Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

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.   

The real problem with that slippery definition is that it misses the main point of the full acceptance of supernaturalism by the normative Judeo-Christian theological tradition -- which posits God as the lone & great uncaused cause, outside of space-time, who creates everything in the universe, including us and all of universal law by fiat.  Thus, God is the one necessary being, and everything else (including us) contingent.  That "everything else" includes evil, thus requiring that God be the author of evil.  As it happens the problem of evil is the paramount reason for atheism today (and since the Enlightenment).  Evil makes the Judeo-Christian tradition self-contradictory and meaningless.  That is where Latter-day Saint "heresy" saves the day.

Moreover, simply speaking of advanced technology which we might not understand does not make it supernatural.  There is nothing supernatural about a smartphone, although someone in Joseph Smith's day could certainly think so.  So for the Liahona and other amazing devices which God saw fit to make available to his people.  Amazing, but all based on natural law.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).  

My experience is that Saints generally do try to harmonize scriptures, so in that sense there is often a belief in univocality.  Not all Saints do so, but in the past I would be surprised if it was not a majority.  For example, we don’t generally look on the Creation accounts as independent of each other, but as telling different details of the same creation story…so instead of contradicting each other, it’s often interpreted as one creation story tells of a spiritual creation and the other a physical creation that followed.  If scripture contradicts each other, it’s a mistranslation.  Actual revelations won’t contradict.

Then there is the issue of interpreting the use of Jehovah as another name for Christ rather than used as well for the Father.  

Joseph Fielding Smith certainly taught univocality in that he saw scripture as having one  interpretation that did not need any special training to determine…of course, the way he interpreted scripture was that obvious truth.  I would say that a lot of Saints adopted that type of belief through his work and Bruce R McConkie’s teachings.

Quote

If I am wrong, then the revelations are wrong— I have not placed private interpretation upon them—but the same interpretation that the leading elders of this Church have placed upon them including the Prophet Joseph Smith. If I am wrong, then these intellectual giants who have gone before… are also wrong. There is no alternative.If what I have said gives offense to a group of ‘intellectuals’ within the Church who think more of the philosophy of men than they do of the revelations of God, then I might, if not considered presuming, say to them, they ought to humble themselves, get the Spirit of the Lord and have more faith in his proclamation. [My italics].

https://benspackman.com/2021/01/joseph-fielding-smith-on-scriptural-interpretation-and-scientific-conflict/

When I worked (2001-2002) at a church related bookstore (was owned by a member, not the Church), I often came across the attitude that everything we sold had to be church approved, vetted to avoid error.  The idea that the Church had one position and that was the only position we should be presenting on many topics was the way a number of our customers understood our faith community.  When I was able to, I tried to gently teach a different viewpoint, that there were actually not that many set in stone doctrines the Church had published positions on and contradictions occurred even within church published materials…plus the Church encouraged scholarship outside of the Church’s control (plenty of BYU professors publishing with others besides the Church, for example), some of which research was available at our store. Alas, the FARMS and other academic works were rarely purchased.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/10/2024 at 6:27 PM, 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.

I first realized my objection to the notion of "supernaturalism" many years ago when I watched Inherit the Wind and noticed this exchange during Henry Drummond's trial examination of Matthew Harrison Brady:

Quote

DRUMMOND: It must’ve happened! According to natural law. Or don’t you believe in natural law, Colonel? Would you like to ban Copernicus from the classroom, along with Charles Darwin? Pass a law to wipe out all the scientific development since Joshua? Revelations – period!

BRADY: (Calmly, as if instructing a child) Natural law was born in the mind of the Heavenly Father. He can change it, cancel it, use it as He pleases. It constantly amazes me that you apostles of science, for all your supposed wisdom, fail to grasp this simple fact.

"{God} can change {natural law}, cancel it, use it as He pleases."  This stood out to me as incompatible with my understanding of Latter-day Saint theology, which as you note "posits a natural God in a natural universe governed by law."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2025 by smac97

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The real problem with that slippery definition

It's not a slippery definition though, if it's the actual definition of the word, is it?

