Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, Rain said:

Would he have said God lied if he was not responding to the video? 

I think he would have said it because that is what happens, but as you say he did not say God lied….at least that is not what he means.  He is saying Genesis 1 says God lied.

There is a huge difference between stories told about God and what God actually does.

I love his approach.  It is much harder trying to keep in mind all the rationalizations of the attempts to harmonize.  Much easier to take the passages as they come.

The Bible is not one picture worked on by multiple artists where one painted a forehead, another an ear, etc.; it is a collage taken from a multitude of pictures dealing with similar topics.  Some parts of the collage may be quite large and others small (he says he is not intending to pick it apart word by word as some do) and each original part I am guessing is probably individually/internally consistent, but they are not consistent in a global sense.  Some are completely unrelated.

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you find any mixed messaging from Dan between his fireside comments and this video, posted a few hours ago?

I don't.

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I haven't faulted Dan for "{not} discussing Mormonism at all."

Sometimes, I wonder if the misunderstanding isn't simply a deliberate rhetorical strategy on your part.

[Calm]

I have been watching Dan’s videos tonight and came across one that specifies he is just describing what Genesis in response to someone claiming he is calling God a liar.

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I’m a little confused by what you wrote above.  I’m not sure if you understood me to be saying that LDS doctrine itself is a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism, or if you are reading between the lines and think that I am possibly inferring that unintentionally.  To be clear, I don’t think LDS doctrine does this (so I hope I wasn’t inferring that).  Rather, I was saying that the research by both Michael Heiser and Dan McClellan offers a huge pushback against the tradition of monotheism for some of the reasons I explain below.  

When I read your comments, I find a lot of what I see as inconsistency. On the one hand, you recognize the process of unmooring texts from their original context (Nephi's likening of scripture). On the other hand, you write this:

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

What is significant about Joseph Smith’s restoration is not in the details of the so-called parallels to early Christianity, but with the recovery of a few profound pivotal doctrines that reshape our entire thinking of our relationship to God and view of the ancient world.

This feels like you want to have your cake and eat it it. The idea of a restoration - as fundamental as that was to early Mormonism - doesn't mean a whole lot to us now. Early Mormonism may have been a part of the restorationist movement - but what this means is that it was one of a whole group of religious movements that claimed to be a restoration of an original Christianity. Present day Mormonism is no longer a part of that movement (and it certainly doesn't argue that these other groups, to the extent that they share things in common with early Mormonism, were in fact restorations).

Jewish monotheism is constructed out of earlier Jewish religion. Christianity is constructed out of Jewish monotheism. Tatian and Theophilus don't invent creatio ex nihilo, they adopt it and make it work for their Christian theology. Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity (or even a return to an original Abrahamic religion), it is constructed out of the Christianity of its environment. What is significant about Mormonism and Joseph Smith's engagement with religion has nothing to do with the parallels (and differences) that can be found between Mormonism and earlier religion. It is the way that Joseph Smith engages with God and receives revelation - it is what is entirely new. You cannot approach Mormonism without first understanding contemporary Christianity. The similarities and differences that occur there are what we would expect to find - even from revealed religion. To quote myself (in some discussion about the observations of Everett Ferguson😞

Quote

Quote

That Christians observed the same customs and used words in the same way as their contemporaries is hardly noteworthy in itself. Those things belonged to the place and time when Christianity began. The situation could not have been otherwise for Christianity to have been a real historical phenomenon, open now to historical study. To expect the situation to have been otherwise would require Christianity to be something other than it is, a historical religion. Indeed, if Christianity did not have these linguistic and cultural contacts with the first-century Mediterranean world the presumption would be that it was a fiction originating in another time and place.

We could simply substitute the word Mormonism for Christianity here. Mormonism is clearly rooted in both a place and time. And so we should expect it to use the same customs and words in the same way as its contemporaries.

