he was totally wrong was in his imaginary history of the causes which produces its dullness.

Now, this sort of discussion really isn't all that interesting to most Mormons (I am something of an exception I suppose). But this is, to some extent, a real caricature of textual criticism. And Mormonism in general has a unique space from which to appreciate textual criticism. Look, for example, at Skousen's mammoth work on the original text of the Book of Mormon - his list of changes, his suggestions for emendations to the text. Look at what the LDS Church has done with the Joseph Smith Papers, and how they reveal the developmental construction of some of our scripture. What these kinds of efforts reveal is that even in a time when there is an overwhelming wealth of material, the kinds of changes and adjustments to Mormon scriptural texts show just how easy it is for the kinds of changes suggested by biblical scholars for the biblical text. Lewis's real concerns aren't really about the text and its history here. He is concerned about whether or not he is the person (as an author) whose interpretation of the text he wrote should be considered supreme. I stand on the other side of the fence from Lewis on this question. Mormonism, like some other branches of Christianity (notably Catholicism) doesn't have a real issue with textual criticism. As I noted, we engage with it. This isn't true for all of Christianity though. It reminds me a little bit of what Bart Ehrman wrote in his book Jesus Interrupted:

Quote

There are certain views of the inspiration of Scripture, such as the one I had pounded into me as a late teenager, that do not stand up well to the facts of textual criticism. For most Christians, who don't have a conservative evangelical view like the one I had, these textual facts can be interesting, but there is nothing in them to challenge their faith, which is built on something other than having the very words that God inspired in the Bible. . . . In any event, as I indicated, these theses themselves were almost entirely noncontroversial. Who can deny that we have thousands of manuscripts? Or hundreds of thousands of variants? Or that lots of the variants involve spelling? Or that scholars continue to debate what the original text was in lots of places? All of these statements are factually true.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Mormonism has developed a similar notion for the Book of Mormon (at least in its popular views), but the fact that we can embrace textual criticism as a valid way to look at scriptural texts in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon makes us much different from the old orthodoxy to which C.S. Lewis refers in his essay. By the way, here is the actual quote that you refer to:

Quote

Of course if 'taken literally and not symbolically' means 'taken in terms of mere physics,' then this story is not even a religious story. Motion away from the earth - which is what Ascension physically means - would not in itself be an event of spiritual significance. Therefore, you argue, the spiritual reality can have nothing but an analogical connection with the story of an ascent. For the union of God with Goad and of man with God-man can have nothing to do with space. Who told you this? What you really mean is that we can't see how it could possibly have anything to do with it. That is a quite different proposition. When I know as I am known I shall be able to tell which parts of the story were purely symbolical and which, if any, were not; shall see how the transcendent reality either excludes and repels locality, or how unimaginably it assimilates and load it with significance. Had we not better wait?

Such are the reactions of one bleating layman to Modern Theology. It is right that you should hear them. You will not perhaps hear them very often again. Your parishioners will not often speak to you quite frankly. Once the layman was anxious to hide the fact that he believed so much less than the vicar; now he tends to hide the fact that he believes so much more. Missionary to the priests of one's own church is an embarrassing role; though I have a horrid feeling that if such mission work is not soon undertaken the future history of the Church of England is likely to be short.

I figured it would be helpful to quote what he said (and wrote) because of its relevance to several other arguments I have been engaged in here in this forum recently. Lewis points out here that in its strictest sense, a literal reading is not a spiritual or theological reading. If we were to read Genesis completely literally, then it would cease to be a religious story. In any case, Lewis's assertion isn't prophetic (and it isn't at all prophetic in the context of Mormonism). Embracing a more liberal view of scriptures isn't a significant factor in church decline. The PRRI research suggests that the sharpest declines in denominational membership come from the highly conservative denominations and not from the more moderate and liberal denominations. Mormonism is a socially conservative group (for the most part) but is theologically liberal (especially in its roots). The expression of that liberal theology is so ingrained that most members are not aware of it. Consider this line from the popular hymn "O My Father": "No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I’ve a mother there." It is partly because of this liberal theological streak that Mormonism is able to adapt and change in ways that help it remain relevant (at least to its members).

