Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

smac97 · December 10, 2024

On 12/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, bluebell said:

Quote

In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with. It seems like that's the sort of thing that would be anathema to the whole modern academic approach to biblical scholarship. And if that were my field of study, I would probably want to keep my personal religious beliefs separate from my scholarly work as well.

As long as you weren't trading on your membership in the church, then I agree. (to be clear, I'm not saying Dan is doing that. I have no idea as I don't follow him and I think i've only ever had the algorithm of reels pop up one of his two times over the last few years, and neither of them were about the church).

I don't think Dan is "trading" on his membership in the Church, either.

Rather, I think Dan is "trading" on his status as an expert in biblical scholarship to A) critique and comment on questions and issues regarding the Bible, but also B) to critique and comment on sociopolitical issues which have marginal or coincidental relevance to biblical scholarship, and also comment on the personalities of people whose sociopolitical views vary from his, and also comment, in increasingly disparaging tones, about the Church and its doctrines and leaders.

(A) is a legitimate exercise, (B) is less so.

On 12/10/2024 at 8:50 AM, bluebell said:

But yes, data is never going to support supernatural claims.

I think different people have different perspectives on what is meant by "data," particularly in relation to the foundational components of the Restored Gospel.

First, as an attorney, I have occasionally witnessed an attorney getting dressed down, either in person or in writing, by a judge or panel of judges for making "conclusory statements," that is, "a claim or assertion that presents a conclusion without providing any supporting evidence or reasoning." This is how I often view Dan's broad pronouncements about what "the data indicate" about the Church's doctrines, leaders, etc. He asserts rather than demonstrates and explains. A lot. He uses his scholarly bona fides to bolster his personal opinions on matters that don't seem to fit within his scholarly expertise.

Second, I think there are plenty of "data" which can and should be addressed in this context (but which data Dan apparently never gets around to actually addressing). For example, the statements of the Witnesses as regarding the reality of the Plates are "data." The same goes for plenty of other matters touching on the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and other miraculous elements of the Restoration (I typically avoid the term "supernatural," as I believe that God operated within, not "above" natural law) :

Joseph Smith's statements about the theophanies he experienced.
The text of The Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's education and writing proficiency.
Whether Joseph Smith had the financial means, materials, skills, etc. to fabricate the plates.
The speed and circumstances of the translation of The Book of Mormon.
The internal consistency of the chronology in the Book of Mormon.
The internal consistence of the geography / geospatial relationships in the Book of Mormon.
The elements of the BOM narrative were known or knowable by Joseph Smith and his contemporaries in the 1820s.
The NHM altar and its geospatial relationship with Khor Kharfot
The so-called "seal of Mulek."
Chiasmus in The Book of Mormon.
Hebraisms in The Book of Mormon.

From our own @Robert F. Smith:

Quote

What I want to say here is that the “preposterous” nature of the coming-forth of the Book of Mormon is a singular advantage. Why? Because, if the Book of Mormon cannot possibly be true (based on the unbelievable nature of its coming-forth), all the more reason to accept it as authentic when careful analysis of the text, along with comparison of it with archeology, linguistics, and history shows it to be based on empirical, secular reality. That is, despite all that might be said against it, the preponderance of hard evidence shows the Book of Mormon to be an authentic ancient document. For, according to Thomas Bayes’ Theorem for calculating probabilities, the preponderance of evidence is enough in such improbable cases to establish likelihood 4– a likelihood which should be impossible.

After all, both the Bible and Homeric Epic were transmitted to us by ordinary, secular historical means, being copied by scribes for thousands of years. Both describe actual ancient civilizations which are known to have existed. This does not tell us in either case whether the miracles described in those texts actually occurred, but the lesson should be clear:

The “preposterous” origin of the Book of Mormon turns that situation upside-down, and provides the singular advantage that the verifiable, systematic claims in that book not only make it likely to be authentic, but also explicitly buttress the miraculous claims of the Bible. This is an extraordinary legacy of what has rightly become a “Second Witness.”

Unlike Dan's commentary on social media content, Robert's presentation does not rest on a conclusory, "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing. Rather, Robert's presentation includes a pretty extensive summary of "data" regarding The Book of Mormon:

Mormon's Codex
Weights & Measures / Ancient Egypt (measurements) / Coordination with Israelite Sheqel / Limestone Dome Weights / Alma 11
Other Etymologies / Irreantum / Rabbanah / Rameumptom / Mulek/Muloch / Paanchi/Pahoran/Pahoron
Epistolary Form
Covenant Formulary
Oath Formulae
Anthon Transcript
Plates of Brass
Chronology (of The Book of Mormon)

And quite a bit more. Where Dan merely states a broad conclusion about "the data" and asks his audience to trust it based on his status as biblical scholar, Robert actually presents data, and then explains its probative value.

And Robert is far from alone in presenting both "data" and analysis of them:

The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)
I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)
The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)
Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)
Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief (John E. Clark)
The Role of Evidence in Religious Discussion (John Welch)
Book of Mormon Central
Jeff Lindsay's "Evidences" Page

From Elder Holland:

Quote

Peter assumed that two-fold aspect of our conviction when he said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”[3]

Reasons for the hope that is in us. Reasons for our belief. I am not a lawyer as virtually all the Welch family men are, but I don’t have to be one to understand in a court of law the power and primacy of evidence. In making our case for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, I believe God intends us to find and use the evidence He has given—reasons, if you will—which affirm the truthfulness of His work.
...
In his classic definition of faith the Apostle Paul suggests, with one of those paradoxes that so frequently crop up in the gospel, that evidence is still evidence even if it is not immediately observable. “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen,”[5] he wrote. For me a classic example of substance I hope for and evidence of things I have not seen is the 531 pages of the Book of Mormon that come from a sheaf of gold plates some people saw and handled and hefted but I haven’t seen or handled or hefted, and neither have you. Nevertheless, the reality of those plates, the substance of them if you will, and the evidence that comes to us from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work that is unshakably within me forever.

"The data" about the Plates are pretty extensive, yet Dan presents no analysis of them in his social media content - not a lick - and merely declares, in a "trust me, I'm a biblical scholar" kind of way, that "the data indicate" a 19th-century, not ancient, origin for The Book of Mormon.

I appreciate Dan insofar as he "stays in his lane" as to matters of biblical scholarship. Unfortunately, he too often indulges in "frolics and detours" about sociopolitical and religious issues and commentary that are less about "biblical scholarship" and more about Dan's personal opinions. And it is in these "frolics and detours" that Dan is the often more prone to publish conclusory pronouncements about "the data."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2025 by smac97

bluebell · December 10, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think Dan is "trading" on his membership in the Church, either.