Quote

Moreover, simply speaking of advanced technology which we might not understand does not make it supernatural.  There is nothing supernatural about a smartphone, although someone is Joseph Smith's day could certainly think so.  So for the Liahona and other amazing devices which God saw fit to make available to his people.  Amazing, but all based on natural law.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

I can see that it's important to you to focus on how everything that God does is based on natural law.  That's valid.  For me though, I don't think that tight focus is necessary in this discussion. I prefer to just use the regular definition of the word.

Something isn't outside of nature just because we don't understand it, I agree.  But pragmatically, if current scientific understanding is not capable of understanding it, then there is no way for us to know what is actually outside of nature and what is just 'advanced' science we can't understand yet.  The word essentially becomes gibberish with those parameters.

I prefer to keep language useful.  

Edited December 11, 2024 by bluebell

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unlike Dan's commentary on social media content, Robert's presentation does not rest on a conclusory, "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing.

There are, of course, time and communication limits in the type of social media Dan works.  My guess is if he was doing it in text rather than speaking, his work would be thoroughly footnoted.

One can check out Dan’s article here for an example of more rigorous work.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/psalm-82-in-contemporary-latter-day-saint-tradition/

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Also Joseph Fielding Smith .......... and Bruce R McConkie’s teachings.

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

Yes, but often outside the context of Joseph Fielding Smith's strong disagreements with James Talmage and John Widtsoe, not to mention the public confession at BYU by Bruce McConkie in the summer of 1978 that what he and Brother Brigham had taught on race no longer applied.  Elder McConkie said:  "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ .  

A little later, in his personal letter to Eugene England, Feb 19, 1981, ""I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation."

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, but often outside the context of Joseph Fielding Smith's strong disagreements with James Talmage and John Widtsoe, not to mention the public confession at BYU by Bruce McConkie in the summer of 1978 that what he and Brother Brigham had taught on race no longer applied.  Elder McConkie said:  "Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ .  

A little later, in his personal letter to Eugene England, Feb 19, 1981, ""I do not know all of the providences of the Lord, but I do know that he permits false doctrine to be taught in and out of the Church and that such teaching is part of the sifting process of mortality. I repeat: Brigham Young erred in some of his statements on the nature and kind of being that God is and as to the position of Adam in the plan of salvation."

I am not saying it’s an official position, but it is a common attitude I have run across over the decades.  A number of questions to FAIR are about reconciling scripture and revelations that can’t be reconciled, imo.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's not a slippery definition though, if it's the actual definition of the word, is it?

We'll just have to agree to disagree. 

I can see that it's important to you to focus on how everything that God does is based on natural law.  That's valid.  For me though, I don't think that tight focus is necessary in this discussion. I prefer to just use the regular definition of the word.

Something isn't outside of nature just because we don't understand it, I agree.  But pragmatically, if current scientific understanding is not capable of understanding it, then there is no way for us to know what is actually outside of nature and what is just 'advanced' science we can't understand yet.  The word essentially becomes gibberish with those parameters.

I prefer to keep language useful.  

Yes, and the great philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein did say that words mean what they are used to mean.   Most Latter-day Saints would no doubt agree with you, thus missing the major point of heresy on which the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rises triumphant.  It is precisely because Latter-day Saint theology rejects supernaturalism that it is so strong in its assertions.  So "based,"  as they say nowadays.  However, you will not hear any LDS missionaries teaching that to anyone.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I am not saying it’s an official position, but it is a common attitude I have run across over the decades.  A number of questions to FAIR are about reconciling scripture and revelations that can’t be reconciled, imo.

Well, yes, of course.

[Calm]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Unlike Dan's commentary on social media content, Robert's presentation does not rest on a conclusory, "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing. 

Apparently actual experts like his work…

https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/2023RichardsAwardAnnouncement.pdf

Quote

In an effort to increase public
access to the academic study of the Bible and religion and combat the spread of misinformation
about the same, Daniel teaches regular online classes, cohosts the popular Data Over Dogma
Podcast with his friend Dan Beecher, and goes by @maklelan on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube,
and Twitter, where he confronts misinformation, shares the state of the field, and responds to
questions about the Bible and religion.

The goal of the Richards Award is to honor members of the Society of Biblical Literature who
have demonstrated excellence in public scholarship. It seeks to recognize the powerful role of
sacred texts in society and how those texts shape culture. 

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Well, yes, of course.

