Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[CA Steve]

33 minutes ago, webbles said:

  I would expect if the church went through a custom translation in English, it would base it on an existing translation

While I think they would consult other translations, I would expect that a custom translation would probably be made directly from original sources, similar to what Thomas Wayment did when he produced his own translation of the New Testament from the Nestle–Aland text. That would give them the flexibility to line up the Biblical translation with other restoration scripture.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Oof.  I don't see the church attempting our own translation of the Bible.

"See, the BoM was translated by the word of God, and it's more accurate than the Bible.  But then we also re-did the Bible, but it was just human best effort, so although it's a fresher translation, we still believe stuff is missing and translated wrong and the BoM is still better.  But read both!"

I don't wanna teach that in Gospel Principles.

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oof.  I don't see the church attempting our own translation of the Bible.

"See, the BoM was translated by the word of God, and it's more accurate than the Bible.  But then we also re-did the Bible, but it was just human best effort, so although it's a fresher translation, we still believe stuff is missing and translated wrong and the BoM is still better.  But read both!"

I don't wanna teach that in Gospel Principles.

So you're okay with:

"See, the BoM was translated by the word of God, and it's more accurate than the Bible.  But we are also using a version of the  Bible that is based on the limited information available 500 years ago as opposed to what we know now and while we could produce a much better version we haven't  But read both!"

Edited August 24, 2023 by CA Steve

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

I love reading and speaking the KJV.  It is moving.  Count me as one of its fans…in a limited sense.

Same. I can't imagine reading Luke 2 on Christmas Eve in anything other than the KJV. There's just a certain beauty in those words that gets lost in other, 'more accurate' translations.

That being said, I definitely use other versions when studying.

 

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So you're okay with:

"See, the BoM was translated by the word of God, and it's more accurate than the Bible.  But we are also using a version of the  Bible that is based on the limited information available 500 years ago as opposed to what we know now and while we could produce a much better version we haven't  But read both!"

For 20 years, I've taught the occasional Gospel Principles class with some form of the following:

"We believe there's plenty of critically important things in the Bible, but not everything.  Some has been lost, some has been lost to translation.  Mormons are big on the King James version, but if you are an egghead like me, feel free to use things like biblegateway.com or other sources that compare and contrast different Bible translations.   And the next time you see a Catholic, go give them a huge hug.  It's because of them that we have the Bible in such vast quantities.  They did their absolute best to preserve everything they could, as well as they could.  Stuff deteriorates and changes in human hands, it just goes with the territory.   Now let's talk about the BoM and why we think it's a better and more accurate source."

If the Mormons took our human effort at a scholarly Biblical translation, then an obvious question would be "How come God was personally involved in translating the BoM, but not your Bible translation?"  I'd have to see a good answer to that myself, before I could teach it to others.

Edited August 24, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[PacMan]

I like Dan, but I'd encourage anyone to be cautious with him.  While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic.  He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories but simply states ipse-dixit that something is because he says that's the way it is. 

Further, my expectation is not that LDS scholars are first apologetic, but that they at least provide some summary of competing arguments rather than simply challenge traditional church doctrines.  Dan's MO is to challenge.  In fact, he seems to go out of his way NOT to explain or find theological catharsis.

I'd be interested in Dan stating definitively that he does (or does not) believe whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, that Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and that he both saw and was ministered to by John the Baptism, and the ancient apostles in angelic/translated form--Peter, James, and John.

Dan, what say you?  Your audience has a right to know your biases...right or wrong.

Edited August 24, 2023 by PacMan

[LoudmouthMormon]

13 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Your audience has a right to know your biases...right or wrong.

Oh, I've seen Dan be pretty transparent.  He sort of fell from grace in my eyes after one of his "take the stupid video and tear it apart" TikToks.  The person said something to the tune of "Christianity is basically a bunch of white toxic male patriarchy keeping power to rule over the world by stealing Easter and Christmas from other cultures".  Dan's reply was to the tune of "While I support this creator's rhetorical goals, let's look at some of the claims about the sources of Christmas and Easter."