Rather, I think Dan is "trading" on his status as an expert in biblical scholarship to A) critique and comment on questions and issues regarding the Bible, but also B) to critique and comment on sociopolitical issues which have marginal or coincidental relevance to biblical scholarship, on the personalities of people whose socio political views vary from his, and also about the Church and its doctrines and leaders.

I've seen one video of his that someone else linked to where I got that feeling (and which came across a little self-righteous in tone), so you could be correct. But again, I have so little experience with his stuff that I can't really have much of an opinion. And I certainly don't know him in person or through online sources enough to say either way.

Quote

I think different people have different perspectives on what is meant by "data," particularly in relation to the foundational components of the Restored Gospel.

Agreed. It would be good if he defined data, but maybe he has and I'm not aware of it. I'm assuming he's using the term in the normal way, which is to refer to facts and statistics. Saying there are no data to support supernatural claims is, in my perspective, a completely different statement than saying there is no evidence.

Evidence can exist where facts do no.

Edited December 10, 2024 by bluebell

smac97 · December 10, 2024

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This exactly. Dan speaks authoritatively on his area of scholarly expertise, namely critical biblical scholarship.

And then he lards up his social media content with commentary that is not within "his area of scholarly expertise." I think he relies on the latter to bolster his stature / street cred when commenting on contemporary sociopolitical/moral issues.

This is perhaps most obvious in some (many? most?) of his dunking-on-the-amateurs videos. If he were to just critique their arguments and respond with substantive biblical scholarship, I think that would be quite helpful. But he doesn't. He often proceeds to publicly - publicly - declare that the amateur is not only factually incorrect as to this-or-that issue in the Bible, but is "laughably" or "absurdly" so, and/or the amateur is also a bad person bent on oppressing marginalized groups / subjugating women / maintaining power structures and asymmetries and boundaries, and so on (I wish he would take a sabbatical from the neo-marxist jargon).

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are areas where critical biblical scholarship and Mormonism align, like that the trinity dogma is not found in the Bible. When he does so, he is inevitably attacked by evangelical believers claiming that he is merely pushing Mormon Doctrine and he occasionally responds to those critiques as shown in the video linked above.

His personal religious beliefs are off-limits, except when they aren't. And when they aren't, he publicly disparages Latter-day Saint doctrines, leaders, etc. And he does so only in broad, conclusory (rather than explanatory/evidentiary) terms.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Dan very frequently pushes his ideological agenda on social issues of morality regarding abortion, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights.

I agree. And I think he intermingles his commentary about these sociopolitical issues with his commentary about the Bible. And I think he does this intermingling thing because it allows him to use his stature as an expert in biblical scholarship to illegitimately bolster his personal opinions about "abortion, women’s rights, and LGBTQ+ rights," and so on.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When he does so, it is clear he is expressing his strongly held opinion. In these videos he does speak authoritatively about what the Bible does and does not say on these topics.

See above observation re: illegitimate bolstering. If Dan were to cleanly and uniformly excluded his personal opinions from his "I'm an expert in biblical scholarship" social media content, I would have far less to say about him. But he conflates the two. All. The. Time.

Nor is Dan consistent in his "I'm an expert in biblical scholarship" content. Dan frequently comments about "negotiating" with the biblical text, and about how the text has no meaning except for what we want it to say and not say. But when his pet sociopolitical issues come up, suddenly he "speak{s} authoritatively about what the Bible does and does not say on these topics."

"Negotiating with the text for thee and thine, but not for me and mine," I guess.

Dan's conflated rhetoric is, I think, intended primarily for a non-Latter-day-Saint audience, both because

A) this explains why he denigrates Latter-day Saint doctrines and leaders (as others have noted, his critiques of the Church are usually in response to accusations from evangelical folks who suspect he is speaking from a Latter-day Saint perspective), and

B) the Latter-day Saints do not take a "If it ain't in the Bible it don't count" approach to social/moral issues of the day. We claim an open canon, continuing revelation, and living prophets and apostles. I am grateful for that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 10, 2024 by smac97

Devobah · December 10, 2024

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

But he's not keeping to himself his views which contradict the Church's doctrines and leaders. Instead, he is publishing those views to the world. I think that's the point. He is setting himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren. He is creating an either/or choice for members of the Church.

Acknowledging that your scholarship differs from Church Doctrine and Leaders is different from actively preaching and saying that the church is wrong for teaching such things.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

For my part, as regarding Latter-day Saints listening to Dan McClellan, I think that a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is warranted. I mean, he's saying this stuff out loud. In public. He openly admits that he is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot." He said this to John Dehlin, who thereafter said: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on," to which Dan responded: "Well, thank you so much."

I don't know if that's a fair representation.

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

I also incorporate both reason and faith into my assessment of the Restored Gospel. I do so without publicly speaking against the doctrines of the Church and against the Brethren.

I know many, many other Latter-day Saints who do the same.

And once again, in the interview he clearly says that the Brethren have a tough job to do and respects them.

Ultimately Dan focuses his scholarship to the Bible and doesn't comment much on the LDS Doctrine itself. I don't get the vibe of "apostate" from him like I did with Dehlin, Runnells, Reel, Nemo, and others who were actively saying things against the church. Presenting scholarship is what he does, and that's all he's doing. He's making somewhat accurate statements by saying that the data do not back up some of the claims of the Book of Mormon. But archeology and research is evolving and growing. Do I agree with everything he says? No, but I'm not leaving the church over what he's saying. Faith is what I have and that's what I'm sticking with.

The interesting thing is that I've seen many reels of him responding to people who discount him because he is a member of the Church. Similar to what I was saying in my thread from a few months ago:

smac97 · December 10, 2024

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I defended Dan on this thread last year, back on page 10, but I feel less inclined to do so this time around. I don't think Smac is wrong when he says that Dan's "social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience." That has been my impression too.

I virtually never have any first-hand experience with "public figures" about whom we commentate on this board. Dan is an exception, as I have personally interacted with him on this board and was quite surprised at how quickly and easily he was willing to shake off the mantle of Clinical-and-Dispassionate Bible Scholar and put on his "If You Disagree With My Sociopolitical Views You're a Terrible Person and I'll Say So Publicly" hat.

By way of example(s), Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"
that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"
that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"
that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"
that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"
that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"
that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"
that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"
that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,
that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

It was due to this first-hand experience that I was a bit bemused when I started watching his social media content, in which he tries to pass himself off as having a dispassionate, nerdy-but-cool, just-calling-'em-as-I-see-'em, laconic-"all-right,-let's-see-it," expert-on-biblical-scholarship persona (replete with now seemingly obligatory shoutouts to his comic-book-themed t-shirts).

