Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[pogi]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Thx, I have read Bushman and completely disagree on his progressive mormonism... he in a subtle way without accusing the church of lying or hiding its history does exactly that.   New Mormonism is more than a construct, these are intellectuals who are very much in to Church History.   Some of it as you might not know deals with the Church and LGBT and marriage.   You need to be alarmed and aware, if not then you can't help those going through faith crisis for reasons you have not studied it. 

I have read much about Arrington to know he was even in the Churches cross hair and needed to go... they transferred him back to BYU. 

Mormonism is progressive by design - eternal progression, open cannon and all.

Church leaders are fallible, get over it.   The historical narrative has changed.  Get over it.

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I do not believe there is a definable difference.

I think you’re probably right.

[provoman]

On 8/23/2023 at 12:21 AM, 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 don't think his tiktok makes Bibical issue understandable.  In explaining a Leviticus verse and homosexuality, he used the customs of the gentiles to establish his ideology.  But he never explains why gentile customs should be used to explain what the Children of Israel practiced. 

I find his commentary a place to get references and then research myself. 

[ttribe]

What's with the weird font from the new guy?

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What's with the weird font from the new guy?

I guess he thinks it's cute.

People who think size matters often have ..... oh, nevermind....

🤐

 

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Mormonism is progressive by design - eternal progression, open cannon and all.

Church leaders are fallible, get over it.   The historical narrative has changed.  Get over it.

In the sense of comparing traditionalist with progressives, what would you consider the difference?    You are putting words into my mouth, of course the are infallible but the historical events are still being debated... 

[rjohnson7]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I guess he thinks it's cute.

People who think size matters often have ..... oh, nevermind....

🤐

 

Chuckle... 

[rjohnson7]

30 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What's with the weird font from the new guy?

Richard Johnson from Sarasota, Florida.  University Park Ward.... Elders Quorum President.   New Guy, hello. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Mormonism is progressive by design - eternal progression, open cannon and all.

Church leaders are fallible, get over it.   The historical narrative has changed.  Get over it.

One must put off childish things...

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What's with the weird font from the new guy?

It makes it easier for him to read, I believe.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

Richard Johnson from Sarasota, Florida.  University Park Ward.... Elders Quorum President.   New Guy, hello. 

Edited: just saw you were born in 1945 so you are not the person I was thinking of.

I realize there are a lot of Richard Johnsons, but is there any chance you went to Logan High in Utah for at least your sophomore year?

Edited August 30, 2023 by Rain

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

It makes it easier for him to read, I believe.

In green? Seriously? I'm no ophthalmologist, but that seems...unlikely.

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Richard Johnson from Sarasota, Florida.  University Park Ward.... Elders Quorum President.   New Guy, hello. 

ttribe from Arizona. Been here a long time. Now a "bitter apostate" and "resident malcontent."

Edited August 30, 2023 by ttribe

[Calm]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

In green? Seriously? I'm no ophthalmologist, but that seems...unlikely.

He was using it to separate his content from quotes before.

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I find his commentary a place to get references and then research myself. 

Tbh me too. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

In the sense of comparing traditionalist with progressives, what would you consider the difference?    

In terms of church history?  More openness in discussing and publishing “difficult” historical issues is more progressive.    Saints and the gospel topics essays are examples of this progressiveness.  These would have NEVER been considered for publication in the more traditionalist culture of the 80s/90s and earlier.

1 hour ago, rjohnson7 said:

but the historical events are still being debated... 

What has been thoroughly researched and published by the church in Saints and the gospel topics essays in regards to the stone in a hat and many other issues is not being debated by the church or it’s historians.   They have made clear where they stand.

Edited August 30, 2023 by pogi

[smac97]

11 hours ago, pogi said:

In terms of church history?  More openness in discussing and publishing “difficult” historical issues is more progressive.    Saints and the gospel topics essays are examples of this progressiveness.  These would have NEVER been considered for publication in the more traditionalist culture of the 80s/90s and earlier.

What has been thoroughly researched and published by the church in Saints and the gospel topics essays in regards to the stone in a hat and many other issues is not being debated by the church or it’s historians.   They have made clear where they stand.

