Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This makes his declaratory statements about what "data" do and do not indicate to be even more odd and less illuminating.  

Not really, at least for me it works to a significant extent, but I also include other comments he makes rather than taking these comments in isolation.  It took several views for me to wrap my head around it as his language was not that familiar to me and even now I do a poor job of rephrasing it, but for me it makes sense of some of his process, why he chooses to do it the way he does (not using the meta narrative to frame scripture, but approach it by accumulating individual experiences like collecting jigsaw pieces…yeah, that doesn’t really convey what I see him doing).

[smac97]

On 12/11/2024 at 4:17 PM, Calm said:

Quote

This makes his declaratory statements about what "data" do and do not indicate to be even more odd and less illuminating.  

Not really, at least for me it works to a significant extent,

I have spent the last 20+ years reading "the data" both for and against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and the origins of The Book of Mormon.  I have reached conclusions about these data that are quite at odds with Dan's statements about what "the data indicate."  I appreciate listening to views which vary from my own as to these issues, particularly when the holder of that viewpoint is intelligent, informed, etc.  Dan clearly fits the bill, but his declarations are unsubstantiated, conclusory, conveyed via social media content, and have a pretty potent sociopolitical and neo-marxist vibe emanating from them.  So I guess I expect more substance from a scholar of Dan's stature, and find the absence of substance to be interesting and disappointing.

On 12/11/2024 at 4:17 PM, Calm said:

but I also include other comments he makes rather than taking these comments in isolation.

One of the bad things about social media content is that it is a very inconvenient archive, especially in these days of searchable text.  If Dan has elsewhere explained what he means by "data" and "supernatural," and what "data" he is referencing in relation to the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith and/or the origins of The Book of Mormon, I would like to see it.  But I'm not inclined to spend untold hours perusing his YouTube and TikTok channels to track that stuff down.  I think it is incumbent upon him to make such information reasonably accessible and available.

On 12/11/2024 at 4:17 PM, Calm said:

It took several views for me to wrap my head around it as his language was not that familiar to me and even now I do a poor job of rephrasing it, but for me it makes sense of some of his process, why he chooses to do it the way he does (not using the meta narrative to frame scripture, but approach it by accumulating individual experiences like collecting jigsaw pieces…yeah, that doesn’t really convey what I see him doing).

Overall, I'm more inclined to infer an alternative explanation for Dan's refusal to define key terms.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm more inclined to infer an alternative explanation for Dan's refusal to define key terms.

Maybe this will help.  I find this very clear on some of the reasoning behind his methodology.

He defines dogma in this video as a belief one chooses to accept (around 14 minutes).

My view of what he means by data is evidence that is agreed upon as independent of ideology.  As in whatever personal beliefs one had, one can agree that Josephus said such and such or a clay pot is dated to a certain time period by scientific (meaning results are consistent, etc) means.

I may be wrong on the data meaning for him, but it seems consistent with how he uses it in his videos I have seen.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[sunstoned]

Quote

 

He defines dogma in this video as a belief one chooses to accept (around 14 minutes).

My view of what he means by data is evidence that is agreed upon as independent of ideology.  As in whatever personal beliefs one had, one can agree that Josephus said such and such or a clay pot is dated to a certain time period by scientific (meaning results are consistent, etc) means.

I may be wrong on the data meaning for him, but it seems consistent with how he uses it in his videos I have seen.

 

Dan does make it clear that dogma is what one chooses to believe.  I found this clip very informative.

[smac97]

On 12/11/2024 at 6:56 PM, Calm said:

Maybe this will help.  I find this very clear on some of the reasoning behind his methodology.

He defines dogma in this video as a belief one chooses to accept (around 14 minutes).

Ah.  So he does define terms after all.

"Dogma" is a "a belief one chooses to accept."

That's . . . kinda idiosyncratic.  Bland.  Overly-broad.  I think it has a fairly potent pejorative connotation, and I think that is why Dan uses it (even if he here defines it in a pretty milquetoast way).  

The dictionary definition is "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."

Or, per Wikipedia, "any belief held definitively and without the possibility of reform."

Or, per Merriam-Webster's: "something held as an established opinion" or "a code of such tenets" or "a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds" or "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church" (I think Dan's generalized usage of "dogma" is intended to evoke one or both of the last two definitions here).