Dan may well have started out his social media content creator schtick with a sincere desire to bring the nuances and complexities of his preferred version(s) of biblical scholarship to regular people. I'll give him credit for that. But more and more, I am seeing Dan as being pretty much a smarter-than-average, but still run-of-the-mill, leftist idealogue whose platform is almost as much about him publishing/pushing his sociopolitical views and getting clicks/notoriety as it is about his original objective. He's becoming the Keith Olbermann of biblical scholarship.

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I'm all for debunking misinformation and making critical biblical scholarship available to the masses, but when you start sounding like a Book of Mormon antichrist, maybe you're taking it too far. Doing responsible public scholarship is one thing; actively seeking to undermine people's faith is another. And my concern is that Dan seems to be leaning in on helping people along in their "faith deconstruction." Perhaps in Dan's mind he's breaking down misplaced faith ("dogma") so that something better can grow in its place (faith in "data"?), but too often it looks to me like he is salting the ground so that nothing else can grow. I think he's far too definitive in a lot of his pronouncements about what "the data" show and leaves little or no room for belief.

We've seen this progression before. Latter-day Saints who start out with good (that is, faithful and faith-affirming) intentions, but also with too much zeal and craving for notoriety and praise (and, often, for money). So while they start well, they gradually devolve.

To bolster and elevate themselves and their opinions and their sense of self-importance, they must get attention from the public (both Latter-day Saints and others).

And these days, getting attention often means going on social media.

Getting attention on social media often requires or entails efforts to provoke controversy and edginess.

A Latter-day Saint can create controversy and edginess by being a "rebel," a self-declared Free Thinker or "Loyal Opposition" type.

And then the "Loyal" part starts to get faded and tattered and torn, and then falls off completely.

Then the faux - and highly publicized - outrage about the Membership Council (as if by this point these folks still valued their membership in the Church).

Then the "I'm Galileo!" references.

Then we get to the individual being an out-and-proud Anti-Mormon.

John Dehlin. Kate Kelly. Denver Snuffer. Sam Young. Natasha Helfer. Bill Reel.

I really hope Dan doesn't go this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 10, 2024 by smac97

Ragerunner · December 10, 2024

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I virtually never have any first-hand experience with "public figures" about whom we commentate on this board. Dan is an exception, as I have personally interacted with him on this board and was quite surprised at how quickly and easily he was willing to shake off the mantle of Clinical-and-Dispassionate Bible Scholar and put on his "If You Disagree With My Sociopolitical Views You're a Terrible Person and I'll Say So Publicly" hat.

By way of example(s), Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"

that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"

that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"

that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"

that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"

that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"

that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"

that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"

that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,

that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

It was due to this first-hand experience that I was a bit bemused when I started watching his social media content, in which he tries to pass himself off as having a dispassionate, nerdy-but-cool, just-calling-'em-as-I-see-'em, laconic-"all-right,-let's-see-it," expert-on-biblical-scholarship persona (replete with now seemingly obligatory shoutouts to his comic-book-themed t-shirts).

Dan may well have started out his social media content creator schtick with a sincere desire to bring the nuances and complexities of his preferred version(s) of biblical scholarship to regular people. I'll give him credit for that. But more and more, I am seeing Dan as being pretty much a smarter-than-average, but still run-of-the-mill, leftist idealogue whose platform is almost as much about him publishing/pushing his sociopolitical views and getting clicks/notoriety as it is about his original objective. He's becoming the Keith Olbermann of biblical scholarship.

We've seen this progression before. Latter-day Saints who start out with good (that is, faithful and faith-affirming) intentions, but also with too much zeal and craving for notoriety and praise (and, often, for money). So while they start well, they gradually devolve.

To bolster and elevate themselves and their opinions and their sense of self-importance, they must get attention from the public (both Latter-day Saints and others).

And these days, getting attention often means going on social media.

Getting attention on social media often requires or entails efforts to provoke controversy and edginess.

A Latter-day Saint can create controversy and edginess by being a "rebel," a self-declared Free Thinker or "Loyal Opposition" type.

And then the "Loyal" part starts to get faded and tattered and torn, and then falls off completely.

Then the faux - and highly publicized - outrage about the Membership Council (as if by this point these folks still valued their membership in the Church).

Then the "I'm Galileo!" references.

Then we get to the individual being an out-and-proud Anti-Mormon.

John Dehlin. Kate Kelly. Denver Snuffer. Sam Young. Natasha Helfer. Bill Reel.

I really hope Dan doesn't go this way.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you really hope he doesn’t?

It seems you have spent this entire thread trying to build up to this post.

It feels more like a personal and political axe to grind.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Ragerunner

Vanguard · December 10, 2024

8 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Do you really hope he doesn’t?

It seems you have spent this entire thread trying to build up to this post.

Are the two mutually exclusive? Can't one call attention to what he sees as a potential trajectory all the while hoping said trajectory changes?

Devobah · December 10, 2024

43 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Do you really hope he doesn’t?

It seems you have spent this entire thread trying to build up to this post.

It feels more like a personal and political axe to grind.

Smac has always been blunt in his posts, and he's always tried to be honest as well. One of those things is hoping that people will remain in the Church. I have no reason to believe that he isn't sincere in his wishes for Dan to remain. Dan is unorthodox in his views to be sure, but he also is a decent human in my mind.

smac97 · December 10, 2024

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Acknowledging that your scholarship differs from Church Doctrine and Leaders is different from actively preaching and saying that the church is wrong for teaching such things.

"Differs from" = "conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas."

"Differs from" = "flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."

"Differs from" = "flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas."

And Dan is not talking about his "scholarship." He is making broad conclusory - that is, unsubstantiated - declarations about what "the data" say about some of the most important truth claims of the Church:

"The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas."
"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon."
"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement."
"I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."
"I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism."
"The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."
"The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon."
"The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas."

As Amulek previously noted: "In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of 'data' would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with." I don't know either. And Dan sure ain't telling us. Instead, he merely asserts what "the data" indicate, what "the data" support and do not support, etc., and I think he presents these things and expects his audience to accept them as valid because of his street cred as an "expert."

Here's Dan's introductory video of himself:

The transcript (emphases added) :

Quote

0:00 Hey everybody, my name is Dan McClellan, and welcome to my channel. This channel is here 0:05 to try to help make the academic study of the Bible and religion a little more accessible to 0:09 the general public, as well as to try to help combat the spread of misinformation about the 0:15 Bible and religion.

