Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

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 

...and I love it!

[bluebell]

13 hours 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?”

Interesting perspective.  I don't agree with it at all but thanks for sharing it.

[Senator]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

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

 

Maybe God is not displeased with their thirst for knowledge.

[manol]

8 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

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.

Thank you for the link.

Years ago I read a book about prayer which included references to controlled blind testing, and some of the test methods were theoretically within my ability to replicate.  Excited by the prospect of doing my own informal research, and armed with a barely-passing grade in a freshman statistics class some fifteen years previously, I designed and conducted a test.  The emperical results were arguably unlikely and therefore perhaps interesting.  But the subjective experience was more educational for me.  Without attaching labels I'm not fully confident of, there was "something" which could be "tuned-in to", and it was experienced as a certain feeling.  Brain-wave recording (let alone analysis) was well outside of my wheelhouse, but I do remember the feeling.

Edited December 13, 2024 by manol

[Rain]

42 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you for the link.

Years ago I read a book about prayer which included references to controlled blind testing, and some of the test methods were theoretically within my ability to replicate.  Excited by the prospect of doing my own informal research, and armed with a barely-passing grade in a freshman statistics class, I designed and conducted a test.  The emperical results were arguably unlikely and therefore perhaps interesting.  But the subjective experience was more educational for me.  Without attaching labels I'm not fully confident of, there was "something" which could be "tuned-in to", and it was experienced as a certain feeling.  Brain-wave recording (let alone analysis) was well outside of my wheelhouse, but I do remember the feeling.

I'm a type 1 diabetic, have a continuous glucose monitor and since last night I've been thinking about doing my own personal study about the effects of prayer, meditation and spiritual reading on my blood sugar.  I have too many things on my plate currently so I probably won't do it,  but it does make me curious.

[Doctor Steuss]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm a type 1 diabetic, have a continuous glucose monitor and since last night I've been thinking about doing my own personal study about the effects of prayer, meditation and spiritual reading on my blood sugar.  I have too many things on my plate currently so I probably won't do it,  but it does make me curious.

While diabetes has some physiological differences that could impact results, there was a study with 60 patients who had coronary artery disease.  They were divided into two groups, with one doing regular meditation and the other not.  There were a couple different things they measured, but amongst them were blood glucose and fasting serum insulin.  Of the markers they measured, the meditation group saw statistically significant improvements compared to the non-meditation group.

The study was published in a Yoga journal, so I can't image the peer review process was particularly robust, but the authors were from two different medical colleges and one hospital (from a quick glance, there was a cardiologist, two physiologists, and a biochemist).

PMID is 29755221 if you ever get a hankering to pull a copy from the library.  Might also be free to download through NIH.

[manol]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I'm a type 1 diabetic, have a continuous glucose monitor and since last night I've been thinking about doing my own personal study about the effects of prayer, meditation and spiritual reading on my blood sugar.  I have too many things on my plate currently so I probably won't do it,  but it does make me curious.

The book I read was "Healing Words" by Larry Dossey.

The book talked about controlled blind studies done on "prayer strategies", and found that non-specific prayer was generally more effective than specific prayer.  So something like "may the outcome be the best for everyone involved" apparently worked better than "please God heal this person of this disease".   I have my own theories as to why that might be the case, but have forgotten what his were. 

[Damien the Leper]

On 12/10/2024 at 2:10 PM, 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 have many family members who lean conservatively on certain issues but who are by no means, themselves, homophobic, transphobic, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, sexist, etc. However, I made a point to tell them that while they may not be any of those things they decided that those characteristics are not deal breakers to achieve their desired ends. I stated that because I am not a racist, I will not vote or align in any way with racists. To do so would be carrying water for such groups. We must always be better. And now for a less mature statement but one I stand by... Project 2025 is inherently evil from cover to cover.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

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 have many family members who lean conservatively on certain issues but who are by no means, themselves, homophobic, transphobic, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, sexist, etc.