On 12/11/2024 at 6:56 PM, Calm said:

My view of what he means by data is evidence that is agreed upon as independent of ideology.  

So what "data" - "evidence that is agreed upon {I noted the passive voice here} as independent of ideology" - exists for and against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith?

On 12/11/2024 at 6:56 PM, Calm said:

As in whatever personal beliefs one had, one can agree that Josephus said such and such or a clay pot is dated to a certain time period by scientific (meaning results are consistent, etc) means.

Right.  But reaching a conclusion about the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is kind of hard to do "independent{ly} of ideology," wouldn't you say?  And yet Dan has confidently declared that "the data" - whatever that means - "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 "do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."

On 12/11/2024 at 6:56 PM, Calm said:

I may be wrong on the data meaning for him, but it seems consistent with how he uses it in his videos I have seen.

I sure would like to see this independent-of-ideology "evidence that is agreed upon" (by whom?) which militates against the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith.

I can envision a scholar of Dan's caliber saying that "the data do not support" the notion that the world is flat, that Donald Trump won the 2020 election, a giant aquatic animal lives in Loch Ness, etc.  We can say these things with some real confidence because no ideology is needed or relevant, even though some people believe in them.  I am not ideologically opposed to flat-earthers, I just think they are objectively wrong, and can be conclusively demonstrated to be so.  The same goes for Trumpists who think he won in 2020 or people who really believe in Nessie.  

In contrast, I don't see how one can objectively ("independent{ly} from ideology"), reach conclusions about the nature of Joseph Smith's "prophethood."  Reaching a conclusion on that issue requires acceptance or rejection of unavoidable ideological presuppositions.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 7, 2025 by smac97

[sunstoned]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So he does define terms after all.

"Dogma" is a "a believe one chooses to accept."

That's . . . kinda idiosyncratic.  Bland.  Overly-broad.  I think it has a fairly potent pejorative connotation, and I think that is why Dan uses it (even if he here defines it in a pretty milquetoast way).  

T

Is it Dan you have a problem with or is it Critical Bible Studies in general?  Honest question.  Because it sounds like you get tipped off your bike with anything that is not in complete alignment with your version of Mormon apologetics.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Is it Dan you have a problem with or is it Critical Bible Studies in general?  Honest question. 

I readily acknowledge Dan's intelligence and competence in biblical scholarship.  I mostly have questions about and criticisms of Dan's social media content.  I find some (most?) of his social media content helpful to some extent.  But I also see some substantial problems with his efforts, particularly in recent months.  As I noted previously: "I still watch some of Dan's content, but his 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."

Dan previously publicly accused me of "carrying water" for white supremacists and "conspiring" to "subjugate" women, so that has affected my assessment of him as a person, his character, and his overall stature as a scholar.  And as noted above, I am seeing what I think are substantial flaws in his more recent social media content and approach.  However, I can harbor such assessments and also admire and learn from his erudition in other respects.

I have no particular beef with Critical Bible Studies.  It is a discipline that has its place in contemporary discourse about The Bible.

20 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Because it sounds like you get tipped off your bike with anything that is not in complete alignment with your version of Mormon apologetics.

I've been on this board for 20+ years.  18.2K posts so far.  If I were the my-way-or-the-highway-yet-still-fragile martinet you seem to want to paint me as, if I was incapable of handling disagreement ("you get tipped off your bike...") with my perspective on Restored Gospel and the institution that houses it, I don't think I would still be here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

.  I think it has a fairly potent pejorative connotation,

Wow, I find it on point, highly accessible, and with little baggage unless one dislikes the idea that belief can be chosen.  I see nothing pejorative about it.  What is bad about choosing beliefs?

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

.  But reaching a conclusion about the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith is kind of hard to do "independent{ly} of ideology," wouldn't you say?  And yet Dan has confidently declared that "the data" - whatever that means - "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 "do not support any actual supernaturally-guided prophethood of Joseph Smith."

I would say the data is absent either way when it comes to supernatural events or actions; it doesn’t support either accepting or rejecting him as a prophet (someone who speaks for God) since only the spirit can convey that information to you and the Spirit can not independently be verified since it is an internal and as far as we know unmeasurable experience.

As far as supernatural…how can there ever be evidence or data for that as it’s beyond the ability to be studied?  As soon as something can be studied or measured in any consistent way, I don’t see ot qualifying for “supernatural” any more even if we don’t know the cause.