All of this is merely to point out that we run into a challenge here with the way that Mormonism is portrayed versus the way that Mormonism really is. There is no question that Mormonism is different from where it was when you were a kid. It is not its liberalness that brings decline, it is the unwillingness to change despite the changes (in knowledge and understanding that occur external to the church) that lead to greater religious decline. We need to be careful to distinguish between theological liberalism and politicial or social liberalism. They are very different things. C.S. Lewis is not referring to a social or political liberalness when he made these comments but to a theological liberalness. And Mormonism is still a theologically liberal denomination. And even if it is not as liberal as it once was, its past becomes a way of providing for future shifts (just as it has in the past).

Edited August 23, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

It's changed in other ways since I was a kid. The priesthood ban is gone. It's changed even more since my father was a kid. When my grandfather was a kid, we didn't even have a three tiered model of the Celestial kingdom ... should it surprise us that a church that claims to be a 'living' church should change? And should it surprise us that the Church would change in ways that reflect better understandings of difficult things? You cannot be a convert Church and not get change. The biggest difference between the LDS Church of today and the LDS Church of 150 years ago isn't that it changes, it is that often those changes are more reactive than proactive.

C.S. Lewis wasn't really worrying about the liberalism of the Church in that essay (again, I wonder how much of the things you reference you have actually read). There is a fascinating problem here in that Mormonism's theology, at its core, is a truly liberal theology. It had already abandoned much of what Lewis calls the "old orthodoxy" in its origins with Joseph Smith. The very idea of producing new scripture, of correcting old scripture - these are foreign elements to Lewis's perspective in "Fern Seeds and Elephants." The original title of that essay was "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism." And Lewis's primary complaint against modern biblical criticism wasn't whether or not it was useful or whether it worked, but rather his own complaints about how it had been applied to his own body of material:

Now, this sort of discussion really isn't all that interesting to most Mormons (I am something of an exception I suppose). But this is, to some extent, a real caricature of textual criticism. And Mormonism in general has a unique space from which to appreciate textual criticism. Look, for example, at Skousen's mammoth work on the original text of the Book of Mormon - his list of changes, his suggestions for emendations to the text. Look at what the LDS Church has done with the Joseph Smith Papers, and how they reveal the developmental construction of some of our scripture. What these kinds of efforts reveal is that even in a time when there is an overwhelming wealth of material, the kinds of changes and adjustments to Mormon scriptural texts show just how easy it is for the kinds of changes suggested by biblical scholars for the biblical text. Lewis's real concerns aren't really about the text and its history here. He is concerned about whether or not he is the person (as an author) whose interpretation of the text he wrote should be considered supreme. I stand on the other side of the fence from Lewis on this question. Mormonism, like some other branches of Christianity (notably Catholicism) doesn't have a real issue with textual criticism. As I noted, we engage with it. This isn't true for all of Christianity though. It reminds me a little bit of what Bart Ehrman wrote in his book Jesus Interrupted:

Don't get me wrong, I think that Mormonism has developed a similar notion for the Book of Mormon (at least in its popular views), but the fact that we can embrace textual criticism as a valid way to look at scriptural texts in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon makes us much different than the Church of England to which C.S. Lewis refers in his essay. By the way, here is the actual quote that you refer to:

I figured it would be helpful to quote what he said (and wrote) because of its relevance to several other arguments I have been engaged in here in this forum recently. Lewis points out here that in its strictest sense, a literal reading is not a spiritual or theological reading. If we were to read Genesis completely literally, then it would cease to be a religious story. In any case, Lewis's assertion isn't prophetic (and it isn't at all prophetic in the context of Mormonism). Embracing a more liberal view of scriptures isn't a significant factor in church decline. The PRRI research suggests that the sharpest declines in denominational membership come from the highly conservative denominations and not from the more moderate and liberal denominations. Mormonism is a socially conservative group (for the most part) but is theologically liberal (especially in its roots). The expression of that liberal theology is so ingrained that most members are not aware of it. Consider this line from the popular hymn "O My Father": "No, the thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason; truth eternal Tells me I’ve a mother there." It is partly because of this liberal theological streak that Mormonism is able to adapt and change in ways that help it remain relevant (at least to its members).