Okay.

5 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

However, I made a point to tell them that while they may not be any of those things they decided that those characteristics are not deal breakers to achieve their desired ends.

I don't know what you are saying here.

5 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I stated that because I am not a racist, I will not vote or align in any way with racists.  To do so would be carrying water for such groups.

Ah.  So if you had previously planned to vote for a Democratic candidate, and if you then discover that some other Democrat voters have some terrible attribute or ideological stance, you withhold your vote because "{t}o do so would be carrying water for such groups"?

5 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

We must always be better.

I think we need to vote based on active, rather than reactive, reasoning.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Damien the Leper]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know what you are saying here.

I'm fairly sure I was clear on what I was saying.

 

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ah.  So if you had previously planned to vote for a Democratic candidate, and if you then discover that some other Democrat voters have some terrible attribute or ideological stance, you withhold your vote because "{t}o do so would be carrying water for such groups"?

Which is precisely why I didn't vote at all. I chose not to be complicit in the crimes. 

 

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we need to vote based on active, rather than reactive, reasoning.

You can't always separate the active from the reactive. I saw an uptick in conservative leaning simply over the falsely claimed Haitians eating pets in Ohio. The southern border is a tired issue on which people vote reactively. So, I suppose you're right.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Quote

However, I made a point to tell them that while they may not be any of those things they decided that those characteristics are not deal breakers to achieve their desired ends.

I don't know what you are saying here.

I'm fairly sure I was clear on what I was saying.

It sounded like an oblique/backhanded statement to your family members that they are carrying water for racists.  But I was not sure, hence my request for clarification.

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Ah.  So if you had previously planned to vote for a Democratic candidate, and if you then discover that some other Democrat voters have some terrible attribute or ideological stance, you withhold your vote because "{t}o do so would be carrying water for such groups"?

Which is precisely why I didn't vote at all. I chose not to be complicit in the crimes. 

Is that a yes?  it sounds like one, but again, I am seeking clarification.

If you are an American, you presumably pay taxes to a state, and to the federal government, which probably do some things with it which you find morally objectionable.  And yet you presumably remain an American, pay taxes, etc.  Does that make you "complicit" in these things?

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

I think we need to vote based on active, rather than reactive, reasoning.

You can't always separate the active from the reactive.

You can't also always separate yourself from the society in which you live.

We all make subjective value judgments about what we can accommodate in the behaviors of those around us.  That we accommodate/tolerate a behavior does not necessarily make us "complicit" in it.

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I saw an uptick in conservative leaning simply over the falsely claimed Haitians eating pets in Ohio. The southern border is a tired issue on which people vote reactively. So, I suppose you're right.

By "reactive" I meant letting someone else's behaviors/choices dictate or unduly influence yours.

For example, consider this graph showing an increase in political violence in the U.S.:

Very troubling stuff, this.  And it appears to be rising across the political spectrum. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rain]

55 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

I'm fairly sure I was clear on what I was saying.

 

I actually didn't know what you were saying either after reading that part several times.

55 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Which is precisely why I didn't vote at all. I chose not to be complicit in the crimes. 

 

You can't always separate the active from the reactive. I saw an uptick in conservative leaning simply over the falsely claimed Haitians eating pets in Ohio. The southern border is a tired issue on which people vote reactively. So, I suppose you're right.

 

[InCognitus]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

For example, consider this graph showing an increase in political violence in the U.S.:

Very troubling stuff, this.  And it appears to be rising across the political spectrum. 

It's interesting that you bring this up, because the polarization of views and the attacks between two opposing groups (as illustrated in resent trends in the United States as illustrated above) was the focus of our Gospel Doctrine lessons yesterday (at least in my own ward and in my mom's ward - I spoke with her on the phone about it last night).  