Do you think some portions of Dan's content, especially in the last year or so, have strayed from the above purposes? Perhaps even significantly so?

Might Dan be better off "mak{ing} the academic study of the Bible and religion a little more accessible to the general public" and "help{ing} combat the spread of misinformation about the Bible and religion" by refraining from injecting into his content

A) his personal views on sociopolitical topics which are mostly or entirely unrelated "to the academic study of the Bible and religion";
B) his personal views of the quality of amateur approaches to the Bible (rather than just present the scholarship to rebut such approaches, he often adds on descriptions of the approaches as "laughable," "absurd," "100% wrong," etc.);
C) his personal views on the character and motivations of people whose sociopolitical views and/or views of the Bible differ from his own; and
D) his personal views about what "the data" indicate, or do not indicate, about the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and his successors, the origins of The Book of Mormon, etc.

Thoughts?

Quote

A little bit about me: I have four degrees in biblical studies. My 0:21 first was a bachelor's degree in ancient Near Eastern studies from Brigham Young University. 0:25 My second is a master's degree in Jewish studies from the University of Oxford, where I wrote my 0:30 thesis under the supervision of Dr. T. Michael Law on anti-anthropomorphism and the source text 0:36 of the ancient Greek translation of the book of Exodus. My third degree is a master's degree in 0:42 biblical studies from Trinity Western University in lovely British Columbia, Canada, where I wrote 0:47 my thesis under the supervision of Dr. Craig Broyles on the conceptualization of deity in 0:53 the Hebrew Bible through the methodological lens of cognitive linguistics. My fourth degree is 1:00 a PhD in theology and religion from the University of Exeter, in the UK, 1:04 where I wrote my doctoral dissertation under the supervision of Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou 1:09 on the conceptualization of deity and divine images through the methodological lenses of 1:14 both cognitive linguistics and the cognitive science of religion. And a revised version of 1:20 my doctoral dissertation was published in 2022 by SBL Press as an ope-access volume entitled YHWH's 1:27 Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach. And you can freely access that volume through the link on my 1:33 linktree.

Nothing in there about Dan injecting his personal sociopolitical views and his critiques of the character of people whose views differ from his into his commentary about "the academic study of the Bible and religion." And yet a lot of such injecting seems to be happening these days.

Quote

Now I am an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

And as a self-professed "active member" of the Church, he has publicly characterized his assessment of the Church's religious truth claims, and has done so in mostly a conclusory, just-trust-me-I'm-an-expert-on-data>dogma kind of way.

Quote

In fact, 1:39 I was an employee of the Church for over a decade. I worked as a scripture translation 1:43 supervisor up until January of 2023. However, I am not here to represent the Church, neither as 1:50 a member nor as a former employee.

Based on his statements about the Church, its doctrines and leaders, etc., I sure would not want him "to represent the Church" in any capacity.

With friends like him...

Quote

I'm not here to defend, share or spread their ideologies or 1:57 their doctrines.

Check. He is not "defend{ing}, shar{ing} or spread{ing}" to Church's ideology/doctrines. No question there.

Instead, he is - in his own words and by his own reckoning - speaking in ways that "conflict with and undermine" and "flatly contradict" the doctrines of the Church, and summarily and conclusorily deny and dispute several key truth claims presented by the Church (living prophets and apostles, the origins of The Book of Mormon).

Quote

I'm here to represent as best I possibly can a critical academic approach 2:04 to the study of the Bible and religion. And obviously pure objectivity is not possible, 2:10 but as a specialist in the cognitive science of religion, I spent an unsettling amount of 2:15 time thinking about my own biases and how they influence my work. So I work harder than most 2:22 to try to recognize and ferret out any such biases in any such influence in my work. So I hope while 2:30 you're on my channel you will find something educational, you will find something uplifting, 2:35 maybe even entertaining, and I appreciate your time very much.

"{O}bviously pure objectivity is not possible."
"I spend an unsettling amount of time thinking about my own biases and how they influence my work."
"So I work harder than most to try to recognize and ferret out any such biases and any such influence in my work."
"I hope while you're on my channel you will find something educational, {and} you will find something uplifting."

At this stage, do you really think that Dan even aspiring to these things? "Pure objectivity?" "Ferret{ing} out" biases? Producing "uplifting" content?

Or has he pretty much given himself over to commentating about the Bible and also using his channel to publish his personal views on hot-button sociopolitical issues, to publicly disparage and mock amateurs and people who disagree with his sociopolitical views, dunking on them, imputing terrible motives onto them, etc.?

Is his content "uplifting"? Candidly, no. I appreciate his clinical presentation of biblical scholarship, but more and more he is stuffing barbed personal opinions and sociopolitical commentary and invective before, during and after such scholarship.

I am something of a hypocrite here. I sometimes succumb to the same sorts of prevailing social winds as, I think, are pushing Dan off course. But I try at course corrections, and I am not setting myself up as a voice of authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and I am not publicly speaking against the Church, its doctrines, its leaders, etc.

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Quote

For my part, as regarding Latter-day Saints listening to Dan McClellan, I think that a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is warranted. I mean, he's saying this stuff out loud. In public. He openly admits that he is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot." He said this to John Dehlin, who thereafter said: "On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on," to which Dan responded: "Well, thank you so much."

I don't know if that's a fair representation.

Okay. Each of us can go watch his interview with John Dehlin (!), and come to their own conclusions.

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Quote

I also incorporate both reason and faith into my assessment of the Restored Gospel. I do so without publicly speaking against the doctrines of the Church and against the Brethren.

I know many, many other Latter-day Saints who do the same.

And once again, in the interview he clearly says that the Brethren have a tough job to do and respects them.

And more recently he has publicly stated that "the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the {Church}," that "data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith," that "the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism," that he has published a book which "flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."

With friends like Dan...

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Ultimately Dan focuses his scholarship to the Bible and doesn't comment much on the LDS Doctrine itself.

But when he does comment, hoo boy...

And by his own reckoning, he has "repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon," has "repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement," and has "repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of {his} channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism."

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

I don't get the vibe of "apostate" from him like I did with Dehlin, Runnells, Reel, Nemo, and others who were actively saying things against the church.

Do you think that the bulleted quotes above do not constitute him "actively saying things against the church"?

Do you think that Dan going on to the podcast of the most prominent and vocal Anti-Mormon of the day, and publishing to the world that he (Dan) is "offering reasons for people to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful," and that this is, for him, a "sweet spot," does not constitute him "actively saying things against the church"?