All of this is merely to point out that we run into a challenge here with the way that Mormonism is portrayed versus the way that Mormonism really is. There is no question that Mormonism is different from where it was when you were a kid. It is not its liberalness that brings decline, it is the unwillingness to change despite the changes (in knowledge and understanding that occur external to the church) that lead to greater religious decline. We need to be careful to distinguish between theological liberalism and politicial or social liberalism. They are very different things. C.S. Lewis is not referring to a social or political liberalness when he made these comments but to a theological liberalness. And Mormonism is still a theologically liberal denomination. And even if it is not as liberal as it once was, its past becomes a way of providing for future shifts (just as it has in the past).

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

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

 If the  church gets too liberal it will go the way C S Lewis says in Fern Seeds and Elephants the average church member will see no reason to stay. 

I personally think it appropriate that we return to the liberal sentiments of our founder:

Quote

 

I never thought it was right to call up a man and try him because he erred in doctrine. It looks too much like Methodism and not like Latter-day-Saintism. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty of believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It doesn’t prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine.

(Joseph Smith, Discourse, 8 Apr. 1843, JS Collection, Church History Library)

 

Quote

It is one of the first principles of my life, and one that I have cultivated from my childhood, having been taught it of my father, to allow everyone the liberty of conscience.
(Joseph Smith, Journal, 15 Oct. 1843, JS Collection, Church History Library)

Quote

We claim the privilege of worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of our conscience, and allow all men the same privilege; let them worship how, where, or what they may.

(Joseph Smith, “Church History,” Times and Seasons, 1 Mar. 1842, 3:710)

Quote

When we see virtuous qualities in men, we should always acknowledge them, let their understanding be what it may in relation to creeds and doctrine. For all men are, or ought to be, free, possessing unalienable rights and the high and noble qualifications of the laws of nature and of self-preservation; to think and act, and say as they please, while they maintain a due respect to the rights and privileges of all other creatures, infringing upon none. This doctrine I do most heartily subscribe to and practice.

(Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, IL, to James Arlington Bennet, Arlington House, Flatbush, NY, 8 Sept. 1842, JS Collection, Church History Library)

Quote

God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses, and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood. When a man feels the least temptation to such intolerance he ought to spurn it from him. 

It becomes our duty on account of this intolerance and corruption—the inalienable right of man being to think as he pleases, worship as he pleases, etc., being the first law of everything that is sacred—to guard every ground all the days of our lives. I will appeal to every man in this council, beginning at the youngest, that when he arrives to the years of hoary age he will have to say that the principles of intolerance and bigotry never had a place in this kingdom, nor in my breast, and that he is even then ready to die rather than yield to such things. Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition, etc., but those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men. We must not despise a man on account of infirmity. We ought to love a man more for his infirmity. Nothing is more congenial to my feelings and principles than the principles of universal freedom and has been from the beginning. . . .

Let us from henceforth drive from us every species of intolerance. When a man is free from it he is capable of being a critic. When I have used every means in my power to exalt a man’s mind, and have taught him righteous principles to no effect, he is still inclined to his darkness, yet the same principles of liberty and charity would ever be manifested by me as though he embraced it. 

(Council of Fifty, “Record,” 11 Apr. 1844, vol. 1, pp. [116]–[121], Church History Library)

Quote

Anything that would tolerate man in the worship of his God under his own vine and fig tree would be tolerated of God.

(Council of Fifty, “Record,” 18 Apr. 1844, vol. 1, pp. [201]–[202], Church History Library)

 

 

 

[Rain]

12 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

 

I know @maklelan was around it at lot in the early years. He was in the church translation department for many years and is now very popular on social media. He's super popular for making scholarly biblical topic understandable. 
Here is his Mormon Stories interview Part 1

 

Phaedrus

I have no interest in taking 5 hours to watch that.  Care to give a summary or a discussion point?