The last chapters of the Book or Mormon has Mormon having to deal with two opposing groups that want to kill each other off, and the mentality that goes a long with that.  And knowing his time is short, Mormon passes the record keeping duties to his son, Moroni, who in one of his first "endings" to the Book of Mormon (Mormon chapter eight) laments the death of his father and recounts the extreme bloodshed and hatred between the two groups, and he says his people have been hunted by the Lamanites and he is alone and fears for his own life.  Moroni lacks confidence because of his own weaknesses and the burden of the record keeping task, a task that he performs out of duty to his father's commandment to him.

But as time goes on Moroni finds himself still alive and has time to review the records and add more to them.  In Ether 12 he has a conversation with the Lord and comes to grips with grace and charity and what that means relative to his own weaknesses and his acceptance by the Lord.  Moroni's view of the Lamanites changes from them being the enemy (even though he says they are still trying to destroy him - Moroni chapter 1), to him having a desire to write things that "may be of worth unto my brethren, the Lamanites, in some future day" (Moroni 1:4).  His motive in his record keeping changes from duty to love of his brethren.  He sees the Lamanites through the eyes of God instead of through the crosshairs of his weapon (this is a figure of speech, I don't really think Moroni had a weapon with crosshairs). 

As a result, charity becomes a big topic in the last chapters Moroni includes in the book, including the letters he quotes from his father Mormon (Moroni chapters seven and eight).  

So the moral of the story is, unless we want to have an ending similar to the Jaredites or the Nephites, we better be working on charity and seeing our brethren through the eyes of God instead of through some other label that society puts upon them.

[Damien the Leper]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

It sounded like an oblique/backhanded statement to your family members that they are carrying water for racists.  But I was not sure, hence my request for clarification.

It wasn't backhanded or oblique. My family knew exactly what I was saying.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is that a yes?  it sounds like one, but again, I am seeking clarification.

If you are an American, you presumably pay taxes to a state, and to the federal government, which probably do some things with it which you find morally objectionable.  And yet you presumably remain an American, pay taxes, etc.  Does that make you "complicit" in these things?

I'm not going to be backed into a corner to for you to try to find inconstancies in my position. As a citizen of any country, one must pay taxes. This is forced on people. Comparing paying taxes to voting is not the same thing at all. Voting is a choice. Paying taxes is not.

 

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

You can't also always separate yourself from the society in which you live.

We all make subjective value judgments about what we can accommodate in the behaviors of those around us.  That we accommodate/tolerate a behavior does not necessarily make us "complicit" in it.

I never said you can always separate yourself. I think I can get on board with the bolded. However, choose wisely that which you decide to accommodate/tolerate.

[OGHoosier]

21 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Which is precisely why I didn't vote at all. I chose not to be complicit in the crimes. 

Treating your ideological opponents like moral dalits who you are just too good to associate with just ends up stripping you of political agency. I don't know why any of these people you morally despise would object to this arrangement.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

It wasn't backhanded or oblique. My family knew exactly what I was saying.

Oh.  Okay.  That is unfortunate.  I hope you did not do too much damage to your familial relationships.

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

Ah.  So if you had previously planned to vote for a Democratic candidate, and if you then discover that some other Democrat voters have some terrible attribute or ideological stance, you withhold your vote because "{t}o do so would be carrying water for such groups"?

Which is precisely why I didn't vote at all. I chose not to be complicit in the crimes. 

 

Is that a yes?  it sounds like one, but again, I am seeking clarification.

If you are an American, you presumably pay taxes to a state, and to the federal government, which probably do some things with it which you find morally objectionable.  And yet you presumably remain an American, pay taxes, etc.  Does that make you "complicit" in these things?

I'm not going to be backed into a corner to for you to try to find inconstancies in my position.

I thought the inconsistency was pretty apparent, hence the question.  

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

As a citizen of any country, one must pay taxes. This is forced on people.  Comparing paying taxes to voting is not the same thing at all. Voting is a choice. Paying taxes is not.

Citizenship is not compulsory, though.  You could renounce your citizenship so as to avoid "complicity" in the "crimes" of the United States, and then move to some other country more deserving of your allegiance.