I think there may be some ambiguity in the term "progressive," as this is - or can be - a relative term.  My sense is that the Latter-day Saints are often seen as doctrinally "progressive"/"liberal" (relative to other Christian groups), but often sociopolitically  "conservative."

I'm not quite sure of the meaning of the "progressive" v. "conservative" nomenclature when applied to the Church's approach to historiography, though I suspect Pogi is correct in his usage.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

[rjohnson7]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Edited: just saw you were born in 1945 so you are not the person I was thinking of.

I realize there are a lot of Richard Johnsons, but is there any chance you went to Logan High in Utah for at least your sophomore year?

Nope, Vista High, San Diego, California. 

[rjohnson7]

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

ttribe from Arizona. Been here a long time. Now a "bitter apostate" and "resident malcontent."

So sorry...

[Benjamin McGuire]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Thoughts?

I thought about bringing this up earlier.

We have this challenge because progressive usually refers to change - and progressive LDS members would be (at least in my thinking) those members that advocate for change. I think that I would fit that bill, which is why I don't mind the label of being progressive. At the same time, I don't believe that I should be grouped together with others in the list that @rjohnson7 offers. There is a line some place between wanting (and advocating for) change, and trying to tear down and destroy belief.

There is no question that Mormonism has a liberal theology. Depending on context and issues, the LDS Church can be quite progressive. I think that we want to be careful of how we create the dichotomy. I think that progressive vs traditional may be a better match than progressive vs conservative. But even then, I think it needs more clarity than labels can provide. I think that progressive (in describing the views of LDS members) may simply be a broad umbrella term used by some to label those who they disagree with (a replacement for the old chapel/internet dichotomy that really doesn't work any more).

[mfbukowski]

44 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Nope, Vista High, San Diego, California. 

No way.

I went to Hoover. Clearly superior. 😛.

That explains everything, we are both beach'in dudes!

Misspelled for the mods, but somewhat recognizable 

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I thought about bringing this up earlier.

We have this challenge because progressive usually refers to change - and progressive LDS members would be (at least in my thinking) those members that advocate for change. I think that I would fit that bill, which is why I don't mind the label of being progressive. At the same time, I don't believe that I should be grouped together with others in the list that @rjohnson7 offers. There is a line some place between wanting (and advocating for) change, and trying to tear down and destroy belief.

It seems like some folks can discern this line (you, Richard Bushman, etc.) and others either cannot or else deliberately erased it (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, Young).

As to the latter group, I think they cluster around taking a publicly adversarial posture against the Brethren, as well as (ultimately) adopting coercive, my-way-or-the-highway stance on this or that sociopolitical issue, and which issue also has a nexus with doctrines/practices in the Church.  With Kelly, it was female ordination to the priesthood.  With Young, it was bishops interviewing youth and children. 

My sense is that when a self-styled advocate for change begins to publicly oppose the Brethren, they begin to cross (or erase) the line you reference, and - without real course correction - end up "trying to tear down and destroy belief."  It sometimes seems like attempting change in the Church is like trying to skate uphill.  I suppose safety lies in keeping covenants and developing Christlike attributes (patience being one of the more notably useful ones in this context).

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is no question that Mormonism has a liberal theology. Depending on context and issues, the LDS Church can be quite progressive. I think that we want to be careful of how we create the dichotomy. I think that progressive vs traditional may be a better match than progressive vs conservative.  But even then, I think it needs more clarity than labels can provide.

I agree.  Wholesale importation of political labels/nomenclature into a religious context can create real confusion and misunderstandings.

30 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that progressive (in describing the views of LDS members) may simply be a broad umbrella term used by some to label those who they disagree with (a replacement for the old chapel/internet dichotomy that really doesn't work any more).

Yes, that seems to happen.  And it is too arbitrary/subjective to be useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rjohnson7]

37 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

No way.

I went to Hoover. Clearly superior. 😛.

That explains everything, we are both beach'in dudes!