The very idea that that Mormonism's doctrines can "reshape our entire ... view of the ancient world" is nothing more than taking history and removing it from its context - a historical (instead of literary) likening it unto ourselves. This will only tell us about ourselves, it will never reveal something about that past. We use our revealed knowledge to reshape those fundamental religious myths into something that works better with our knowledge and understanding - but that process isn't restoration.  This is probably the issue that I most clearly see the self-contradiction of your view. While you mention the likening of scripture unto ourselves - the hermeneutic of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, there is a necessary deeper discussion about the nature of texts themselves. I am not sure where you fall on the spectrum of belief about the meaning of texts (and by extension, the questions of whether texts have a determinate meaning, the role of the author in creating meaning, and so on). Nephi is willing to reject the historical context for the present. He has no interest in using his revelation to reshape his view of the ancient world - because this wouldn't be meaningful. His process is to repurpose those ancient texts in a new context - to make them relevant again. This isn't an act of recovery.

A final point - Mormonism's obsession with the past and reinterpreting that past in terms of the present isn't particularly unique. Most religious movements want this - to claim to be a part of or a successor to the original tradition. And for those who are interested in understanding this pattern, I recommend Jonathon Smith's work as a good introduction.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

When I read your comments, I find a lot of what I see as inconsistency. On the one hand, you recognize the process of unmooring texts from their original context (Nephi's likening of scripture). On the other hand, you write this:

This feels like you want to have your cake and eat it it. The idea of a restoration - as fundamental as that was to early Mormonism - doesn't mean a whole lot to us now. Early Mormonism may have been a part of the restorationist movement - but what this means is that it was one of a whole group of religious movements that claimed to be a restoration of an original Christianity. Present day Mormonism is no longer a part of that movement (and it certainly doesn't argue that these other groups, to the extent that they share things in common with early Mormonism, were in fact restorations).

Jewish monotheism is constructed out of earlier Jewish religion. Christianity is constructed out of Jewish monotheism. Tatian and Theophilus don't invent creatio ex nihilo, they adopt it and make it work for their Christian theology. Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity (or even a return to an original Abrahamic religion), it is constructed out of the Christianity of its environment. What is significant about Mormonism and Joseph Smith's engagement with religion has nothing to do with the parallels (and differences) that can be found between Mormonism and earlier religion. It is the way that Joseph Smith engages with God and receives revelation - it is what is entirely new. You cannot approach Mormonism without first understanding contemporary Christianity. The similarities and differences that occur there are what we would expect to find - even from revealed religion. To quote myself (in some discussion about the observations of Everett Ferguson😞

The very idea that that Mormonism's doctrines can "reshape our entire ... view of the ancient world" is nothing more than taking history and removing it from its context - a historical (instead of literary) likening it unto ourselves. This will only tell us about ourselves, it will never reveal something about that past. We use our revealed knowledge to reshape those fundamental religious myths into something that works better with our knowledge and understanding - but that process isn't restoration.  This is probably the issue that I most clearly see the self-contradiction of your view. While you mention the likening of scripture unto ourselves - the hermeneutic of Nephi in the Book of Mormon, there is a necessary deeper discussion about the nature of texts themselves. I am not sure where you fall on the spectrum of belief about the meaning of texts (and by extension, the questions of whether texts have a determinate meaning, the role of the author in creating meaning, and so on). Nephi is willing to reject the historical context for the present. He has no interest in using his revelation to reshape his view of the ancient world - because this wouldn't be meaningful. His process is to repurpose those ancient texts in a new context - to make them relevant again. This isn't an act of recovery.

A final point - Mormonism's obsession with the past and reinterpreting that past in terms of the present isn't particularly unique. Most religious movements want this - to claim to be a part of or a successor to the original tradition. And for those who are interested in understanding this pattern, I recommend Jonathon Smith's work as a good introduction.