Do you think that Dan responding to John Dehlin's fanboy comments ("On behalf of so so many of my listeners and friends, we're all just loving what you do, in awe of it, and cheering you on,") with "Well, thank you so much," does not constitute him "actively saying things against the church"?

"Apostate" is a heavy word, and one I think better left to those with authority over Dan. But that doesn't mean we ignore what Dan is publishing to the world. Hence my assessment that "a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate."

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

Presenting scholarship is what he does, and that's all he's doing.

Respectfully, I disagree that this is "all he's doing." He is including all sorts of barbed commentary about people whose sociopolitical views differ from his. He is publicly imputing horrible motives onto these folks. He is, in seemingly ever-increasing measures, spouting off with his own opinion about sociopolitical issues that are pretty far afield from biblical scholarship. He is commenting about the truth claims of the Church in ways that are pretty far afield from biblical scholarship.

He has every right to do this. Free Speech is a wonderful thing.

2 hours ago, Devobah said:

He's making somewhat accurate statements by saying that the data do not back up some of the claims of the Book of Mormon. But archeology and research is evolving and growing. Do I agree with everything he says? No, but I'm not leaving the church over what he's saying. Faith is what I have and that's what I'm sticking with.

I am glad to hear it. I am glad you are not one of those to whom Dan is - in his own words - "offering reasons {} to ... feel justified in not remaining faithful."

Other Latter-day Saints, however, are being influenced this way, at least according to Dan. And if and when he succeeds in these offerings, Dan characterizes that as a "sweet spot."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 10, 2024 by smac97

BlueDreams · December 10, 2024

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I've seen one video of his that someone else linked to where I got that feeling (and which came across a little self-righteous in tone), so you could be correct. But again, I have so little experience with his stuff that I can't really have much of an opinion. And I certainly don't know him in person or through online sources enough to say either way.

I've seen/listened to several of his videos. I don't watch consistently, but his podcast can be entertaining/educational. His smaller vids started to repeat in subjects for me a little...so I stopped watching most of those. To note, I haven't paid full attention to this thread either.

I will say, his orientation has been extremely consistent.

On what @smac97 summarized:

Quote

Rather, I think Dan is "trading" on his status as an expert in biblical scholarship to A) critique and comment on questions and issues regarding the Bible, but also B) to critique and comment on sociopolitical issues which have marginal or coincidental relevance to biblical scholarship, on the personalities of people whose socio political views vary from his, and also about the Church and its doctrines and leaders.

On point A I'd generally agree.

On point B I think it's not exactly correct.

On the sociopolitical issues, he does talk about them, but more so in critiquing people using the bible as a source to bolster their sociopolitical claims as the ultimate trump card by insisting the bible speaks against this or that modern issue. Or using it to dismiss others right to negotiate with the text differently. His points usually stem on the difference between common narratives about the bible (a inherent text, internally consistent, with relatable social dynamics found in them, being biggies), a tendency for specific christian subsets to assume the bible iterates their views while ignoring when the text openly conflicts or is completely irrelevant to their current views, and the assumption that their interpretation/negotiations are not actually interpretations but TRUTH...because bible =word of God = inerrant = never changing. Thus my interpretation is the word, any other negotiation is falsehoods. And people playing biblical scholar to give an air of scholarly affirmation for their view points when they don't know much at all about it and are usually quoting some apologetics argument that's generally debunked our obsolete. I would also add, that though not as common, he also has dissected poor atheistic/secular arguments that use the air of scholarship to take down the bible as a sacred text or to throw shade on christian beliefs in general.

I don't think he generally does personality attacks. Some of these take downs can be very brutal....but not really in language or character assaults. Moreso like a professor grilling someone for using wikipedia as their main source for a major research paper. Or for saying/validating some version of bigotry or sexism using the text. I could see how these can look like personality attacks...I just disagree that that's their main point.

On the church, this is the description by Smac I disagree the most with. The VAST majority of his material that I've watched doesn't talk much at all about the church in any way shape or form. You would have to guess he was LDS, namely from the BYU degree hanging in the background of many of his videos. There's a few, including critiques of mainstream assertions about the biblical texts. But honestly, they're rare, more interesting than adverserial, and never come off as massive takedowns of the church at large. For that matter, I've never heard him do a major take down of any religious institution at large...just lines of thoughts within religious traditions, namely very conservative christians of the US ev, fundy, and protestant variety in particular. He doesn't talk explicitly about his beliefs, nor insist the church should bend to his views, nor assumes the only interpretation that works is a secular modern one. I get the sense that he's by no means ashamed or embarrassed by his faith of choice, identifying calmly as both a Latter-day Saint and a Christian. Honestly, many of his critiques just aren't as much a problem within church doctrine. Doctrinally, we don't think the bible is inerrant nor any of our books are. We technically don't need it to be wholly accurate. Several things we hold aren't based on biblicaly authority or revelatory/prophetic authority, we believe all truth isn't laid out in our past, but unfolding in the present and future. These beliefs among others are why I've had little trouble with much of the scholarly work I've listened or read from. I'm assuming it's similar for him. But it's an assumption because, again, he doesn't make his personal religious beliefs the prominent focus. That said I think it could be difficult to grapple with, culturally, as there are interpretive assumptions that have built up in our faith over the years that many engage with as if it's doctrinally foundational...and our own version of inerrant. We still sometimes engage with the bible in terms more dictated by mainline assumptions that what our very unorthodox views would allow us to.

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed. It would be good if he defined data, but maybe he has and I'm not aware of it. I'm assuming he's using the term in the normal way, which is to refer to facts and statistics. Saying there are no data to support supernatural claims is, in my perspective, a completely different statement than saying there is no evidence.

Evidence can exist where facts do no.

I think he might have in his first podcast episode, but that was a while ago and I can't remember exactly. But based on how you use it here, I would assume something similar. I would also assume it would be along the lines of supernatural claims being a subject of interpretation of data, rather than data itself. A classic example is the neuroscience study of the nuns (or monks or something religious) praying and certain aspects of the brain lighting up in the action. That's data. But those more non-religious interpreted the data to assume that the nuns were just having a brain experience when describing "Spirit." Meanwhile the nuns interpreted the data as what happens to them physically when God speaks to them spiritually. You can't prove one or the other correct by data alone. We all interpret data based on our contexts. But data doesn't innately support supernatural claims. Basing one faith on this is kinda contradictory to what faith is IMHO.