Instead, you stay.  So in the end, you end up compromising along with the rest of us.  And in such compromising you do not see yourself as "carrying water" or being "complicit" in "crimes" which you did not commit, did not authorize, did not approve, over which you had essentially no control, etc.  I think that makes sense.

But you do impute such ugly things onto your family members, and then publicly announce those ugly imputations here.  Perhaps this is not a good idea.

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Quote

You can't also always separate yourself from the society in which you live.

We all make subjective value judgments about what we can accommodate in the behaviors of those around us.  That we accommodate/tolerate a behavior does not necessarily make us "complicit" in it.

I never said you can always separate yourself.

Then we seem to agree: Separation is a choice. 

Compromise is a choice. 

Living in a pluralistic society is a choice.

Maintaining relationships with people who may disagree with you on important issues is a choice.

Refraining from accusing family members of horrible things, or "carrying water" for horrible people, is a choice.

Respectfully, I reject the notion of institutional or collective guilt.

I do not think all Muslims who remain as such are "carrying water" for Muslims who commit terroristic acts.

I do not think that Catholics who remain as such are "carrying water" for those who were involved in the Inquisition.

I do not impute culpability to all Japanese and Germans and Turks for the Rape of Nanking, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide, respectively, or for "carrying water" for the Japanese, Germans and Turks who participated in those atrocities.

I do not think that Ex-Mormons who remain as such are "carrying water" for Tom Kimball.

And so on.

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

I think I can get on board with the bolded. However, choose wisely that which you decide to accommodate/tolerate.

Sure.

For example, I can accommodate/tolerate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that does not mean I must endorse it in a religious/moral sense, nor does my accommodating/tolerating it  amount to me being "complicit" with it or "carrying water" for it. 

I have family members who are gay, and/or support same-sex marriage.  So far, despite having varied opinions on the topic, none of them has leveled horrible accusations at me, nor have I said such things to them or about them.  I am grateful for that.  Our family relationships are more important than demanding conformity and capitulation as to hot button sociopolitical issues.  

We live in a pluralistic society.  We need to be able to get along with each other, and to allow substantial room for disparate views on important topics.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited December 17, 2024 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

On 12/17/2024 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

I thought the inconsistency was pretty apparent, hence the question. 

It wasn't.

 

On 12/17/2024 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

Citizenship is not compulsory, though.  You could renounce your citizenship so as to avoid "complicity" in the "crimes" of the United States, and then move to some other country more deserving of your allegiance.

Instead, you stay.  So in the end, you end up compromising along with the rest of us.  And in such compromising you do not see yourself as "carrying water" or being "complicit" in "crimes" which you did not commit, did not authorize, did not approve, over which you had essentially no control, etc.  I think that makes sense.

You're suggesting running from one burning house to another. I'm not compromising. I'm one who is trying to help put out the fires. That is why I stay.

 

On 12/17/2024 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

But you do impute such ugly things onto your family members, and then publicly announce those ugly imputations here.  Perhaps this is not a good idea.

When I accused them of allowing "ugly things" to not be deal breakers it would be wise not to possibly assume that they disagreed with what I said. To be clear, they did not. 

 

On 12/17/2024 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

For example, I can accommodate/tolerate same-sex marriage as the law of the land, but that does not mean I must endorse it in a religious/moral sense, nor does my accommodating/tolerating it  amount to me being "complicit" with it or "carrying water" for it. 

This is far from the equivalent of accommodating/tolerating systems such as fascism.

[smac97]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:45 AM, smac97 said:

I had a law professor at BYU who once casually described himself as "the most liberal professor in the law school, which is like bragging about being the tallest mountain in Kansas."  Until that moment I had not given any thought to his political perspectives, largely because my interactions were in an academic setting where sociopolitical sentiments had no real relevance (the class was "Telecommunications Law" - boy, what a snore), and because this professor never injected his sociopolitical opinions into classroom discussions.  In other words, this fellow's sociopolitical biases/beliefs didn't matter because the topic at hand was one that could be addressed without injecting such things into the conversation.