Since the restoration entails correction, I think we do have restored or corrected history (knowledge of past events), the transmission of which had been disrupted, for example: D&C 107:29 and 84:6-16, and to the extent some of the entries can be considered histories, the Books of Moses and Abraham, and the Book of Mormon.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Quote

I haven't faulted Dan for "{not} discussing Mormonism at all."

Sometimes, I wonder if the misunderstanding isn't simply a deliberate rhetorical strategy on your part.

I wonder if you are unable or just unwilling to argue your point without denigrating the intelligence and/or honesty of people whose views do not perfectly align with your own.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

No.  You are mixing almonds and grapes and thinking something must be wrong because the grape isn’t a nut, when it was never meant to be.

I am pretty certain what he meant was he believes the scripture describes God as lying in that incident and not that he believes God actually lies.  

Dan: "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17."

Calm: "{Dan does not believe that} God actually lies {in Genesis 2:17}."

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

The ancients saw God differently than we do.  Maybe they saw lying differently as well and what mattered is more that you cared for someone and tried to prevent them from being hurt rather than precision in description.  And that God might lie like a parent lies to a child there are monsters out in the dark so they don’t wander off because they know the child won’t listen to “you can’t go out in the dark because you could get lost” and will only proceed to take off positive they won’t get lost even as they do.

 Our view of God likely isn’t very accurate either, imo. Dan working with the ancient view should not be confused for his personal view.

So when Dan says "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17," he is speaking of "the ancient view" and not his own?  Then why frame his his assessment with "I too have concluded..."?

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

I view Genesis as a temple ritual, so it’s a play more or less, not what actually happened.  I am not sure God even spoke those words or there were two trees (I lean towards “not”) before they became part of a truly inspired portrayal of the relationship between God and Man.  So if God is lying in the temple play as a plot device, it doesn’t have an impact on my actual relationship with him anymore than my dad’s lying as part of the Santa Claus Christmas ritual because I know it was a story even if I didn’t realize it to begin with and in real life where it matters my dad didn’t lie to me.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have been watching Dan’s videos tonight and came across one that specifies he is just describing what Genesis in response to someone claiming he is calling God a liar.

 

Dan: What's the first lie told in the Bible?
Commenter: Uh oh.  I got a bad feeling about this.
Dan: All right, let's see it.
Dan: It happens in Genesis 2, verse 17.
Commenter: Yep, he's actually going to call God a liar.
Dan: No, I'm just pointing out what the author of Genesis 2:17 was trying to communicate.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac
 

[smac97]

On 8/31/2023 at 6:30 PM, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. From what I’ve seen, your disagreements with Dan have mostly been political or matters of perceived lack of orthodoxy.

My stance on elective abortion is not "political" (in that I view it as far more of a moral issue than a political one), but Dan insists on labeling it so, and imputing evil motives onto me for it, and personally insulting me for it.

On 8/31/2023 at 6:30 PM, jkwilliams said:

I’ve always appreciated that his academic approach hasn’t affected his faith. 

My critique of Dan in this thread has been less about his "academic approach" relative to "his faith," and more about it being relative to his politics, which I think he often smuggles into his supposedly "academic" commentary (see, e.g., here).

That said, I have previously noted that "I appreciate the generalized sentiment he presents about 'data over dogma,'" that "I regularly watch his videos, and find his commentary overall helpful," that "I give Dan's opinions on biblical scholarship some real credence."

I'm largely indifferent to what Dan does relative to his own faith (other than a generalized hope that he sticks with it).  I am a bit more attentive when he takes affirmative steps to affect the faith of others, particularly Latter-day Saints.  Some of his comments in the Dehlin interview gave me serious pause on that score (such as his admission/brag that he is influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is - in his words - a "sweet spot" for him to be in).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2023 by smac97

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if you are unable or just unwilling to argue your point without denigrating the intelligence and/or honesty of people whose views do not perfectly align with your own.

Actually, I don't have any problems with most people who disagree with me. Especially when they are able to rationally defend their point of view. You just have a special place in my heart ...