Edited August 24, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[Tweed1944]

Dan's comment on homosexuality very revealing. I had read Dr Gnuse paper on Seven Gay Texts: Biblical Passages Used to Condemn Homosexuality. I have had several email exchanges with him and I am sure he will agree with much of what Dan Mcclellan  has argued on Mormonstories.  More discussion on the roll of women. . Any evangelical or LDS member will have their traditional  views challenged. Hagar was Sarah's property which she gifted Abraham not a polygamous wife. Ben I will like to see your response to McClellan. 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

If the Mormons took our human effort at a scholarly Biblical translation, then an obvious question would be "How come God was personally involved in translating the BoM, but not your Bible translation?"  I'd have to see a good answer to that myself, before I could teach it to others.

Every non-English version of the Book of Mormon is a human effort at translation, and every version of the English Bible is also. If you are comfortable with the Church doing non-English translations of the Book of Mormon why not allow for an English version of the Bible directed by Church leadership too? 

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Any evangelical or LDS member will have their traditional views challenged.

I am not sure that I have a lot of traditional views.

1 hour ago, Tweed1944 said:

Ben I will like to see your response to McClellan.

Was there something in particular you wanted me to respond to?

I am not sure that Dan and I have ever met or spoken. I am familiar with his work (especially his published material). I hope that he is at least a little aware of mine.

[JustAnAustralian]

On 8/25/2023 at 6:44 AM, PacMan said:

I'd be interested in Dan stating definitively that he does (or does not) believe whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, that Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and that he both saw and was ministered to by John the Baptism, and the ancient apostles in angelic/translated form--Peter, James, and John.

Dan, what say you?  Your audience has a right to know your biases...right or wrong.

There are a few authors I would like to see come out and explicitly make their position on that clear rather than just talking about what other people can do/say/believe/etc. 

[smac97]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

I like Dan, but I'd encourage anyone to be cautious with him.  While his vocal stance is anti-dogma, his positions are very dogmatic. 

I concur with this assessment.  I appreciate his videos overall, but I find him frequently too declaratory/conclusory in his pronouncements about the Bible.  And he, in his own right, does seem to be pretty dogmatic about it.

I appreciate his comments about the Biblical text being "negotiable," but he then regularly A) shoots down approaches to the Bible that sure seem to "negotiate" with the text (just in ways Dan does not like), and/or B) presents his views and/or broadly references "scholarly consensus" about the meaning of this or that text as being definitively established (IOW, non-negotiable, his way or the highway).

He is regularly quite critical of others who bring their presuppositions about the Bible to their interpretation of the text (a fair point, if not necessarily always a fair criticism), but he seems to do this as well (at least regarding his sociopolitical views on LGBT issues and against "right wing" political sentiments).

I appreciate the generalized sentiment he presents about "data over dogma" ("data > dogma"), but he seems to regularly treat generalized "scholarly consensus" as dogma (that is, "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true").

He also has a longstanding propensity for imputing terrible motives on other people (I have first-hand experience with this).

I regularly watch his videos, and find his commentary overall helpful.

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

He rarely (and thinly at best) explains competing theories but simply states ipse-dixit that something is because he says that's the way it is. 

Further, my expectation is not that LDS scholars are first apologetic, but that they at least provide some summary of competing arguments rather than simply challenge traditional church doctrines.  Dan's MO is to challenge.  In fact, he seems to go out of his way NOT to explain or find theological catharsis.

I've wondered about this.  I suspect he does not want his own presuppositions and faith-based beliefs about the Bible to be scrutinized in the ways he (publicly) does to others people's presuppositions and beliefs.

By "faith-based" I mean deeply-rooted underpinnings that every person of faith must, sooner or later, admit are based on largely undefined and undefinable "gut" feelings.  For example, ascertaining whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of the World is not empirically testable, nor is it a matter ultimately resolved by appealing to scriptural text.  In the end, meaningfully professing faith in Christ is a matter of faith, and I think the resiliency and endurance of that faith turns on whether it is based on personal revelation from the Spirit.

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

I'd be interested in Dan stating definitively that he does (or does not) believe whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, that Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and that he both saw and was ministered to by John the Baptism, and the ancient apostles in angelic/translated form--Peter, James, and John.

Dan, what say you?  Your audience has a right to know your biases...right or wrong.

Well, I'm not sure about that.  We're all free agents here, so I'm not sure we as his audience have such a right.  Personally, I think such candor would be refreshing and illuminating, but it would also seemingly run the risk of his "data > dogma" meme being turned and applied to his presuppositions and beliefs.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 27, 2023 by smac97

[InCognitus]

On 8/24/2023 at 2:44 PM, PacMan said:

I'd be interested in Dan stating definitively that he does (or does not) believe whether Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His Son, that Joseph Smith received the golden plates, which he translated by the gift and power of God, and that he both saw and was ministered to by John the Baptism, and the ancient apostles in angelic/translated form--Peter, James, and John.