Even if Joseph translated an ancient record in the exact way most modern scholars would do so, it is not evidence that it was done supernaturally even if we have no explanation for it.  There was no explanation for gravity, electricity, etc before; that did not mean they were supernatural forces.  The data is Joseph claimed it was by the power of God.  We can choose to believe that is the truth or not, but we can’t show it.

I don’t know if this is Dan’s view or his is something like it.  I don’t particularly care because my view is based in my experience, not his.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Are you saying that the nuns were praying to fulfill the demands of scientific investigators?  Or that God did not respond to the nuns' prayers because they were being investigated by scientists?

I have no idea why any religious person would even consider participating in such an endeavor. “Oh! Let’s go into that lab and get fitted up with their probes and then pray to God so they can measure our brain waves when he answers us.” Does prayer work that way? I don’t think so.

Perhaps the scientists were unwittingly playing the role of Pharoah, the Priests of Baal, the scribes and Pharisees, Sherem, Korihor, and all the others looking for signs with the same motive (to prove, or better to disprove God’s existence, as if God must respond to their tests as they demand), but just using different methodologies?

Fortunately, they didn’t suffer the same fate as the other anti-Christs.   😉

Gabriel: “Oh, look, Father! Those men are wiring up some praying folks to see what happens to their brains when you answer their prayers. Whatever shall we do?”

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I would say the data is absent either way, it doesn’t support either accepting or rejecting him as a prophet since only the spirit can convey that information to you and the Spirit can not independently be verified since it is an internal and as far as we know unmeasurable experience.

Using your definition of "data," I agree. 

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

As far as supernatural…how can there ever be evidence or data for that as it’s beyond the ability to be studied?  

I think there are ways evidence/data can exist.  The origins and coming forth of The Book of Mormon, for me, entail evidence of divine influence.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

As soon as something can be studied or measured in any consistent way, I don’t see ot qualifying for “supernatural” any more even if we don’t know the cause.

Even if Joseph translated an ancient record in the exact way most modern scholars would do so, it is not evidence that it was done supernaturally even if we have no explanation for it.  

I think it is.  The Book of Mormon, in my view, must be accounted for by naturalistic or divine means.  The naturalistic explanations are, in my view, pretty bad, inconsistent, lacking in evidence, etc.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no explanation for gravity, electricity, etc before; that did not mean they were supernatural forces.  The data is Joseph claimed it was by the power of God.  We can choose to believe that is the truth or not, but we can’t show it.

That depends, I suppose, on the "standard of proof" one imposes on the question.

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t know if this is Dan’s view or his is something like it.  I don’t particularly care because my view is based in my experience, not his.

Dan presents himself as a competent scholar, so when he speaks of "data," I want to give him a fair hearing.  He's making that sort of difficult to do.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The origins and coming forth of The Book of Mormon, for me, entail evidence of divine influence.

You interpret them that way.  You put that explanation upon them.  I do as well.  There are others who do not.  They see the same thing, but do not interpret it to mean divinity is involved.

[smac97]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Quote

I think it {"dogma"} has a fairly potent pejorative connotation,

Wow, I find it on point, highly accessible, and with little baggage unless one dislikes the idea that belief can be chosen.  I see nothing pejorative about it.  What is bad about choosing beliefs?

I think "dogma," like "cult," have has clinical scholarly/academic usages, but the popular usage can come across as pejorative.

Consider, for example, that "dogmatic" can mean "asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated" ("doctrinaire" meaning "dogmatic about others' acceptance of one's ideas; fanatical"). 

A "dogmatist" is "a person who asserts their opinions in an unduly positive or arrogant manner; a dogmatic person."

Dan juxtaposes "dogma" with "data," and then generally seems to find fault with the former (or what he describes as the former).

From ChatGPT:

Quote

Does "dogma" have a pejorative connotation?

 

ChatGPT said:

The term "dogma" can have both neutral and pejorative connotations, depending on the context in which it is used:

Neutral or Positive Connotation

In its traditional sense, dogma refers to established beliefs or doctrines formally proclaimed by a religion, philosophy, or institution as authoritative and incontrovertible. For example:

• In religious contexts, dogma is a term for core doctrines, such as those in Christianity or Islam, that are central to faith and practice.
• In philosophy, it may refer to principles or theoretical frameworks foundational to a particular school of thought.