With luv,

BD

Edited December 10, 2024 by BlueDreams

smac97 · December 10, 2024

55 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

Quote

I really hope Dan doesn't go this way.

Do you really hope he doesn’t?

Yes. That is why I said: "I really hope Dan doesn't go this way."

55 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

It seems you have spent this entire thread trying to build up to this post.

Nope.

I've previously commented on this progression as to other Latter-day Saints who have exhibited behaviors and progressions similar to what I think we are seeing Dan doing. See, e.g., here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Some of the key bits:

Quote

Kate Kelly, John Dehlin, Denver Snuffer, and others who have left have demonstrated formidable talents and skills which they could have contributed to the Church through continued fellowship with the Saints and discipleship in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The real question, I think, is whether the Church is engaging in misconduct or material error(s), or is it out of harmony with God's will, such that the Church is culpable for the departures of these people.

Generally and broadly and predominantly, I think the answer is "No." I think these people, talented though they may be, engaged in conduct that made continued membership in the Church impossible.

I am saddened by their departures. I am also saddened at the departures of people who leave the Church for other reasons. We each of us have value and merit in the eyes of God.

I don't want these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

And here:

Quote

I don't want members to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community. So if a member of the Church begins to speak out against the Church, and if he publishes these statements to the world, and if those statements amount to false doctrine or some other manifestation of apostasy, and if those in authority (that is, priesthood leaders acting within their stewardship, in accordance with the laws and procedures promulgated in scripture and by the Church, and under the direction of the Spirit) make such a determination, and if the person refuses to repent, then it appears that the Church must proceed according to the divine mandate given to it by God.

Of course, I am saddened when a person like John Dehlin only regresses further into a state of rebellion and apostasy. But that's on him. We cannot disregard the mandate of God out of fear that a person in rebellion will be angered by the Church's obedience to that mandate.

And here:

Quote

People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith. On this we have a clear mandate:

D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."

D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."

D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."

D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."

D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."

D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."

D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."

D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."

D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."

3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."

D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."

D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."

D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."

Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."

3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This is tough medicine. There is a lot of pain when these things happen. But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community.

"I am saddened by their departures. I am also saddened at the departures of people who leave the Church for other reasons."
"I don't want these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it."
"I don't want members to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it."

I really mean what I have said previously, and say again here.

55 minutes ago, Ragerunner said:

It feels more like a personal and political axe to grind.

Respectfully, no. I have previously said similar things about John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Bill Reel, Sam Young, Natasha Helfer, Jeremy Runnells, and others. I have had some very limited first-person experience with John and Bill, but none of the others. And because I can't say I know any of them personally, my commentary is not about them "personally," but rather about what they have said and done publicly.

As for "political," nah. I don't view the world through the lens of this or that political ideology or platform or group. Instead, I view the world primarily through a lens filtered by my personal experience and learning, and also filtered by my understanding of the Restored Gospel. My worldview is substantially "upstream" from my political views, not the reverse.

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · December 10, 2024

4 hours ago, Rain said:

And as far as I have seen he doesn't do those things. I say this despite no longer believing

Same here as a believer.

Calm · December 10, 2024

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

. I think he's far too definitive in a lot of his pronouncements about what "the data" show and leaves little or no room for belief.

I agree he is very definitive, I will have to pay closer attention to his more recent stuff (I look at his stuff by topic, not date) to see if I see more pressurized comments for the biblical stuff such as has often popped up in his politics in the past.

smac97 · December 10, 2024

15 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't think he generally does personality attacks. Some of these take downs can be very brutal....but not really in language or character assaults. Moreso like a professor grilling someone for using wikipedia as their main source for a major research paper. Or for saying/validating some version of bigotry or sexism using the text. I could see how these can look like personality attacks...I just disagree that that's their main point.

As I have noted previously, in my first-hand experience Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"
that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"
that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"
that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"
that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"
that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"
that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"
that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"
that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,
that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

When Dan publicly accused me of "carrying water" for white supremacists and "conspiring" to "subjugate" women, I took those as "personality attacks." His various categorical imputations of evil motives onto people opposed to abortion also seem like "personality attacks."

I'll see if I can find a few instances of Dan's "take downs" of others that, in my view, are likewise "personality attacks," imputing of evil motives, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · December 10, 2024

Here is one of the better responses to Dan:

I'm suspect that this fellow responding to Dan disagrees with me about the merits of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm okay with that, though, as I can disagree with him about that while elsewhere appreciating his dissection of Dan's rhetorical style. In particular, this fellow's citation to logical fallacies that Dan tucks into his arguments (a lot) is, to me, very helpful. And notably, I think this fellow bases his critique of Dan's argument entirely on Dan's argument, and makes no reference to Dan being a Latter-day Saint.

It's a long vid (30+ minutes), but worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

Danzo · December 10, 2024

Just my two cents.

He seems to be well informed on Biblical topics and I appreciate when he gives actual information on biblical scholarship.

Often his posts seem to be about the same topic over and over and over and over again. That gets old.

He really seems to like to take down other peoples beliefs. If someone has a 'wrong' belief it almost always to be because of the person with the 'wrong' idea wants to exercise power over people.

He is pretty obvious in his political view

For some reason, he thinks that members of the Church all believe in the univocality of the Bible, something I have never really seen in my life time. Almost always we seem to talk about how each book in the bible has a different author and a different point of view.

As to the status of his soul, I really don't care to speculate.

Edited December 10, 2024 by Danzo

Doctor Steuss · December 10, 2024

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

As Amulek previously noted: "In the realm of secular religious scholarship, I'm not sure what sort of 'data' would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims to begin with." I don't know either. And Dan sure ain't telling us.

FWIW, Dan, and others have spoken about this before a little bit. Off the top of my head, amongst the social media prolific religious scholars, Professor Kevin Carnahan, and Dr. Aaron Higashi -- both of whom are openly devout/believing Christians -- have also talked about it a couple of times.

Within critical scholarship, the necessity is to assume no religious text (be it the Koran, the Bible, the Abhidamma Pitaka, the Menog-i Khrad, the Sanghuangjing, the Prgmateia, or any of the thousands of religions and texts that have existed, and will be created in the future) has supernatural elements, like prophecy, or divine communications, or magical powers that can be channeled/harnessed.

In other words, within the narrow boundaries of the realm of scholarship, no "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims of a religion and/or text. The reasoning (at least if I am remembering Dr Higashi's explanation correctly) is that allowing for "supernatural truth claims" of one necessitates that all religions and texts must be granted that same level of allowance, as far as a religious scholarship methodology would be concerned.

bluebell · December 10, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

As I have noted previously, in my first-hand experience Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"

that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"

that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"

that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"

that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"

that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"

that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"

that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"

that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,

that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

When Dan publicly accused me of "carrying water" for white supremacists and "conspiring" to "subjugate" women, I took those as "personality attacks." His various categorical imputations of evil motives onto people opposed to abortion also seem like "personality attacks."