I think Dan gives a reasonable answer in the interview video in the OP, as to why he likely will not do that.  Listen to the video interview starting at approximately the 4:37:40 mark.  Below is a rough transcription, slightly edited for brevity: 

Quote

John:  But, but anything else about your story that you wanna share, that you haven't been able to share so far as a way to close?....  Are you still remaining an active believing Mormon?

Dan: Yeah, I'm an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. In fact, I’m on my ward council.

John:  What does that mean?... You have a calling that includes you in that council?

Dan:  [affirmative response].... 

John:  You said a member, but a believing member, on some level?

Dan:  [laughs]

John:  Or do you not like to use that term?

Dan:  Well one thing I’ve done on social media is say my beliefs are off-limits.  I don’t talk about those.  And so people say, well how do you believe this, how do you believe that, and how do you believe the other?   And my... defense is to say, with all due respect you don’t know what I believe, and nobody’s going to know what I believe, outside of the places where that is relevant such as in my ward building and things like that.  So I don’t say that to hint that I’m not a believing member. I say that to maintain that strict boundary that I have set up, that I will say I'm active in the church, but just for the interest of that boundary that I've set up and my methodological consistency, I don’t address what I believe.   And so I considered calling myself a believing member to fall into addressing what I believe.

John:  Got it.  Okay

I think this is a reasonable position for him to take on social media for the scholarly platform he is trying to achieve.   And on some level I think this should answer your concern.

Edited August 27, 2023 by InCognitus

[Navidad]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:51 PM, LoudmouthMormon said:

Now let's talk about the BoM and why we think it's a better and more accurate source."

Not wanting to debate, but I really don't understand what you are saying here. The BOM is a "better and more accurate source" for what? Most of the  BOM is a single source for what it only teaches. What source for the teachings of Moroni, Lehi, Nephi, Benjamin, etc etc is it better or more accurate than? It is a sole source document for the most part, is it not? About what events or truths that both the Bible and the BOM relate, is the BOM a better and more accurate source? Your statement sounds comparative. Against what are you comparing it? Thanks so much.

[Navidad]

On 8/24/2023 at 8:38 AM, CA Steve said:

That would give them the flexibility to line up the Biblical translation with other restoration scripture.

Is that what translators do? Perhaps you are being sarcastic?

[Navidad]

On 8/24/2023 at 3:14 PM, Tweed1944 said:

Any evangelical or LDS member will have their traditional  views challenged.

Please be assured that many Evangelicals challenge their own former traditional views all the time. Assuming of course by traditional that you mean 1960s or earlier. That concept certainly isn't a scary one . . . that is why we left Fundamentalism.

[Popper]

I’m not sure I understand where Dan gets his data from?

 

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Popper said:

I’m not sure I understand where Dan gets his data from?

His data comes from "what the Bible actually says" and "what it decidedly doesn't say (even if everyone thinks it does)", and other historical texts and artifacts from the ancient world.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think Dan gives a reasonable answer in the interview video in the OP, as to why he likely will not do that.  Listen to the video interview starting at approximately the 4:37:40 mark.  Below is a rough transcription, slightly edited for brevity: 

Quote

John:  But, but anything else about your story that you wanna share, that you haven't been able to share so far as a way to close?....  Are you still remaining an active believing Mormon?

Dan: Yeah, I'm an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. In fact, I’m on my ward council.
...
Dan:  Well one thing I’ve done on social media is say my beliefs are off-limits.  I don’t talk about those.  And so people say, well how do you believe this, how do you believe that, and how do you believe the other?   And my... defense is to say, with all due respect you don’t know what I believe, and nobody’s going to know what I believe, outside of the places where that is relevant such as in my ward building and things like that.  So I don’t say that to hint that I’m not a believing member. I say that to maintain that strict boundary that I have set up, that I will say I'm active in the church, but just for the interest of that boundary that I've set up and my methodological consistency, I don’t address what I believe.   And so I considered calling myself a believing member to fall into addressing what I believe.