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

@mfbukowski, I think you would appreciate the beginning of the clip, he talks about how the squiggles acquire meaning, miscommunication and several familiar themes.  Haven’t fished it yet, so don’t know if you will appreciate the whole thing.

Thanks! 

Edited October 4, 2023 by mfbukowski

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Actually, I don't have any problems with most people who disagree with me. Especially when they are able to rationally defend their point of view. You just have a special place in my heart ...

He seems to have found that place in the hearts of a number of people.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Calm: "{Dan does not believe that} God actually lies {in Genesis 2:17}."

Please reread the entire sentence, I am not saying what you think I am saying.

Quote

So when Dan says "I too have concluded that God is lying in Genesis 2:17," he is speaking of "the ancient view" and not his own?  Then why frame his his assessment with "I too have concluded..."?

He is saying he has concluded that about the reading, concluded as an academic examining a text that the story has God lying.  He has framed his entire series as an examination of the texts and not a discussion of his personal beliefs.
 

Btw, I tried to send you a post and it didn’t go through so I am guessing you need to delete some conversations.  Feel free to delete my past ramblings so I can do it again.   

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Please reread the entire sentence, I am not saying what you think I am saying.

He is saying he has concluded that about the reading, concluded as an academic examining a text that the story has God lying.  He has framed his entire series as an examination of the texts and not a discussion of his personal beliefs.
 

Btw, I tried to send you a post and it didn’t go through so I am guessing you need to delete some conversations.  Feel free to delete my past ramblings so I can do it again.   

 

This is why I use capitals and bold, emojis humor, sarcasm and simple language whatever else works to give SOME folks hereabouts some reading comprehension ability.

No one seems STILL to understand my extremely simple Rorty quotes.

Lowest common denominators 

[Calm]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

which I think he often smuggles into his supposedly "academic" commentary (see, e.g., here).

I don’t think there is any smuggling.  He is quite open about when he is supportive of the political motive behind a video, what the person is trying to persuade others to do, even in cases where there’s misuse of scripture. I think he is quite open about when the topic is political, especially given he frequently uses political language. 

The “academic” side of his commentary imo applies to what is and isn’t in the Bible, not when he slips into his political commentary about what to do with or what not to do with scripture and why, what the consequences are when one misuses scripture to support their political positions.  

I am guessing he sees focusing on misuse of scripture for political views as appropriate because the purpose of his series to correct misuse of scripture in the sense of insisting it says something when it doesn’t, whether it is importing so called “facts” into the text that aren’t actually there or misrepresenting what is there.  These corrections are what he does in his series whether someone has a theological purpose or a political one even when he agrees with the motivation of a claim (such as to promote equality of women) or the purpose is to simply get attention or promote some absurd claim. 
 

If he were to try and do the same with his own religious/spiritual beliefs, it doesn’t work because he doesn’t view the Bible in the same way as those he critiquing does. My guess is he doesn’t view the Bible as the direct source of his morality, he is not going to use scripture to support his own positions, at least not in that way of claiming authority to act a certain way because the Bible approves of it, etc. So of what value is there really in him saying here my personal views align with this part of  the Bible and but they don’t here?  He is not trying to defend or explain his own religious beliefs, nor is he defending or explaining his own political beliefs; he is simply correcting or agreeing that the way someone uses the text is consistent with the text.  And if the misuse is political, his commentary needs to be political to respond to why it is a misuse. He is not trying to prove his own spiritual beliefs are superior because they line up more with scripture than someone else’s. It would be completely contrary to his view of scripture to do that because scripture is not univocal, it contains contrary ideas so even if one part aligns with his belief, another wouldn’t so how can it provide some sort of ultimate authority?

I could see him saying my experience with this scripture has inspired me to see the world as….(whatever) in another context, but his experience with scripture is not the same thing as what is in scripture and what can appropriately be dug out of it and what claims shouldn’t be made about it. 