Misspelled for the mods, but somewhat recognizable 

Well you know my age, do you wish to divulge yours.... I was born in San Monica and moved to San Diego when I was 2 yrs. old.    Joined the Church in 1956 and have been very active most of my life.  Served in the Bishopric twice and now serve as Elders Quorum President.  Wish I was back in the Bishopric... chuckle. 

Edited August 30, 2023 by rjohnson7

[rjohnson7]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It seems like some folks can discern this line (you, Richard Bushman, etc.) and others either cannot or else deliberately erased it (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel, Young).

As to the latter group, I think they cluster around taking a publicly adversarial posture against the Brethren, as well as (ultimately) adopting coercive, my-way-or-the-highway stance on this or that sociopolitical issue, and which issue also has a nexus with doctrines/practices in the Church.  With Kelly, it was female ordination to the priesthood.  With Young, it was bishops interviewing youth and children. 

My sense is that when a self-styled advocate for change begins to publicly oppose the Brethren, they begin to cross (or erase) the line you reference, and - without real course correction - end up "trying to tear down and destroy belief."  It sometimes seems like attempting change in the Church is like trying to skate uphill.  I suppose safety lies in keeping covenants and developing Christlike attributes (patience being one of the more notably useful ones in this context).

I agree.  Wholesale importation of political labels/nomenclature into a religious context can create real confusion and misunderstandings.

Yes, that seems to happen.  And it is too arbitrary/subjective to be useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well all good I suppose if we are satisfied with end times signs and keeping ourselves safe and good covenant keepers.   I myself pray regularly for the youth of the Church and will do all I can to keep them from not leaving for reasons of a faith crisis.

To many folks are ignoring "The New Mormonism" progressives and revisionist historians... just my opinion.. 

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

I understand, this is okay and you have never looked into "The New Mormonism" which is very far reaching and accuses the Church of hiding its history and lying... not important! 

I am neither a progressive or a member of the church. I am 74 years of age. Now that we have that out of the way, I do claim to be a historian of religion, especially the history of religion and conflict.  LDS history has, since 1989 been of great interest to me. This is especially true of the history of the Mexican LDS (Mormon) colonies. I don't know anything about a "New Mormonism" but I know a reasonable amount about what has been deemed "New Mormon History." The term itself is not a derogatory term. It was indeed coined by those who are professional historians, as well as by and large faithful members of the LDS church. I am living proof that not every historian who writes about the LDS church is a faithful member, but many of us would happily claim to be faithful-non-members. That may seem like an impossible statement to you. I understand that, but it is important to someone like me. I don't know any proponent of New Mormon history who has accused the church of hiding or lying. Perhaps there are some; I just don't know any. 

The history of the LDS church is in some ways a "sacred history." I have scores of books on my shelves written specifically about sacred history and how challenging and difficult it is to study and to write about. There is a great concern in historical writings about bias, and a lack of objectivity, which especially is complicated when dealing with sacred history. There is pressure on the faithful historian from both internal and external forces to write history that is promoting of the specialness, sacredness, and unique nature of the specific group being studied. This is compounded when one belongs to and has spiritual ties to the group. Others approach it with commitments to both accuracy and faith. I do not believe that these commitments are oppositional. Things get even more complicated when labels like "New Mormon History" get attached. Then even the label itself gets its own history attached to it.

History is complicated. Objectivity in history is a worthy goal. It is also, as realized by most historians I know impossible to absolutely achieve. I am a Mennonite. Whether writing about Mennonite or Mormon (used in the broad term) history I do my best to be accurate. New facts emerge all the time. How do I reconcile the July 4th, 1838 published sermon of Sidney Rigdon, wherein he talks about exterminating the Missourians, with the October 1838 "Extermination Order of Governor Boggs?" Is there a connection?  Does asking that question make me anti-Mormon? Does coming to a reasoned conclusion that the two are inter-connected in a causative manner make me anti-Mormon? I don't think so. In the same decade (1832-1833) there was a series of great battles between Yoruba Christians and animists and Fulani Muslims and animists in southwestern Nigeria. When I write about those battles, I must strive for objectivity even though personally I am Christian (not an animist!). Take care and very best wishes.