I think this is a reasonable position for him to take on social media for the scholarly platform he is trying to achieve.   And on some level I think this should answer your concern.

"I'm an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. In fact, I’m on my ward council."

But also: "{Y}ou don’t know what I believe, and nobody’s going to know what I believe..."

But also: "I don’t say that to hint that I’m not a believing member."

I don't understand the coyness here.

"I say that to maintain that strict boundary that I have set up, that I will say I'm active in the church, but just for the interest of that boundary that I've set up and my methodological consistency."

So the "boundary that I've set up" and "my methodological consistency" kinda sorta sounds like "I don't want to be hoisted with my own petard," or "I don't want others to scrutinize/critique my beliefs in the same ways I critique others' beliefs."

Also: "{M}y beliefs are off-limits ... I don’t talk about those. ... I don’t address what I believe."  Well, fair enough.  Nobody is obligated to share personal beliefs online.

To his credit, his online presence (that is, his critiques of other people's approach to the Bible) is not pseudonymous.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 28, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

don't understand the coyness here.

 

I do. I think he’s learned from seeing what has happened to others and he is trying to minimize the impact of his professional choices (being a teacher on social media) on his personal life.

For one reason, he likely doesn’t want to start the endless questioning of the details of his belief that I have seen occur and has happened to me even (because of my connection with FAIR) by critics trying to find what box they can put a believer in as well as those trying to claim that an apologist/scholar is really a hidden apostate and also by other members, especially those who are more rigidly traditional like those who condemn believers and teachers of evolution and attack such positions as trying to lead the Church into apostasy or who have even moved into fundamentalist positions.  There are endless pages on certain websites of how scholars are seducing church leaders, students, members in general into apostasy with claims that because scholars believe certain things that are less traditional they are mentally out of the Church…especially if they have certain socially liberal POVs.  I have heard stories of the apostasy of scholars I personally know who are among the best members I have met and it makes me ill sometimes to see the gossip about what is very personal to them  

Another reason is likely because he doesn’t want the discussion to become about him, so he makes it clear he isn’t leaving the Church and is even seen as a useful member by his leaders (he is not just showing up so he can claim to be a member or to make his wife happy) to try and stop gossip about him defecting, but doesn’t go into detail on his positions to stop the gossip of just how devout is he or not. 

Edited August 28, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

41 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do. I think he’s learned from seeing what has happened to others and he is trying to minimize the impact of his professional choices (being a teacher on social media) on his personal life.

For one reason, he likely doesn’t want to start the endless questioning of the details of his belief that I have seen occur and has happened to me even (because of my connection with FAIR) by critics trying to find what box they can put a believer in as well as those trying to claim that an apologist/scholar is really a hidden apostate and also by other members, especially those who are more rigidly traditional like those who condemn believers and teachers of evolution and attack such positions as trying to lead the Church into apostasy.  There are endless pages on certain websites of how scholars are seducing church leaders, students, members in general into apostasy with claims that because scholars believe certain things that are less traditional they are mentally out of the Church…especially if they have certain socially liberal POVs.  I have heard stories of the apostasy of members I personal know who are among the best members I have met and it makes me ill sometimes to see the gossip about what is very personal to them  

Another reason is likely because he doesn’t want the discussion to become about him, so he makes it clear he isn’t leaving the Church and is even seen as a useful member by his leaders (he is not just showing up so he can claim to be a member or to make his wife happy) to try and stop gossip about him defecting, but doesn’t go into detail on his positions to stop the gossip of just how devout is he or not. 

Thanks for your perspective. There's a part two and in it Dan breaks down what the Bible says about homosexuality, polygamy, etc. His research is astounding, I appreciate hearing that the Bible is not all God breathed at all, my words. https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/10-things-bible-dan-mcclellan/

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

But also: "I don’t say that to hint that I’m not a believing member."

I don't understand the coyness here.

Ditto everything Calm said.  What Dan personally believes is not relevant to the topics he covers in an academic forum.  And, if he were to open it up to what he believes it would be a huge can of worms and a diversion to what he's trying to accomplish.

And, I think the way Dan phrased his activity in the church (and being on the ward council) signals to other informed members where he is at with the church in a way that doesn't step over his self-established boundary.  