[InCognitus]

On 10/4/2023 at 6:32 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Jewish monotheism is constructed out of earlier Jewish religion. Christianity is constructed out of Jewish monotheism.

Modern monotheists claim to have constructed their monotheism from the earlier Bible texts too. 

But there is a period of time when monotheism was transitioned into popular use.   Many scholars believe this transition period happened at roughly the same time for both Christians and Jews.  According to Dan McClellan, there is no monotheism in the Bible (he has Youtube videos saying this) and says "the Septuagint‘s conflation of the sons of God with the angels marks the threshold of modern monotheism. Its solution to the problem of the gods represents a theological innovation that departed from the theology of all previous texts, was quickly adopted by subsequent authors, and has perdured down to the present day." (Monotheism—Still a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?, p.12).  The early manuscripts of the Septuagint didn't do this, it was only in later manuscripts (from Dan McClellan, What is Deity in LXX Deuteronomy?, p. 75).  

If Dan is right, this puts the introduction of monotheism into Judaism and Christianity after the New Testament period (or at the very least it's not mentioned in the New Testament in either group).

On 10/4/2023 at 6:32 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Tatian and Theophilus don't invent creatio ex nihilo, they adopt it and make it work for their Christian theology.

I didn't say they invented it, but this is when it was first introduced into Christianity (according to James Hubler and others).  Hubler claims:

Quote

Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century C.E. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine was not forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or the Early Jewish interpretation of them. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition. Inasmuch as it was a radical departure from the intellectual traditions of the larger culture and violated its manifest truths, it must have been a position which was strongly motivated.  (Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 980. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/980, p. 102)

 

On 10/4/2023 at 6:32 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity (or even a return to an original Abrahamic religion), it is constructed out of the Christianity of its environment. What is significant about Mormonism and Joseph Smith's engagement with religion has nothing to do with the parallels (and differences) that can be found between Mormonism and earlier religion. It is the way that Joseph Smith engages with God and receives revelation - it is what is entirely new.

I agree that Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity in the way you describe.  But there were some definite restored principles, doctrines, and even scripture that Joseph Smith recovered.  How those things were implemented in the restored church was new and applicable to the time.

On 10/4/2023 at 6:32 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

You cannot approach Mormonism without first understanding contemporary Christianity. The similarities and differences that occur there are what we would expect to find - even from revealed religion. To quote myself (in some discussion about the observations of Everett Ferguson😞

I think I agree with what you're saying here.

On 10/4/2023 at 6:32 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

The very idea that that Mormonism's doctrines can "reshape our entire ... view of the ancient world" is nothing more than taking history and removing it from its context - a historical (instead of literary) likening it unto ourselves. This will only tell us about ourselves, it will never reveal something about that past. We use our revealed knowledge to reshape those fundamental religious myths into something that works better with our knowledge and understanding - but that process isn't restoration.

I understand your point, and perhaps I'm just not good at expressing my thoughts (written and verbal communication is something I struggle with.  I do much better with languages like Visual Basic and SQL!)

The point I was trying to make primarily had to do with the two doctrines that I mentioned:  monotheism and creation ex-nihilo (although a few others may also apply).  Both of these doctrines, once adopted, change a person's theological world view drastically.  The adoption of both those doctrines completely closes the door to other possibilities in the area of deities or even how deity is defined.  A strict monotheist shuts out the possibility of any other God or god existing.  The adoption of creation ex-nihilo redefines deity as anything that is eternal (the Christians who wrote about creation ex-nihilo actually say this), and everything else is considered wholly other and cannot be or become deity.

But Joseph Smith not only re-opens the door that was closed by the adoption of these two doctrines, he walks back through it far to the other side, by rejecting both the doctrines of monotheism and creation ex-nihilo.  The rejection of those two doctrines changes the way we view and interpret the biblical text (which is what I meant when I said it reshapes our entire view of the ancient world, as compared to those who accept those two doctrines).  This doesn't mean that we interpret the Bible texts exactly the same way as the ancient Israelites (of course not).  But I do think it sets us up to be more inclined to understand some of the things that Bible scholars are discovering (to the extent that their findings prove to be accurate).