In these contexts, dogma does not inherently carry a negative implication; it simply refers to firmly held beliefs.

Pejorative Connotation

In modern usage, dogma often takes on a negative connotation when used to critique rigid or uncritical adherence to beliefs or doctrines. This sense is common in secular or skeptical discourse, where dogma is viewed as:

• Close-mindedness: Reflecting an unwillingness to adapt beliefs in light of new evidence or ideas.
• Blind authority: Suggesting that the beliefs are upheld not because they are well-reasoned or evidence-based but because they are imposed by an authority figure or tradition.

For example, describing an idea as "dogmatic" in a debate typically implies it is being upheld in an inflexible, unquestioning manner.

Conclusion

Whether dogma is perceived as pejorative depends on the speaker's perspective and the audience's values. For religious believers or members of a particular school of thought, it may have a neutral or positive meaning, signifying foundational truths. However, in secular, skeptical, or academic contexts, it is more likely to carry a critical, pejorative tone.

I see Dan's social media usage of "dogma" to be frequently/mostly pejorative.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 12, 2024 by smac97

[Rain]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have no idea why any religious person would even consider participating in such an endeavor. “Oh! Let’s go into that lab and get fitted up with their probes and then pray to God so they can measure our brain waves when he answers us.” Does prayer work that way? I don’t think so.

Perhaps the scientists were unwittingly playing the role of Pharoah, the Priests of Baal, the scribes and Pharisees, Sherem, Korihor, and all the others looking for signs with the same motive (to prove, or better to disprove God’s existence, as if God must respond to their tests as they demand), but just using different methodologies?

Fortunately, they didn’t suffer the same fate as the other anti-Christs.   😉

Gabriel: “Oh, look, Father! Those men are wiring up some praying folks to see what happens to their brains when you answer their prayers. Whatever shall we do?”

Maybe they are just studying it out.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Rain

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know if that counts as a sign. They weren't seeking to "prove" God, just understand spiritual experiences on a scientific level. More like, what happens to people who say they're experiencing God. That's being curious, not being hubristic.

 

Ps. I generally nowadays use They in the plural sense for God. Since it fits my experience of God most accurately: God as sacred Family, God as Heavenly Father and Mother, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. God that will one day incorporate us as Them. My prayers nowadays feel more like Family Counsel than anything else. 

 

With luv, 

BD

“If there is a God, then let us study you as you pray. We will observe your brain patterns, and if we notice anything significant, then we’ll believe. If not, then we won’t believe.”

I don’t believe spiritual experiences come on demand. I have never had one that would have been possible to immediately measure scientifically. In fact the most profound have been unexpected and intensely personal. While I am absolutely certain that some physiological reactions occur, I can’t imagine an experiment that could possibly have the means, timing, availability, and prescience to measure such things. And I recall an apostle once saying, “We do not satisfy men’s curiosity in that way.” 

For me, my prayers are to God the Father (He/Him) in the Name of Jesus Christ (He/Him), because that is their true revealed nature and that is what Jesus asked us to do, but to each their own. 🙂

 

[Bernard Gui]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

Or maybe they are just studying it out.

I don’t understand. Please explain.

In order to make such a study, the assumption must be that God is obligated to answer prayers when they are uttered in a manner that can be measured electronically. This is not the reality of what prayer is, so any conclusions must be erroneous, in my opinion.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

The origins and coming forth of The Book of Mormon, for me, entail evidence of divine influence.

You interpret them that way.  You put that explanation upon them.  I do as well.  There are others who do not.  They see the same thing, but do not interpret it to mean divinity is involved.

Some years ago I had a case where the owner of a house ("Sarah") in Utah disputed the enforceability of the trust deed (mortgage) recorded against her home by claiming that her signature on the document had been forged.  I represented the lender under the mortgage.  The rest of the 8 billion people in the world did not care one way or another, but the bank and Sarah cared a lot.  The dispute needed to be resolved, which meant that the judge had to reach a decision as to who signed the mortgage.  He had to choose one explanation (that the signature was Sarah's) or the other (that it was a forgery).  So the parties explored the question and presented the evidence to the judge.  The judge, using established evidentiary rules, reached a conclusion.

There is no agreed-upon evidentiary standard or set of rules regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon, so that's a big difference.  But that does not mean that data/evidence do not exist.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Dan juxtaposes "dogma" with "data," and then generally seems to find fault with the former (or what he describes as the former).