I'll see if I can find a few instances of Dan's "take downs" of others that, in my view, are likewise "personality attacks," imputing of evil motives, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m unsure if you’ve already said, but does Dan ever connect his opinions about abortion to either his academic work or his membership in the church?

Calm · December 10, 2024

30 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

The reasoning (at least if I am remembering Dr Higashi's explanation correctly) is that allowing for "supernatural truth claims" of one necessitates that all religions and texts must be granted that same level of allowance, as far as a religious scholarship methodology would be concerned.

How could any consensus on meaning be met if one group assumed certain texts were prophecies given before the events happened and another group denied that so dating could never be agreed upon…which would mean trying to find correspondence between texts as well as what is found in the dirt would be impossible outside the group in agreement.

BlueDreams · December 11, 2024

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

As I have noted previously, in my first-hand experience Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"

that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"

that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"

that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"

that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"

that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"

that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"

that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"

that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,

that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

You tend to clip out context and the context is extremely important. in all of the first half at least, the context I read was by no means as damnable as you're giving in interpretations. They context makes it clear how this fits his arguments and also were generally not about character assaults on you or folk who view the world similarly to you. Some are from the exact same post cut up 3-4 different ways. This isn't super convincing to me. And honestly it comes off a little like seeking offense from a heated debate. For example, the one about social capital through carrying water. It sounds pretty bad in isolation, in context it made sense within an argument (an argument I both agree with and disagree with on certain points) and was followed by him acknowledging that you were both "reasonable" describing your arguments in "good faith" and were "patient" and "reasonable" in how you presented your arguments. He also doesn't hold himself somehow objectively above identity politics in how he frames and sees arguments. This fits with what I've seen from Dan. He has very strong positions on a narrow set of issues he discusses within the context of how the bible is utilized. And he can be very brutally honest in his critiques of problematic arguments. But he's also generally mellow on his podcast, kind, and careful in sharing within his expertise and differentiating between scholarly basing and opinion sharing and backing up his claims with clear evidence.

I don't sniff anything nefarious, even when I disagree with him. (And I have moments that I do). TBH, I rarely smell nefarious in most people, even when I think they're wrong or I simply disagree with them or their approach. I generally agree with Dan that people make sense within their contexts. Though I'd word it very differently.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

When Dan publicly accused me of "carrying water" for white supremacists and "conspiring" to "subjugate" women, I took those as "personality attacks." His various categorical imputations of evil motives onto people opposed to abortion also seem like "personality attacks."

I'll see if I can find a few instances of Dan's "take downs" of others that, in my view, are likewise "personality attacks," imputing of evil motives, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

If you've had personal engagement with him, I would assume he'd disagree with you and I also assume he wouldn't be soft about it or clip words. It ain't his style. I also don't know the context. As I mentioned, I just jumped in this thread pretty blindly as I don't have much time to read much of anything this week. (solo parenting while husband's out).

The others you gave context. The contexts make me doubt how you're interpreting the experiences in this one.

With luv,

BD

Edited December 11, 2024 by BlueDreams

smac97 · December 11, 2024

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

FWIW, Dan, and others have spoken about this before a little bit. Off the top of my head, amongst the social media prolific religious scholars, Professor Kevin Carnahan, and Dr. Aaron Higashi -- both of whom are openly devout/believing Christians -- have also talked about it a couple of times.

Within critical scholarship, the necessity is to assume no religious text (be it the Koran, the Bible, the Abhidamma Pitaka, the Menog-i Khrad, the Sanghuangjing, the Prgmateia, or any of the thousands of religions and texts that have existed, and will be created in the future) has supernatural elements, like prophecy, or divine communications, or magical powers that can be channeled/harnessed.

In other words, within the narrow boundaries of the realm of scholarship, no "data" would be considered evidence of supernatural truth claims of a religion and/or text. The reasoning (at least if I am remembering Dr Higashi's explanation correctly) is that allowing for "supernatural truth claims" of one necessitates that all religions and texts must be granted that same level of allowance, as far as a religious scholarship methodology would be concerned.

I think what you are describing is "methodological naturalism." I plugged your comments into ChatGPT and got this:

Quote

Critical Scholarship and Supernatural Claims

Critical scholarship, particularly in religious studies, operates within the framework of methodological naturalism. This approach assumes that scholarly inquiry should only engage with naturalistic explanations, avoiding supernatural elements like divine intervention, prophecy, or miracles. This is not because scholars deny the possibility of the supernatural but because such claims are not testable or falsifiable within the methodologies of historical and literary analysis.

Neutrality Toward Truth Claims: Critical scholars do not take a position on whether religious texts' claims about the supernatural are true or false. Instead, they analyze these texts as human products influenced by cultural, historical, and social contexts.

Equal Treatment Across Texts: Critical scholars apply the same methods to all religious texts—whether the Bible, Quran, Buddhist scriptures, or others—examining them as sources of historical and cultural insight rather than as divinely authored or inherently magical.

Example Methodologies

Historical-Critical Method: Focuses on the origins, authorship, and historical context of texts, assuming no supernatural interventions in their creation.

Comparative Analysis: Places religious texts alongside others to explore thematic and cultural commonalities without privileging any text's supernatural claims.

Refinement of Your Summary

The phrase "the necessity is to assume no religious text...has supernatural elements" could be better phrased as:

"In critical scholarship, the methodological approach is to analyze religious texts without presupposing the reality of supernatural elements, such as prophecy or divine communication, as these are outside the scope of empirical analysis."

This distinction avoids suggesting that scholars "assume" supernatural claims are false; instead, they bracket such claims as non-testable within their discipline. This approach aligns with scholarly methods that prioritize evidence and reproducibility.

Does this jibe with your recollection?

So if critical scholars "bracket such {religious} claims as non-testable within their discipline," then how does that work with Dan's pronouncements about what "the data indicate" about the Church?

"The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas."
"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon."
"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement."
"I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."
"I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism."
"The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."
"The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon."
"The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas."

This does not look like Dan is "bracketing" the Church's religious/divine ("supernatural") claims as being "non-testable." Rather, it looks like he is, speaking in his capacity as a "scholar," making public pronouncements about what "the data" do and do not indicate about those claims, and finding those claims wanting.

Am I missing something?