I think we are in agreement here.  I was focusing on Smac’s comment about “most” Saints as opposed to the Church’s position.

Smac:

Quote

I also suspect that most Latter-day Saints haven't given much thought to the concept of "univocality

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

On 12/10/2024 at 6:35 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

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 .

Thank you.  Very helpful stuff.

1:16 - "I think there's a degree of risk when putting scholarship into the hands of people who don't understand the field.  It's a bit like that WebMD website that people use to check their symptoms, and then always discover that they might have cancer.  ... If you don't have the tools of the discipline, they theory base, the patterns of mind, that kind of think, you're likely to {mess} it up.  And I feel like Dan is maybe giving people enough rope to {mess} it up."

1:57: "I checked over the YouTube viewership of Dan's videos.  Seems to be skeptics, and they seem to like seeing him dunk on religion and naive believers."

2:22: "So I wonder if the educational message {of Dan's content}, and some viewers, aren't rather seeing this as confirming an anti-religious ideology of theirs instead."

==So is Dan = WebMD?  "A little information is a dangerous thing" and all that?

==Is Dan playing/pandering to an anti-religion audience?  Candidly, that's been my impression about much of his content for a while now.  This impression was corroborated by his comments on John Dehlin's podcast.

3:34: "If I do have one direct criticism of Dan, and most scholars with him, it's that he's occasionally guilty of giving an explanation {of data} as though it is a fact.  To put it another way, scholars aren't always great at signaling where data ends and where their story about that data begins."

4:24: "One of the ways Dan supports his explanations {of data} is to appeal to the idea of 'academic consensus.'  'Consensus' suggests that a majority of scholars agree with the story being told about this data, and it's a really useful thing to know. ... {But} consensuses are not 'truths.'  They often break down and become contested spaces."

==Yep and yep.

13:04: "Scholarship is definitely able to some texts to be lies and disinformation, which is what Dan is doing well.  But what scholarship is less able to do is to declare a certain view, a certain argument, to be correct.  Because all interpretation is provisional.  As confident as we might be in our take, there's always the possibility of new things to consider, more biases to shed, and better ideas to have."

13:33: "It would be a huge pity of people took away from Dan's videos that scholarship has ended all of these discussions, and exists to make a fool of {those who profess to have} faith.  It does neither of those things." 

==I think Dan's various comments about the Church come across as him asserting that "scholarship" has deemed certain views/arguments "to be correct," that "scholarship has ended all of these discussions" 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 not 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."

==Is Dan trying to present a "When I speak, the thinking has been done"-style approach to the religious claims of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  "The data" are in, after all...

We report, you decide!

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 5, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Unlike Dan's commentary on social media content, Robert's presentation does not rest on a conclusory, "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing. 

Apparently actual experts like his work…

All of them?

And they like all of his work?

I was referencing Dan's commentary about the Church and juxtaposing it with Robert's approach, with Dan's being on a "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing and Robert's being on a "Here, let me walk you through 'the data'" footing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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).

Unless the assumption of univocality is so embedded in our culture, few question it.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Unlike Dan's commentary on social media content, Robert's presentation does not rest on a conclusory, "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing.

There are, of course, time and communication limits in the type of social media Dan works.  My guess is if he was doing it in text rather than speaking, his work would be thoroughly footnoted.

Perhaps.  He often specifically cites scholarly sources when speaking on matters of biblical scholarship.  No such luck when he makes sweeping and conclusory statements about what "the data" indicate about the Church's religious claims.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Just now, Calm said:

Quote

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).

Unless the assumption of univocality is so embedded in our culture, few question it.

I think the 8th Article of Faith, and the Church's explicit rejection of inerrancy, militate against the notion that we subscribe to univocality.  YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was referencing Dan's commentary about the Church and juxtaposing it with Robert's approach, with Dan's being on a "Trust me, I'm an expert" footing and Robert's being on a "Here, let me walk you through 'the data'" footing.

Just to clarify…where are you seeing Dan’s commentary and where are you seeing Robert’s?  Are you comparing apples to apples or apples to oranges?