[InCognitus]

23 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for your perspective. There's a part two and in it Dan breaks down what the Bible says about homosexuality, polygamy, etc. His research is astounding, I appreciate hearing that the Bible is not all God breathed at all, my words. https://www.Mormon*******.***/podcast/10-things-bible-dan-mcclellan/

Thank you for putting this up.  I still wish there was a way I could up-vote you.  Yikes, over FIVE hours this time (I need to go on longer walks this week).

Edited August 28, 2023 by InCognitus

[PacMan]

18 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I think Dan gives a reasonable answer in the interview video in the OP, as to why he likely will not do that.  Listen to the video interview starting at approximately the 4:37:40 mark.  Below is a rough transcription, slightly edited for brevity: 

I think this is a reasonable position for him to take on social media for the scholarly platform he is trying to achieve.   And on some level I think this should answer your concern.

If that is true, then I am very concerned for him.  He can prioritize data>dogma, but discipleship>data>dogma.

Be sure, sidelines answer the question of discipleship.  Rom 1:16; 1 Peter 3:15.

I will say this: Dan's position is not sustainable.  You cannot have one foot in and one foot out.  In 10 years, he will be a major force for good defending the restored gospel of Jesus Christ or will become a vocal and ardent critic of the Church--even in areas that far exceed his scholastic competencies.  Time will tell.

Edited August 28, 2023 by PacMan

[Benjamin McGuire]

I just want to add one thing - it's been a decade or so since I posted on this topic, so maybe it's okay to repeat myself. There is an inherent challenge with the academic study of religion. Oversimplified, the question is whether or not religion can be accurately studied by its participants (which would be an odd assertion, perhaps, in any other field of study). Nearly three decades ago now, Terrence W. Tilley wrote a short (13 pages) review article of a book titled Explaining Religion: Criticism and Theory from Bodin to Freud by J. Samuel Preus. The book itself is interesting, but, as I often do, I really enjoyed the review of the book and the observations that it makes (of course, reviews are often like this, right?). Tilley lets us know in no uncertain terms that Preus's work is itself a polemic. And he describes quite well the conundrum faced by this field and its struggle to come to terms with itself as an academic endeavor. He writes:

Quote

 

Preus’s tradition is clearly a skeptical one. Indeed, he remarks that “it has been an ongoing concern of this book to note the extent to which the study of religion emerged out of criticism of religion” (p. 152). But is this not a bit odd? If one noted that the proper, academic study of the origins and persistence of science or philosophy or sport or war or poetry emerged almost exclusively out of the criticism of those practices, and consistently discounted or ignored the analyses of participants in those activities, would one not be suspected of a significant bias in constructing a history of the “tradition” of study in those areas? Why is it that “academic” scholars of religion can get away with constructing such undialectical and un-self-critical explanations of the origin and persistence of religion? In other fields, analogous constraints would preclude scientists or philosophers or athletes or coaches or soldiers or poets from contributing to explaining the roots and endurance of their fields. Such absurd limitations would not be countenanced. Why are they tolerated – even praised – when the field is religion?

Typically, this question receives three sorts of answers. First, in religion, unlike other fields, nonskeptical accounts are hidden apologetics, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as more honest and fitting in the humanistic academy. Second, nonskeptical accounts treat religion as irreducible, as autonomous, as sui generis, thus protecting religious meaning from being explained, leaving religion inexplicable, and thus defeating the goal of explanation, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as not self-defeating. Third, nonskeptical accounts posit a mysterious “supernatural” or “sacred” cause or ground for religious experience and meaning, thus thwarting the attempt to explain religion at the crucial point of its origins, so skeptical accounts are to be preferred as not obscurantist. Hence, the only legitimate approach to religion in the liberal academy is a skeptical one arising from the criticism of religion. (Journal of Religion, April, 1991, Vol. 71 No. 2, p. 244)

 

Part of the key to Dan's success, and to the value of his work, is that he works hard to create distance where it is helpful. In the academic world, there usually needs to be a separation between the study of the biblical text, for example, and the religious context in which the text is used. Simply explaining that you have a bias doesn't create enough space. By making every effort to avoid bringing religion into discussions of the text, Dan creates (as much as possible) a skeptical account. When these attempts fail, it isn't always bad, but it can be noticeable. And in the worst cases, what appears to be academic work is actually devotional. This may be fine - if it is what your audience is expecting - but it won't garner acceptance from a broader audience. And in non-religious questions (even about religious texts and topics), bad approaches often lead to bad conclusions.