Yes, I would say he finds fault with it when it used with authority as if it was evidence or as supplying information it doesn’t actually provide.

I see no evidence he rejects dogma when present as belief and not “data”.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that does not mean that data/evidence do not exist.

Again data needs to be interpreted.  When scripture says all existence is evidence of God, that is true through a given interpretation.  It is not inherently true though because we know of no physical law that requires a supernatural result.

Edited December 12, 2024 by Calm

[Rain]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don’t understand. Please explain.

In order to make such a study, the assumption must be that God is obligated to answer prayers when they are uttered in a manner that can be measured electronically. This is not the reality of what prayer is, so any conclusions must be erroneous, in my opinion.

The church teaches people that they need to study things out for themselves. This looks like a method of studying prayer.  "What happens to brains when we pray?" 

Spiritual experiences don't come on demand, but people do expect them to come or they wouldn't pray. 

[Bernard Gui]

20 minutes ago, Rain said:

The church teaches people that they need to study things out for themselves. This looks like a method of studying prayer.  "What happens to brains when we pray?"

 

Are you saying that the Church teaching about study and prayer is the same as scientific studies of the brain while praying? I’m not sure what this means.
 

Quote

Spiritual experiences don't come on demand, but people do expect them to come or they wouldn't pray. 

How can that be reliably measured in any way?

[Dario_M]

32 minutes ago, Rain said:

 Spiritual experiences don't come on demand, but people do expect them to come or they wouldn't pray. 

Wich kind of people are you talking about then if i may be so free to ask? Because... i don't expect an experience on demand at all. Nor do i know anyone in my ward expecting something like that. 

[Rain]

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are you saying that the Church teaching about study and prayer is the same as scientific studies of the brain while praying? I’m not sure what this means.

 

I'm saying it could be. You say the studies are a problem. I'm saying the studies can be exactly what the church teaches depending on the motivation.

7 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

How can that be reliably measured in any way?

What exactly are you wanting to measure? How many people expect an answer? How many receive answers? 

[Dario_M]

2 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm saying it could be. You say the studies are a problem. I'm saying the studies can be exactly what the church teaches depending on the motivation.

Uh...what?

Edited December 12, 2024 by Dario_M

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

“If there is a God, then let us study you as you pray. We will observe your brain patterns, and if we notice anything significant, then we’ll believe. If not, then we won’t believe.”

I don’t believe spiritual experiences come on demand. I have never had one that would have been possible to immediately measure scientifically. In fact the most profound have been unexpected and intensely personal. While I am absolutely certain that some physiological reactions occur, I can’t imagine an experiment that could possibly have the means, timing, availability, and prescience to measure such things. And I recall an apostle once saying, “We do not satisfy men’s curiosity in that way.” 

That's definitely not the main purpose of these studies. You're misconstruing them and building up a straw man in the process. Here's one small summary of the research. their research had nothing to do about proving God. And I don't see the need to keep prayer/meditation some form of unstudied mystery. 

Personally I get an "answer" most the time I pray. Of course most of my answers are just gentle and simple. A sense of being heard and loved. Nudges to this or that idea. From time to time they're bigger or more directive. 

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

For me, my prayers are to God the Father (He/Him) in the Name of Jesus Christ (He/Him), because that is their true revealed nature and that is what Jesus asked us to do, but to each their own. 🙂

 

I address my heavenly father, acknowledge or share gratitude for HM,  and end my prayers in the name of Christ. Sometimes I feel my girls or my grandmothers when I've prayed and I talk to them, not in a way that's a formal prayer, just as I would my husband or my living daughter. But HM I acknowledge each time I'm in private prayer and often in family prayer. It became more and more dissonant for me to not acknowledge Her, when I was well aware of Her reaching out to me and being a source of love, power, inspiration, and healing. Kinda like how it's a little rude to not say hi to someone you're well aware is in the room and is looking directly at you. I'm aware that this is not within normal practice for most latter-day saints. But for me God is Them and is gradually incorporating Us into Them. I like the contradictory nature of both plurality and singularity. That to be family insists on more than one being while being one in heart and care (ideally). And I cannot deny the power and majesty of all that is God. 

That's my personal "own" per se.  I don't expect anyone to adopt my thought process or language in this. It's just a symbol of what I've personally learned/experienced over the years. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

Edited December 12, 2024 by BlueDreams