Thanks,

-Smac

Robert F. Smith · December 11, 2024

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

.................. Saying there are no data to support supernatural claims is, in my perspective, a completely different statement than saying there is no evidence.

..................

Supernaturalism is popular and accepted by most religions, but not by Latter-day Saint theology (even though most Latter-day Saints are unaware of it). Latter-day Saint theology posits a natural God in a natural universe governed by law.

Robert F. Smith · December 11, 2024

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think what you are describing is "methodological naturalism." I plugged your comments into ChatGPT and got this:

..........................

So if critical scholars "bracket such {religious} claims as non-testable within their discipline," then how does that work with Dan's pronouncements about what "the data indicate" about the Church?

"The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas."

"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon."

"I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement."

"I've written papers, I've published a book that talks about what I think is going on regarding Jesus' relationship to God, and it flatly contradicts LDS doctrine."

"I have repeatedly and consistently, across the entire life of my channel, pointed out that the data do not support the supernatural truth claims of Mormonism."

"The data do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."

"The data do not support the historicity of The Book of Mormon."

"The overwhelming majority of my content flatly contradicts Mormon dogmas."

This does not look like Dan is "bracketing" the Church's religious/divine ("supernatural") claims as being "non-testable." Rather, it looks like he is, speaking in his capacity as a "scholar," making public pronouncements about what "the data" do and do not indicate about those claims, and finding those claims wanting.

..........................

Brilliant summary, Spencer.

You might also want to consider this response to @Dan McClellan from another critical scholar, Jordan Pickering, PhD, “Does Dan McClellan's popularizing of critical scholarship do what it should? (A view of Genesis 1),” Longwind, Jan 19, 2024, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQoDe9iaZ-Y . Especially beginning @7:10. A good response to “The evidentiary foundation of the Documentary Hypothesis?” Dan McClellan, Jan 16, 2024, online at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZkXJKw7qI&t=0s .

Edited December 11, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

bluebell · December 11, 2024

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Supernaturalism is popular and accepted by most religions, but not by Latter-day Saint theology (even though most Latter-day Saints are unaware of it). Latter-day Saint theology posits a natural God in a natural universe governed by law.

True. But, the common definition of supernatural is something attributed to a force beyond scientific understanding. So even though we do believe that everything is governed by natural law, most of what God does is beyond our current scientific understanding and so can correctly be called 'supernatural' from that perspective.

smac97 · December 11, 2024

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

For some reason, he thinks that members of the Church all believe in the univocality of the Bible, something I have never really seen in my life time.

Yes, that was odd. Also strange was his claim that the Latter-day Saints base their assessment of the Bible's univocality on the incorporation of JST footnotes into the Church's edition of the KJV. If anything, I think the JST excerpts make Latter-day Saints less inclined toward univocality, and more inclined toward accommodating a lack of it because, per AoF 1:8: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

I also think that some (many? most?) Latter-day Saints might view the concept of "univocality" as an outgrowth of Protestant notions of biblical inerrancy, which notions are incompatible with the 8th Article of Faith.

I also suspect that most Latter-day Saints haven't given much thought to the concept of "univocality," or even haven't even heard of it. I can locate only a very few references to it in LDS literature (much of it from Dan).

From the "Comments" section of a 2010 article at Ask Gramps:

Quote

“And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” -It’s pretty clear from this verse that Abinadi believes that the father and the son are the same individual. There’s nothing wrong with that, no prophet has a perfect understanding of all doctrine. Lehi for instance taught incorrectly that there was no death before the fall. I don’t understand the need to misconstrue scripture to conform to our current understanding of doctrine. The scriptures aren’t univocal. Paul taught that we are saved through grace alone and James taught that faith without works is dead. The authors of different books of scripture have differing understandings and that just part of being human.

John Gee in 2014:

Quote

“Masses of American Christians are biblicists who expect the Bible to be able to speak with authority on a nearly limitless range of topics” (Smith, 2011, p. 10) even though “on important matters the Bible apparently is not clear, consistent, and univocal enough to enable the best-intentioned, most highly skilled, believing readers to come to agreement as to what it teaches” (Smith, 2011, p. 25).

Sam Brunson in 2014:

Quote

The Book of Mormon, I’ve found, rewards close reading. It is in dialogue with the Exodus, with Isaiah, with Jeremiah, and, intertemporally, with itself. Its authors and editors quote, paraphrase, and riff off of others’ recorded prophecies.[fn3] Moreover, the Book of Mormon is not univocal: throughout the Book of Mormon, there seems to be a running debate about whether the prophesied Messiah is the son of God or God Himself.

Julie M. Smith in 2014:

Quote

The scriptures are not univocal or completely consistent. They record different opinions, concerns, viewpoints, and even different theologies. The theology of Job pushes back against Deuteronomy. Jonah pushes against Joshua. Luke and Matthew push against Mark. To teach them topically ignores this, which means that it ignores parts of the scriptures. If, for example, we just mine the Book of Mormon for what it has to say about the resurrection, we might miss the fact that one of the things that it says is that knowledge of the resurrection has not been universal or complete (see Alma 40). Other topics developed and changed throughout history, and it would be a shame to miss that development, partially because it would train us not to expect that development in our own day and thus leave us less prepared to cope with, for example, changed church teachings about the role of persons of African descent.

Grant Underwood in 2014:

Quote

As the JST gloss that Richard shared became more widely known in the second half of the twentieth century, the idea has circulated that the man-child was the political kingdom of God destined to govern during the millennium. Regardless of the exegetical difficulties in sustaining any of these, the point is that LDS interpretation has not been univocal—a reality nicely illustrated in the contrasting views of twentieth-century apostles and in-laws Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie.

If the Latter-day Saints widely subscribed to the notion of univocality as Dan asserts, I think we would see more than a handful of references to the concept (pretty much all from 2014 for some reason).

3 hours ago, Danzo said:

Almost always we seem to talk about how each book in the bible has a different author and a different point of view.

The Latter-day Saints subscribe to personal revelation, an open canon, living prophets and apostles, and scriptures that are specifically not designated as inerrant.

Univocality ain't our thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sign In

Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

Recommended Posts

smac97

bluebell

smac97

Devobah

smac97

Ragerunner

Vanguard

Devobah

smac97

BlueDreams

smac97

Calm

Calm

smac97

smac97

Danzo

Doctor Steuss

bluebell

Calm

BlueDreams

smac97

Critical Scholarship and Supernatural Claims

Example Methodologies

Refinement of Your Summary

Robert F. Smith

Robert F. Smith

bluebell

smac97

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse