Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

Well all good I suppose if we are satisfied with end times signs and keeping ourselves safe and good covenant keepers.   

I do not know what you mean here by "satisfied with end times."

As for "keeping ourselves safe and good covenant keepers," yes, I think that's a good idea.

50 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I myself pray regularly for the youth of the Church and will do all I can to keep them from not leaving for reasons of a faith crisis.

Most of us in the Church have the same concerns and objectives.

50 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

To many folks are ignoring "The New Mormonism" progressives and revisionist historians... just my opinion.. 

I don't understand you mean by "'The New Mormonism' progressives and revisionist historians."  Could you elaborate?

Again, "New Mormonism" is, I think, a term and concept developed almost entirely by critics of the Church.  Why are you using it?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2023 by smac97

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

So sorry...

I'm not.

[Analytics]

On 8/29/2023 at 10:28 AM, smac97 said:

I also think it's appropriate that the Latter-day Saints not be deliberately obtuse about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing.  We've seen this play out over and over.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  Natasha Helfer-Parker....

I think a difference between Dan McClellan and these other folks is that Dan does in fact have strong bona fides in what he's talking about.

A better comparison might be to Dr. David Bokovoy or Dr. David P. Wright. In a podcast interview a year or two ago, Dr. Bokovoy said that when he was accepted into an extremely prestigious Ph.D. program in the Bible, some BYU professors told him not to do it and told him that everybody who studies the Bible loses their testimony. They said pick any topic for his Ph.D. but the Bible.

There are multiple reasons for somebody to stay in the Church. If somebody thinks it is literally true, they might stick around for that. Or if they think it is a good place and their cultural home, they might find a way that it is "true" in an unorthodox way and use that to rationalize sticking around. 

The Church kicked out Wright because of his scholarship. Bokovoy was doing okay in the Church until the Church had an anti-gay-right spasm which pushed him over the edge and he left.

I would presume that given his level of education in his chosen field, McClellan doesn't have a testimony--at least not in an orthodox sense. The question is how long the Church will allow a member like that to remain a member, and how long he will feel that being a member of the Church is worth the cost.

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am neither a progressive or a member of the church. I am 74 years of age. Now that we have that out of the way, I do claim to be a historian of religion, especially the history of religion and conflict.  LDS history has, since 1989 been of great interest to me. This is especially true of the history of the Mexican LDS (Mormon) colonies. I don't know anything about a "New Mormonism" but I know a reasonable amount about what has been deemed "New Mormon History." The term itself is not a derogatory term. It was indeed coined by those who are professional historians, as well as by and large faithful members of the LDS church. I am living proof that not every historian who writes about the LDS church is a faithful member, but many of us would happily claim to be faithful-non-members. That may seem like an impossible statement to you. I understand that, but it is important to someone like me. I don't know any proponent of New Mormon history who has accused the church of hiding or lying. Perhaps there are some; I just don't know any. 

The history of the LDS church is in some ways a "sacred history." I have scores of books on my shelves written specifically about sacred history and how challenging and difficult it is to study and to write about. There is a great concern in historical writings about bias, and a lack of objectivity, which especially is complicated when dealing with sacred history. There is pressure on the faithful historian from both internal and external forces to write history that is promoting of the specialness, sacredness, and unique nature of the specific group being studied. This is compounded when one belongs to and has spiritual ties to the group. Others approach it with commitments to both accuracy and faith. I do not believe that these commitments are oppositional. Things get even more complicated when labels like "New Mormon History" get attached. Then even the label itself gets its own history attached to it.

History is complicated. Objectivity in history is a worthy goal. It is also, as realized by most historians I know impossible to absolutely achieve. I am a Mennonite. Whether writing about Mennonite or Mormon (used in the broad term) history I do my best to be accurate. New facts emerge all the time. How do I reconcile the July 4th, 1838 published sermon of Sidney Rigdon, wherein he talks about exterminating the Missourians, with the October 1838 "Extermination Order of Governor Boggs?" Is there a connection?  Does asking that question make me anti-Mormon? Does coming to a reasoned conclusion that the two are inter-connected in a causative manner make me anti-Mormon? I don't think so. In the same decade (1832-1833) there was a series of great battles between Yoruba Christians and animists and Fulani Muslims and animists in southwestern Nigeria. When I write about those battles, I must strive for objectivity even though personally I am Christian (not an animist!). Take care and very best wishes.

Thx so much, enjoyed your semi auto biography and your honesty, no reason for anyone to be called anti Mormon which makes me apologize when I do.... have you ever read the CES letter?

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I do not know what you mean here by "satisfied with end times."

As for "keeping ourselves safe and good covenant keepers," yes, I think that's a good idea.

Most of us in the Church have the same concerns and objectives.

I don't understand you mean by "'The New Mormonism' progressives and revisionist historians."  Could you elaborate?

Again, "New Mormonism" is, I think, a term and concept developed almost entirely by critics of the Church.  Why are you using it?

Thanks,

-Smac

New Mormonism is taught by some ar BYU.  Lenard Abington the LDS Historian for the Church wrote several progressive and revised history as did Richard Bushman.   If you google The New Mormonism it pretty much explains....

 

New Mormon history refers to a style of reporting the history of Mormonism by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars which departs from earlier more polemical or faith-based styles of history. Rather than presenting material selectively to either prove or disprove Mormonism, the focus of new Mormon history is to present history in a more humanistic and dispassionate way, and to situate Mormon history in a fuller historical context. Because it is a break from past historical narratives, new Mormon history tends to be revisionist. In many cases, the new Mormon history follows the perspectives and techniques of new history, including cultural history. The Mormon historian Richard Bushman described it as "a quest for identity rather than a quest for authority."^[1] New Mormon historians include a wide range of both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, the most prominent of which include Bushman, Jan Shipps, D. Michael Quinn, Terryl Givens, Leonard J. Arrington, Richard P. Howard, Fawn Brodie, and Juanita Brooks.

Edited August 30, 2023 by rjohnson7

[Analytics]

On 8/29/2023 at 10:28 AM, smac97 said:

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren."

 

On 8/28/2023 at 12:45 PM, smac97 said:

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:

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. 

Are you using the word "populist" correctly? When used as a noun, Populist means: 

1. a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

   "he ran as a populist on an anticorruption platform"

    

   or (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/populist)

   noun
   a supporter or adherent of populism.
   (initial capital letter) a member of the People's party.

    

   Populism is defined as: "Any of various, often antiestablishment or anti-intellectual political movements or philosophies that offer unorthodox solutions or policies and appeal to the common person rather than according with traditional party or partisan ideologies."

    

   Am I correct in inferring that you aren't really claiming that DeGrasse Tyson and McClellan are antiestablishment anti-intellectuals who are trying to appeal to the common person?

    

   I think your point is merely that they are educators who produce popular content, i.e. content that is "suited to or intended for the general masses of people." Right?

[rjohnson7]

57 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I'm not.

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

 

okay, I won't mention it again

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Well all good I suppose if we are satisfied with end times signs and keeping ourselves safe and good covenant keepers.   I myself pray regularly for the youth of the Church and will do all I can to keep them from not leaving for reasons of a faith crisis.

To many folks are ignoring "The New Mormonism" progressives and revisionist historians... just my opinion.. 

Are you aware of FAIR and if so, what do you see FAIR, defenders or revisionists or something else?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Are you using the word "populist" correctly?

From the Wikipedia entry:

Quote

Quote

Although frequently used by historians, social scientists, and political commentators, the term [populism] is exceptionally vague and refers in different contexts to a bewildering variety of phenomena.

Margaret Canovan on how the term populism was used, 1981^[7]

The word populism has been contested, mistranslated and used in reference to a diverse variety of movements and beliefs.^[8] The political scientist Will Brett characterised it as "a classic example of a stretched concept, pulled out of shape by overuse and misuse",^[9] while the political scientist Paul Taggart has said of populism that it is "one of the most widely used but poorly understood political concepts of our time".^[10]

I do not use "populist" to disparage Tyson.  Not at all.  He, like Carl Sagan, is a well-respected astrophysicist, science communicator, and educator. While he has gained significant popularity through his public appearances, books, and television shows, his work and communication style are more aligned with the goal of making science accessible to a broader audience, rather than fitting within the specific definition of a "populist" approach.