In other contexts, however, this can be more difficult.  For example, years ago I occasionally taught an "Introduction to American Law"-style class to undergraduates at Utah Valley University.  It was a very "big picture" type of class, but we spent a fair amount of time on the Constitution, and more particularly the Bill of Rights because that is where most of the "meat" of constitutional issues arises.  When it came to discussing the Second Amendment, I touched on it fairly briefly, describing it as controversial because it pertains to individual gun rights and governmental regulation thereof (about which Americans have sharp disagreement).  Although I am, in the main, a big fan of the Second Amendment (and, indeed, of the entire Bill of Rights), I did not find it necessary or appropriate or helpful to inject my personal beliefs into the discussion.  So I didn't.  When students asked me what I think, when they invited me to share my personal sentiments, I declined, stating only that A) the Second Amendment and the case law interpreting it is the "law of the land," and B) reasonable minds can disagree about the regulation of firearms.

I have recently been reading some stuff about Neil DeGrasse Tyson, an astrophysicist who is also something of a populist as to matters regarding race, religion, "gender identity," and so on.  Mr. Tyson has publicized his pronouncements on these other topics, which has resulted in other commentators scrutinizing his perspective on those other issues.  See, e.g., here:

If and when a "scientist" lets non-scientific considerations prioritize politics and opinions over the science, the data, the facts, then he has injected his assumptions into the discussion, he has put them on the table.

I can't help but wonder if Dan has looked at Tyson-as-both-Scientist-and-Populist-on-Social-Media and thought of something like this: "Hmm, I sort of want to do that.  I want to be a McClellan-as-both-Biblical-Scholar-and-Populist-on-Social-Media kind of figure.  I want to break down biblical scholarship into smaller pieces that are more easily understood and digested by interested neophytes.  However, Tyson has forayed into discussions on topics well outside his area of expertise, which over time may distract from his original objectives.  To avoid that, I will deliberately narrow the focus of my commentary to the Bible."

I'm not sure he can do that - or even that he has succeeded at trying to do it.  But that may be his objective.

Do you think this is what Dan is attempting? 

Thanks,

-Smac

Further to the foregoing comparison of Dan McClellan to Neil Degrasse Tyson, I just saw this video about the latter and found it apt:

Some of Sowell's points:

1. "Stepping outside your level of expertise can be risky."

I think Dan is doing this more and more lately.  He is stepping outside of biblical scholarship and into areas in which he has no particular training, experience, expertise, etc.  I think he is doing this kind of for the same reasons that Tyson seems to do it: To use one area of the individual's impressive credentialing and expertise (astrophysics for Tyson, biblical scholarship for McClellan) to bolster and lend undue credence and weight to the individual's subjective personal opinions about sociopolitical issues largely unrelated to his area of expertise.

2. Sowell refers to "intellectuals" as "people whose end products are ideas."  For example, an engineer is typically not judged as an "intellectual" because his "end product" is typically not just an idea, but a structure like a building or a bridge.  If the structure collapses, the engineer's reputation is ruined.  Conversely, if an "intellectual" as an idea for rearranging society, and if that idea is a disaster, he pays no price at all because his "end produce" was only an idea.  McClellan is, I think, an intellectual.

3. A quote from Sowell's book: "The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall.  Chess grandmasters, musical prodigies and others who are as remarkable within their respective specialties as intellectuals within theirs, seldom make that mistake."  This is the vibe I get from Dan.  That he thinks because he is an expert in biblical scholarship, his pronouncements about other social/moral/political issues are, or ought to be, entitled to deference and acceptance from the hoi polloi.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 29, 2025 by smac97

[Analytics]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Further to the foregoing comparison of Dan McClellan to Neil Degrasse Tyson, I just saw this video about the latter and found it apt:

Some of Sowell's points:

1. "Stepping outside your level of expertise can be risky."