I think most importantly Joseph Smith restored a vision of possibilities where we are not confined to a particular set of creeds and are actually encouraged to treasure up all truth, wherever it may be found and whenever it is revealed.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

If Dan is right, this puts the introduction of monotheism into Judaism and Christianity after the New Testament period (or at the very least it's not mentioned in the New Testament in either group).

I would tend to disagree with this - but its in the details (that is, I would put monotheism solidly in the pre-New Testament period). A part of our problem is the notion of monotheism itself. The word monotheism first enters use (at least in recorded literature) in 1660, in Henry More's The Grand Mystery of Godliness. So in one sense, our understanding of monotheism really begins in the mid-17th century. The question of the beginning of monotheism hinges around definitions - because it represents a historical progression. A better question is - what do we make of the worship of angels (something that occurs both within pre-Christian Judaism and within early Christianity)? This is something which isn't that much different from the veneration of saints within present-day Catholicism. An absolutely strict monotheism becomes problematic in the understanding of ancient religion because it usually must be defined in modern terms and only then investigated in the historical context. The desire to see absolute monotheism in the history is more of an apologetic agenda for strict monotheists today than it is for historians of religion, who have more tolerance for deviations from these strict definitions. More in a moment.

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

According to Dan McClellan, there is no monotheism in the Bible (he has Youtube videos saying this) and says "the Septuagint‘s conflation of the sons of God with the angels marks the threshold of modern monotheism.

The disagreement I would have with Dan (and others have) is that angel worship had already begun in Judaism in the Second Temple period - long before the New Testament period - and as long as you can hold a monotheism that doesn't exclude angel worship, Monotheism in the Second Temple period is often simply assumed (see, for example, Larry Hurtado). So we can have a monotheism in pre-Christian Judaism - but it isn't a strict monotheism of the sort that we often see described in present day Christianity. It is only when we see polemical discourse against the worship of angels in Judaism, that we could argue that we have the beginning of a strict monotheism - so its complicated.

What isn't so complicated is that early Jewish-Christians drew on these traditions of angel worship to produce the language used to describe early Jesus worship. And because of this, I can state with some certainty (and certainly in a way that I think Dan would agree) that Christianity evolves from that Jewish context and understanding of monotheism - which isn't so strict as the monotheism we see it compared to today.

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings.

But it pops up quite noticeably in familiar Jewish texts, like 2 Maccabees - texts which were popularized in Christian contexts because of their attention to martyrs. Now, I realize that you will turn to Hubler's thesis, but we have a problem there that he doesn't acknowledge:

Quote

Some statements have been interpreted as teaching creatio ex nihilo (such as 2 Maccabees 7.28 and Bereshit Rabba 1.9, see discussion below), but closer examination reveals that they are not making that claim, and no one presents any argument to support the doctrine.

No one in Early Judaism had the motivation to produce an argument for creatio ex nihilo. The philosophically minded writers would not have flown in the face of philosophical teaching without cause. The more biblically minded Rabbis even went so far as to disallow questions that went back before the beginning of the world. They expressly forbade treading where biblical texts did not lead. Therefore, they would not have made such a bold claim about what did or did not precede the heaven and earth, since scripture was silent therein.

This is the summary. We can go into his later arguments in more detail if you want, but this is sufficient for my point here. We have two issues here. The first is that we don't (by Hubard's admission) have anything remotely resembling a non- creatio ex nihilo argument for creation. What this me

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

I agree that Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity in the way you describe.  But there were some definite restored principles, doctrines, and even scripture that Joseph Smith recovered.  How those things were implemented in the restored church was new and applicable to the time.

ans is that if we were arguing the opposite position, we could say exactly the same thing as Hubard says here. This means that the argument is deeply flawed (arguing from absence). The second thing is that Hubard never mentions the LXX translation of Genesis 1:1.  The Hebrew could be interpreted either way. But the LXX translation can't. It does not keep the Hebrew view of a non-absolute "in the beginning of ..." which is where the rabbinic texts start. And when we get to 2 Maccabees in particular, this is a problem because the original language of 2 Maccabees is Greek, and so starts from the LXX and not the Hebrew text. I note in passing that Dan himself accepted the likelihood of the 2 Maccabees text referring to ex nihilo creation in his published material.