I don't think I originated the notion that Tyson is a populist.  See, e.g., here ("Neil deGrasse Tyson, the populist astronomer and science personality"), here ("Neil deGrasse Tyson is not only welcome, but needed. The celebrated astrophysicist has followed in the populist footsteps of Carl Sagan by bringing science, reason, and—most importantly—a sense of wonder about our universe and our place in it back into mainstream American discourse."), here ("So Neil, who is the most popular populist of all things celestial as well as director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, has written a book that’s perfect for those of us with a shaky understanding of the mysteries and marvels of the universe."), here ("Tyson is every bit the populist heir to Carl Sagan..."), here ("It should not be a surprise that the populist scientist/educator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium..."), here ("Tyson is well known for his affable populist approach to science.").

"Populism" often, but not always, refers to a political approach that seeks to appeal to the general population by emphasizing their needs and concerns, sometimes employing simplified or sensationalized messaging. Neil deGrasse Tyson's communication style aims to engage the public and convey scientific concepts in an understandable and relatable manner, but it doesn't necessarily involve oversimplification or sensationalism.  Sometimes, though, his commentary about trendy topics outside his acknowledged area of expertise (astrophysics) does seem to oversimplify and/or sensationalize.

If you have a better term for what is described above (someone, like Sagan or Tyson or McClellan, "aims to engage the public and convey scientific {or biblical scholarship} concepts in an understandable and relatable manner" as having "the goal of making science {or biblical scholarship} accessible to a broader audience"), feel free to suggest it.

Quote

I think your point is merely that they are educators who produce popular content, i.e. content that is "suited to or intended for the general masses of people." Right?

Pretty much.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I also think it's appropriate that the Latter-day Saints not be deliberately obtuse about the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing.  We've seen this play out over and over.  John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  Sam Young.  Bill Reel.  Denver Snuffer.  Natasha Helfer-Parker....

I think a difference between Dan McClellan and these other folks is that Dan does in fact have strong bona fides in what he's talking about.

Helfer apparently has her area of expertise (AASECT Certified Sex Therapist, LMFT, CST-S).  

So, supposedly, does "Dr." Dehlin (PhD in Clinical and Counseling Psychology). 

So does Kelly (the law).

So being credentialed or having an area of training/experience/expertise does not differentiate Dan from this group.

More to the point, the commonality in the group is not their credentials or academic bona fides, but their "wolf in sheep's clothing" behavior.  Given Dan's published-to-the-world comments, I think it's not unreasonable to be concerned that he has that in common with the others listed above.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

A better comparison might be to Dr. David Bokovoy or Dr. David P. Wright. In a podcast interview a year or two ago, Dr. Bokovoy said that when he was accepted into an extremely prestigious Ph.D. program in the Bible, some BYU professors told him not to do it and told him that everybody who studies the Bible loses their testimony. They said pick any topic for his Ph.D. but the Bible.

I'm not sure about that.  My recollection is that Bokovoy is no longer active in the Church.  If so, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" descriptor would be inapt.  And I'm not aware of any substantial effort on his part when he was a faithful member to play the wolf.  Nor, for that matter, am I aware of any current effort by him to turn people away from their faith.

As for David P. Wright, I know little of him.  He was excommunicated nearly 30 years ago.  And he was excommunicated, it seems, for apostasy, which apparently involved him speaking publicly in ways critical of the Church.  If he was not hiding his stance in speaking this way, the "wolf in sheep's clothing" would not be very apt (particularly given how long ago this happened).

Dan, meanwhile, is presently portraying himself as "an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints," and one who is presently "on {his} ward council."  At the same time, he has publicly declared he is in a "sweet spot" by way of his efforts which are - as he put it - "offering reasons for people ... to feel justified in not remaining faithful."  He has also accepted the gratitude and awe and "cheering on" of John Dehlin. 

So in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, is the "wolf in sheep's clothing" a legitimate concern?  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

There are multiple reasons for somebody to stay in the Church.