I think Dan is doing this more and more lately.  He is stepping outside of biblical scholarship and into areas in which he has no particular training, experience, expertise, etc.  I think he is doing this kind of for the same reasons that Tyson seems to do it: To use one area of the individual's impressive credentialing and expertise (astrophysics for Tyson, biblical scholarship for McClellan) to bolster and lend undue credence and weight to the individual's subjective personal opinions about sociopolitical issues largely unrelated to his area of expertise.

2. Sowell refers to "intellectuals" as "people whose end products are ideas."  For example, an engineer is typically not judged as an "intellectual" because his "end product" is typically not just an idea, but a structure like building or a bridge.  If the structure collapses, the engineer's reputation is ruined.  Conversely, if an "intellectual" as an idea for rearranging society, and if that idea is a disaster, he pays no price at all because his "end produce" was only an idea.  McClellan is, I think, an intellectual.

3. A quote from Sowell's book: "The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall.  Chess grandmasters, musical prodigies and others who are as remarkable within their respective specialties as intellectuals within theirs, seldom make that mistake."  This is the vibe I get from Dan.  That he thinks because he is an expert in biblical scholarship, his pronouncements about other social/moral/political issues are, or ought to be, entitled to deference and acceptance from the hoi polloi.

Thanks,

-Smac

Out of curiosity, does Sowell, an intellectual who comments prolifically on things outside his specialization of economics, acknowledge the irony of him, of all people, criticizing people for speaking as intellectuals on topics outside of their specialization?

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Analytics said:

Out of curiosity, does Sowell, an intellectual who comments prolifically on things outside his specialization of economics, acknowledge the irony of him, of all people, criticizing people for speaking as intellectuals on topics outside of their specialization?

I suspect he includes himself as an "intellectual," yes.  But I take it you did not watch to the end of the video.

I don't lend probative weight to Sowell's comments/observations because of his expertise as an economist, except insofar as he predicates his comments/observations on that expertise.  Rather, I find Sowell persuasive because he provides reasoning and logic.  He doesn't just state a conclusion and expect listeners to reflexively accept it.  He explains both his conclusions and the reasoning, evidence, logic, etc. he uses to get to those conclusions.

In contrast, much of Dan's sociopolitical commentary is largely bereft of such efforts.  He simply states conclusions and, seemingly resting on his "bible scholar" bona fides, expects listeners to accept his say-so about such matters as definitive.  That's my impression, anyway.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited December 21, 2024 by smac97

[sunstoned]

Quote

In contrast, much of Dan's sociopolitical commentary is largely bereft of such efforts.  He simply states conclusions and, seemingly resting on his "bible scholar" bona fides, expects listeners to accept his say-so about such matters as definitive.  That's my impression, anyway.

I'm not seeing this.  From what I have observed, Dan presents well-reasoned arguments.

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/12/2024 at 3:08 PM, Senator said:

Maybe God is not displeased with their thirst for knowledge.

Maybe. Perhaps they will receive a sign, perhaps not. 

Edited December 27, 2024 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

On 12/12/2024 at 2:52 PM, bluebell said:

Interesting perspective.  I don't agree with it at all but thanks for sharing it.

No worries. 

[smac97]

On 12/21/2024 at 11:35 PM, sunstoned said:

Quote

In contrast, much of Dan's sociopolitical commentary is largely bereft of such efforts.  He simply states conclusions and, seemingly resting on his "bible scholar" bona fides, expects listeners to accept his say-so about such matters as definitive.  That's my impression, anyway.

I'm not seeing this.  From what I have observed, Dan presents well-reasoned arguments.

When he's "in his lane," yes.  As to specific issues about biblical scholarship, yes.

However, his commentary about sociopolitical issues, and other people's perspectives on those issues, is - in my view - mostly conclusory.

Thanks,

-Smac