But this goes back to my earlier discussion. Ex nihilo creation isn't something you can simply point to a moment in time and say, here is where it begins. It is a process. And 2 Maccabees represents a point on that progression that is clearly far closer to modern thoughts of ex nihilo creation than it does to the creation from chaos myth we find in ancient Judaism and other ancient cultures.

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

I agree that Mormonism isn't a return to original Christianity in the way you describe.  But there were some definite restored principles, doctrines, and even scripture that Joseph Smith recovered.  How those things were implemented in the restored church was new and applicable to the time.

But isn't this what I just said? The challenge we have, though, is that Mormonism (speaking collectively), in its attempt to make itself a restoration tends to try to match these principles and doctrines to the oldest examples they can find rather than the most recent examples they can find. There is a deliberate attempt to try and avoid describing Mormonism as a reformation (of sorts) of more recent Christianity as opposed to a restoration of something ancient. And this is an effort that fails more often than not - it creates misunderstanding of both modern religion (including Mormonism) as well as ancient religion.

On 10/6/2023 at 12:19 AM, InCognitus said:

But Joseph Smith not only re-opens the door that was closed by the adoption of these two doctrines ...

And I just want to make it clear that Joseph Smith cannot 're-open' the door unless it is previously closed. And what that means is that Mormonism owes a greater debt to modern Christianity than we like to generally concede. He doesn't take Mormonism and build it out of an older religion where that door had not closed. And this is a good thing - because our view of eternity might be quite different if it had. I have no issues with your other points. Joseph Smith's greatest contribution was creating a system where revelation can continue to flow, where religion can continue to evolve, and where we have the capacity of removing old traditions that have lost their meaning in the light of current understanding.

[provoman]

On 10/4/2023 at 5:31 AM, Calm said:

I have been watching Dan’s videos tonight and came across one that specifies he is just describing what Genesis in response to someone claiming he is calling God a liar.

 

Have you seen this one? September 23, 2023, I watched it soon after it was released; but quite honestly did not understand his statement about God and lying.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by provoman

[Calm]

@provoman Yep.  I watched it.  Hopefully I am answering your question below and not missing the point.

He is refuting apologetic defenses made claiming that the authors didn’t intend to make it look like God was lying in Chapter 2.  One of the claims repeated by the presenter in the video within his video actually came from a rationalization made in 1964 rather than a linguistic/grammatical explanation.  The other defense he goes into in more detail is a grammatical argument, but they made a major mistake when forming it by misidentifying the phrase, an error a first year Hebrew student would make.

The actual verse should be translated…

”On the day [24 hour day] you eat from it, you will die.”  Or certainly die.

In the Chap 2/3 creation/Garden story God said Adam would die if he ate the fruit, but he didn’t die as expected.  Therefore the authors have God lying in this story when he told Adam he would die….there was no sense in the Hebrew words that it meant doomed to die or that Adam was immortal and now he was mortal, but wasn’t about to keel over in front of Eve until +900 years later.  Nope, it is a straight out lie.