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

think the 8th Article of Faith, and the Church's explicit rejection of inerrancy, militate against the notion that we subscribe to univocality

And yet we have one President of the Church who saw scripture as offering only one interpretation (at least outside of what scripture might personally inspire a person to do). (See quote above)

I am not saying univocality of scripture and revelations is an actual principle of the Church or leadership, I am just saying my experience leads me to believe a heck of a lot of Saints act as if it is even if they never use the term.  It appears to be more assumption than thought out position in my experience.

For example, FAIR gets mostly reconciliation questions stated as “how do we reconcile…?”, not “can we reconcile…” or “should we…?”  Most questioners appear to assume it is possible if we know enough.   That scriptures and revelation will all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.  That there are multiple jigsaw puzzles involved is not usually considered as far as I can see.

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

And yet we have one President of the Church who saw scripture as offering only one interpretation (at least outside of what scripture might personally inspire a person to do). (See quote above)

I am not saying univocality of scripture and revelations is an actual principle of the Church or leadership, I am just saying my experience leads me to believe a heck of a lot of Saints act as if it is even if they never use the term.  It appears to be more assumption than thought out position in my experience.

For example, FAIR gets mostly reconciliation questions stated as “how do we reconcile…?”, not “can we reconcile…” or “should we…?”  Most questioners appear to assume it is possible if we know enough.   It will all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.  That there are multiple jigsaw puzzles involved is not usually considered as far as I can see.

I'd definitely second that on my limited experience with people in faith transitions or faith explorations. Often some of what they're tackling is some form of simplification given to them from others (leaders, parents, etc) that assumes more harmony than not...more well kept than chaotic records. When texts are acknowledged as being imperfect, it's never given with a really messy example, but with a minimally important example or more importantly no concrete examples. So the conflict, imcompletions, problems, and contradictions in scripture remain abstract or small while the sacred otherworldliness that holds a clear message for us in our day looms large.  

I've been told, more than once, that my views - which prefers the more messy chaos and finds sacred value in it, not in spite of it - is some version of weird or even incomprehensible. 

We may not say univocality, but there's definitely strains in us that does univocality.

 

With luv,

BD  

[Calm]

Here is an example of an assumption of univocality, imo, inserted into Biblical text…as in all biblical writers meant the same thing when they wrote Jehovah, which is Christ (whether they knew it or not).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2002/06/lord-equals-jehovah?lang=eng#title3

another:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2022/01/finding-jesus-christ-in-the-old-testament?lang=eng#aside1_p4

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

On 12/10/2024 at 7:01 PM, smac97 said:

  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. 

The JST in some places tries to harmonize our view of scriptures and God.  Many LDS in my experience believe Joseph is restoring the original text.  My guess is he has seen assumptions that the JST has been canonized because it is included in the Church's edition and therefore is revelation as well as whatever errors were in the Bible, if they needed correcting, Joseph did that, so we can trust his version.

I think the way the Church teaches at times what the JST contributes to this idea.  For example, the opening paragraph here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/joseph-smith-translation-of-the-bible?lang=eng#p3

Summarized…Joseph and Oliver resolved their contradictory views of scripture through the JST.  
 

The full section is easily inferred to mean all of the revisions were inspired, therefore revelation.

Also comments like this:

”The JST to some extent assists in restoring the plain and precious things that have been lost from the Bible (see 1 Ne. 13–14).

Although not the official Bible of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the JST offers many interesting insights and is an invaluable aid to biblical interpretation and understanding. It is a most fruitful source of useful information for the student of the scriptures. It is likewise a witness for the divine calling and ministry of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”

Some readers will miss or assume “to some extent” means the vast majority of the JST is revelation.

Before scholars (Robert Matthews I believe was the first) were able to examine the original manuscript or Bible or whatever record the RLDS had, there was a distrust of the RLDS publication of the JST in that there were suspicions they changed some of Joseph’s work (basing this on conversations I had in the past).  Once it was confirmed accurate and deemed worthy to be included in LDS scriptures, the attitude towards it shifted from what I have seen. That which is included in the scriptures seems to me to be viewed as revelation. If people are aware that some of the JST was left out, some assume that is because those parts weren’t revealed.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And yet we have one President of the Church who saw scripture as offering only one interpretation (at least outside of what scripture might personally inspire a person to do). (See quote above)

I am not saying univocality of scripture and revelations is an actual principle of the Church or leadership, I am just saying my experience leads me to believe a heck of a lot of Saints act as if it is even if they never use the term.  It appears to be more assumption than thought out position in my experience.