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I have no interest in taking 5 hours to watch that.  Care to give a summary or a discussion point?

Apologetics is bad.

Questions about whether Mormonism is true are bad.

Boundry maintenace is bad.

Data should be followed over dogma.

+ a lot or personal backstory.

We should be more open to alternate point of views.

The church is built on the corpses of sacred cows.

Edited August 23, 2023 by CA Steve

[phaedrus ut]

54 minutes ago, Rain said:

I have no interest in taking 5 hours to watch that.  Care to give a summary or a discussion point?

I think he does a good job of explaining why scholars use critical biblical scholarship to treat the bible as a collection of assembled historical documents. He touches on form criticism, source criticism, textural etc. and contrasts that what can be believed by faith. Using his social media platforms he works as a communicator providing public scholarship in a way that makes it accessible for general understanding. He said he is still an active member of the church but won't specifically talk about his personal religious beliefs. 

Phaedrus

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I have no interest in taking 5 hours to watch that. 

That's the beauty of having it on Youtube.  Change the playback speed to 1.5 times normal or greater, and you can still understand it and get through it in 3.3 hours or less!   

[CA Steve]

Dan is not a fan of the KJV.

 

"The KJV of the bible is not that great of translation."

"The KJV language is wildly out of date and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and confusions."

"Modern translations of the bible use different source texts [than the KJV]."

"Non-English speaking LDS members have a different encounter with the bible than English speaking."

 

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Dan is not a fan of the KJV.

 

"The KJV of the bible is not that great of translation."

"The KJV language is wildly out of date and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and confusions."

"Modern translations of the bible use different source texts [than the KJV]."

"Non-English speaking LDS members have a different encounter with the bible than English speaking."

 

Did he say which translation he prefers? 

[Rain]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

That's the beauty of having it on Youtube.  Change the playback speed to 1.5 times normal or greater, and you can still understand it and get through it in 3.3 hours or less!   

😀 Oh, I almost always do it at 2 times normal (never music and some speak way to fast for that), but still that's a lot of info to listen to and discuss.

[Rain]

17 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Dan is not a fan of the KJV.

 

"The KJV of the bible is not that great of translation."

"The KJV language is wildly out of date and leads to all kinds of misunderstandings and confusions."

"Modern translations of the bible use different source texts [than the KJV]."

"Non-English speaking LDS members have a different encounter with the bible than English speaking."

 

One of my Sunday School teachers 10+ years ago worked for the church scripture dept and told our class the church had discussed using a different versions, but that copyright was a problem.

[CA Steve]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

Did he say which translation he prefers? 

Yes,

New Revised Standard Version

The New Oxford Annotated Bible

The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary by Robert Alter

JPS TANAKH: The Holy Scriptures (blue): The New JPS Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Dan is not a fan of the KJV.

But then, who really is?

Once you know enough about the source languages to work through it on your own, you start to realize how inadequate that translation has become.

[CA Steve]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

One of my Sunday School teachers 10+ years ago worked for the church scripture dept and told our class the church had discussed using a different versions, but that copyright was a problem.

At about the 3:10 mark Dan spends a few minutes on the KJV and why we use it. He does not mention any copyright problems but notes that restoration scripture is couched in para-KJV English and going to a different version of the Bible in English would separate the D&C, BoM and PoGP from it.

[Rain]

45 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

But then, who really is?

Half my ward!

45 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Once you know enough about the source languages to work through it on your own, you start to realize how inadequate that translation has become.

 

[Rain]

15 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

At about the 3:10 mark Dan spends a few minutes on the KJV and why we use it. He does not mention any copyright problems but notes that restoration scripture is couched in para-KJV English and going to a different version of the Bible in English would separate the D&C, BoM and PoGP from it.

There could be multiple reasons.  What I heard from my SS teacher was long enough ago that even if he was correct about copyright it might not still be a problem.

What you said he mentioned is an interesting thing. I wonder if that will be a problem as more people get comfortable with other versions. 

[webbles]

19 minutes ago, Rain said:

There could be multiple reasons.  What I heard from my SS teacher was long enough ago that even if he was correct about copyright it might not still be a problem.

I would bet copyright is still a problem.  The New Revised Standard Version was written in 1989 and so has a copyright for several more decades.  The New International Version was written in 1973 and still will have a copyright.

Back in 2009, the church published a Spanish edition of the Bible and it was based on a translation from 1909 which would have been out of copyright.

The church should be able to pay for a copyright license but they would want permission to do basically everything with the text and the copyright owners might not want to allow that.

Edit to add:

The Portuguese edition on the website is based on a translation from 1914.  The French edition is a translation from 1912.  The German edition is based on a translation from 1939.  The Italian edition on the website is from 1924.  All of those are public domain translations.  The Spanish, Portuguese, and German are all recently selected and modified so they could have picked newer translations but they chose ones that are in the public domain.  Does look like copyright is an issue.

Edited August 24, 2023 by webbles

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, Rain said:

Half my ward!

 

I love reading and speaking the KJV.  It is moving.  Count me as one of its fans…in a limited sense.

It is also poor for learning about the gospel or the experience of those behind the words imo.  It opens me to the Spirit more as a personal experience like beautiful music might than rather than connecting with a spiritual principle being taught.  For that I prefer other versions.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Calm

[Tweed1944]

 deleted

Edited August 24, 2023 by Tweed1944
needed more work & references

[CA Steve]

15 hours ago, Rain said:

One of my Sunday School teachers 10+ years ago worked for the church scripture dept and told our class the church had discussed using a different versions, but that copyright was a problem.

 

13 hours ago, webbles said:

I would bet copyright is still a problem.  The New Revised Standard Version was written in 1989 and so has a copyright for several more decades.  The New International Version was written in 1973 and still will have a copyright.

I do not believe it is a copyright issue at all. The suggestion isn't that the church switch to another existing copyrighted version but that it produce its own translation. The church produces its own version of the KJV for which it holds the copyright as it does for Bibles in many other languages. It would want an English bible that was cross-referenced to the rest of its scriptures. In order to do that it would have to do its own translation. Given its resources it would take very little time. 

I think there are two problems. Such a translation would no longer line up with the rest of the LDS canon and we have become accustomed to scripture sounding like the English from the KJV. Neither of these issues are problems for non-English LDS.

[webbles]

31 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 

I do not believe it is a copyright issue at all. The suggestion isn't that the church switch to another existing copyrighted version but that it produce its own translation. The church produces its own version of the KJV for which it holds the copyright as it does for Bibles in many other languages. It would want an English bible that was cross-referenced to the rest of its scriptures. In order to do that it would have to do its own translation. Given its resources it would take very little time. 

I think there are two problems. Such a translation would no longer line up with the rest of the LDS canon and we have become accustomed to scripture sounding like the English from the KJV. Neither of these issues are problems for non-English LDS.

The church has made its own translation in Spanish, Portuguese, and German.  All of those were based on a much earlier translation.  I would expect if the church went through a custom translation in English, it would base it on an existing translation that is in the public domain and I believe most translations that are better are all too new.  So it would still be based on the KJV or similar.

We've already had General Authorities use non-KJV versions of scriptures (I believe President Uchdorf was one of the more memorable ones) so I don't think the issue with "scripture sounding like KJV" is that big of a problem.

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 hours ago, CA Steve said:

19 hours ago, Rain said:

I have no interest in taking 5 hours to watch that.  Care to give a summary or a discussion point?

Apologetics is bad.

Questions about whether Mormonism is true are bad.

Boundry maintenace is bad.

Data should be followed over dogma.

+ a lot or personal backstory.

We should be more open to alternate point of views.

The church is built on the corpses of sacred cows.

I know this was sort of a tongue-in-cheek response, but I'm also guessing it's a totally valid summary, based on all the Dan TikToks I watched in 2021 and '22.    I'd also add:

The only reasons people want words to have a definition, is 1) to preserve existing power structures, and 2) to make sure that historically marginalized people remain marginalized.