In his other videos and this one Dan is saying the Hebrew Bible has sections in it (remember it is not univocal, one voice, but a collection of writings from different authors and different time periods, it was not intended to be a harmonized book according to its numerous original authors) that are based on a theology of deception, which means the nature of God allows him to use deception for his purposes.  It includes a God who lies, the Hebrew version of the Divine Trickster.  There is scholarship demonstrating the presence of a trickster God in parts of the Bible, such as Genesis chapter 2 and 3.  Iirc from my own random studies back in my 20s and 30s, a trickster god is not viewed as omniscient, they make mistakes, don’t know the future, can be tricked themselves, etc.  This trickster story of God and men is from an earlier time period than Genesis chapter 1.  In another video he explains that  Chapter 1 was written to reflect the nature of God as understood in the later time period, an omniscient and perfect God who created by fiat instead of molding man out of clay, who created the man and the woman at the same time rather than taking his time to figure out that Adam should not be alone and the animals weren’t appropriate companions for him.  The writers of Chapter 1 didn’t like how God was portrayed in the Chapter 2/3 story and so they wrote their own version. 

Next question is why would the authors have God lie?  He is not the typical trickster god entertaining himself by pranking gods and men.  Academics usually explain the earlier version of the creation (chap 2/3) where God lied to Adam as similar to how parents lie to their children with a hyperbolic threat that their face will get stuck that way if they stick their tongue out…only of course, it isn’t so trivial.  God lied to Adam for his own good, didn’t work though.

The story of Chapter 1 and the story of Chapter 2 and 3 most likely got stuck together because some scribe wanted to be sure not to lose either of them and they put both stories on one scroll.  It was an anthology more or less.  Decades or hundreds of years later others come and assume because they are on one scroll, it is just one story, not two.  This occurs in several places in the Bible where there are contradictions.  Sometimes the contradictions are attempted to be harmonized as happened with Goliath’s death, where you have two different stories with two different people killing him.  Later scribes decide to have the second man (can’t remember his name) kill the brother of Goliath instead of Goliath to make the text make sense when you read them as one story.

Dan discusses two views he has of the Bible in his videos (he likely has other views), one is the academic which is trying to figure out essentially what the original authors intended.  Because different authors intended different things, there will be contradictions.  Dan accepts this and does not attempt to rationalize or harmonize the Bible as if it was a whole book written with one intent.  He accepts that the way these various authors perceive God will not agree with each other and therefore it seems obvious to me he also accepts at least some of the authors won’t agree with how he views God, if any of them do.

He also on a personal level—when not being his academic self—inserts himself into the text if I understand him correctly, as in ‘how would I experience this if I were there as the story describes’.  His having visited the Holy Land and walked in many of the places allows him to visualize the story and experience it that much better, for which he is appreciative.  He says some of his most meaningful spiritual experiences have come to him through this form of personal scripture study.  He however doesn’t provide any info on how this type of study has affected his view of God or what his view of God is….though from my POV, you can pick up a lot of what he thinks God expects from us in his videos.

My guess is he does not view the Bible as some textbook of divine truths laid out one after another in narrative form, but rather more like a collection of sermons, stories, journal entries, and policies and law manuals where if one interacts with, negotiates with the text one will create new meaning for oneself.

 

Edited October 10, 2023 by Calm

[provoman]

@Calm

If I understand, when he says "God does lie" in other parts, it is the writers "creating" the "lie".

[Calm]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

@Calm

If I understand, when he says "God does lie" in other parts, it is the writers "creating" the "lie".

That is it in a nutshell.  It’s the writers’ creation, not the actual behaviour of God.

I went back and edited my response to make this clearer, I hope.

Edited October 10, 2023 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is it in a nutshell.  It’s the writers’ creation, not the actual behaviour of God.

I went back and edited my response to make this clearer, I hope.

But then of course "the actual behavior (correctly spelled 😜) of God" presents it's own epistemological problems

 

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

But then of course "the actual behavior (correctly spelled 😜) of God" presents it's own epistemological problems

 

Oh yes…

As far as the spelling…Philistine!

[Damien the Leper]

Can anyone give me a verifiable, direct, eyewitness account of God, Himself and not someone saying God said so, saying that He cannot or will not lie?

Oral tradition need not apply.

Edited October 16, 2023 by Damien the Leper