For example, FAIR gets mostly reconciliation questions stated as “how do we reconcile…?”, not “can we reconcile…” or “should we…?”  Most questioners appear to assume it is possible if we know enough.  

This example too: "While we don’t know all the reasons Saul was commanded to kill all of the Amalekites and their animals, there are lessons to learn from his response to that commandment."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/come-follow-me-for-sunday-school-old-testament-2022/25?lang=eng

 

 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That scriptures and revelation will all fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.  That there are multiple jigsaw puzzles involved is not usually considered as far as I can see.

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

I do remember when I was in my teens, we speculated a lot on what was mistranslated in the Bible, iow examples were given.  I don’t hear that type of speculation anywhere but on this board on occasion.  I figured it was age that did it or perhaps a greater awareness of how claiming a certain scripture is mistranslated may put us in conflict with a church leader who taught it as truth.  I will have to ask my grandkids if anyone speculates like that among their friends at church.

I can see how it might be the inclusion of the JST where many may assume that all the errors were corrected by Joseph Smith that contributed though.

The idea is similar to the joke of how Catholics claim the Pope is infallible, but don’t believe it while Mormons claim the prophet is fallible, but don’t believe it. It would be very interesting to do a study where members are asked “do you believe there are errors in the scriptures?”  and then if they say “yes”, ask for examples. If they can’t come up with even a possibility, do they really believe in anything more than an abstract, what if way that errors exist?  What if you present a possible error?  If they immediately move to justify it as truth and continue to do so for every suggestion, is there any substance to them saying they believe scripture has errors? (Serious, not rhetorical questions)

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

This is what is taught about the original Bible that can, imo, lead to seeing the Bible as univocal.

Quote

Joseph Smith commented, “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, chapter 17).

It is written later “errors entered the text”, suggesting there were no errors to begin with.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/bible-inerrancy-of?lang=eng#title5

Quote

All these sources of eternal truth work together to establish, clarify, and testify of the plan of our Heavenly Father and to bring people unto Jesus Christ.

This comes across as univocality to me.  If someone sees it differently, I would love to hear their interpretation on why it doesn’t mean that.

[Calm]

Univocality requires Alma’s “outer darkness” to be spirit prison and we add to his writing the belief that he understands that we continue to learn after death rather than are assigned paradise or outer darkness at death.

Quote

What happens to our spirits between death and resurrection? (See Alma 40:11–13. They go to either paradise or spirit prison. Explain that “outer darkness” in verse 13 refers to the place we usually call spirit prison.) How did Alma describe paradise and spirit prison? (Have class members read Alma 40:11–15, 21 to find answers to this question. You may want to summarize class members’ responses on the chalkboard in a chart like the one on the next page.)

That is not what Alma says though.  We have to assume this.

Quote

11 Now, concerning the state of the soul between death and the resurrection—Behold, it has been made known unto me by an angel, that the spirits of all men, as soon as they are departed from this mortal body, yea, the spirits of all men, whether they be good or evil, are taken home to that God who gave them life.

12 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of those who are righteous are received into a state of happiness, which is called paradise, a state of rest, a state of peace, where they shall rest from all their troubles and from all care, and sorrow.

13 And then shall it come to pass, that the spirits of the wicked, yea, who are evil—for behold, they have no part nor portion of the Spirit of the Lord; for behold, they chose evil works rather than good; therefore the spirit of the devil did enter into them, and take possession of their house—and these shall be cast out into outer darkness; there shall be weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and this because of their own iniquity, being led captive by the will of the devil.

14 Now this is the state of the soulsof the wicked, yea, in darkness, and a state of awful, fearful looking for the fiery indignation of the wrath of God upon them; thus they remain in this state, as well as the righteous in paradise, until the time of their resurrection.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/book-of-mormon-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-30?lang=eng#figure2_title2

I like this discussion that allows for Alma to have an incomplete understanding of, so there is no need to add to his verses to make his understanding identical to our own.

https://rsc.byu.edu/give-ear-my-words/alma-ambiguity-development-doctrinal-understanding

Edited December 11, 2024 by Calm