I acknowledge that.  Not all such reasons are of equal caliber and quality.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If somebody thinks it is literally true, they might stick around for that. Or if they think it is a good place and their cultural home, they might find a way that it is "true" in an unorthodox way and use that to rationalize sticking around. 

Sure.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The Church kicked out Wright because of his scholarship.

Regardless of why he lost his membership, he is welcome back.

You seem to be angling for "Wright was a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'" akin to those I have alleged answer to that description (Dehlin, Kelly, Snuffer, Reel).  Is that right?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Bokovoy was doing okay in the Church until the Church had an anti-gay-right spasm which pushed him over the edge and he left.

What does that have to do with the "wolf in sheep's clothing" thing?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I would presume that given his level of education in his chosen field, McClellan doesn't have a testimony--at least not in an orthodox sense.

I wouldn't presume that.  I know plenty of Latter-day Saints with extensive training/experience in relevant fields who are doing just fine.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The question is how long the Church will allow a member like that to remain a member, and how long he will feel that being a member of the Church is worth the cost.

The question I had is whether concerns about him being a "wolf in sheep's clothing" are reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 30, 2023 by smac97

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, rjohnson7 said:

Well you know my age, do you wish to divulge yours.... 

Not really, the internet is the internet. I am not sure it is wise 

Raised Catholic, became atheist 

Suffice it to say that I nearly finished a Masters in Process philosophy (3 yrs post grad) in REAL Universites but I have been studying it for another 50 years informally.  I decided I didn't want to teach Plato vs Aristotle 101 for the rest of my life, and left academia.

Studied Marxism and other religions  and survived the '60's, and was fascinated by religious experience and studied mormonism, and had a major experience around Moroni 10.

The idea that a human God could be seen as a humanIST God, and here I am.

Called and sentenced to be a Bishop for 5 yrs, and here I am, now out of that business

 

[rjohnson7]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you aware of FAIR and if so, what do you see FAIR, defenders or revisionists or something else?

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org

I use Fairmormon at times, don't agree with everything .... both, mostly defenders, but some of them as revisionists 

[rjohnson7]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Not really, the internet is the internet. I am not sure it is wise 

Raised Catholic, became atheist 

Suffice it to say that I nearly finished a Masters in Process philosophy (3 yrs post grad) in REAL Universites but I have been studying it for another 50 years informally.  I decided I didn't want to teach Plato vs Aristotle 101 for the rest of my life, and left academia.

Studied Marxism and other religions  and survived the '60's, and was fascinated by religious experience and studied mormonism, and had a major experience around Moroni 10.

The idea that a human God could be seen as a humanIST God, and here I am.

Called and sentenced to be a Bishop for 5 yrs, and here I am, now out of that business

 

I can pretty much guess your age... chuckle.... pragmatism and lds church. Interesting, can you expand?

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

I can pretty much guess your age... chuckle.... pragmatism and lds church. Interesting, can you expand?

Pretty much everything I say expands it, I think.

Can you see the Rorty quotes in my signature?

Reality AS WE KNOW IT is based solely on how we experience it, and ideas/paradigms are social constructs cobbled together by language.

We can't know anything but our personal experience.

[provoman]

On 8/23/2023 at 11:48 AM, pogi said:

I personally think it appropriate that we return to the liberal sentiments of our founder:

 

What would you say is examples of that not happening?   

[Anonymous Mormon]

On 8/29/2023 at 9:28 AM, smac97 said:

I think it is pretty clear that his Bible-Scholar-as-Social-Media-Populist-and-Influencer endeavor, and his interview with Dehlin, are designed - at least in part - to set him up as "a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren." 

I am not condemning him.  I am not disparaging his character.  But I think he has given strong indications - similar to indicia we've seen from past "influencers" like those noted above (Dehlin, Kelly, Reel) - of taking an incrementally-antagonistic approach that leads to estrangement from the Restored Gospel.  

If I am wrong in this assessment, I will happily eat crow.  But if I'm correct, then a bit of caution arising from Alma 5:59-60 and Matthew 7:15 is, in my view, pretty appropriate.

If anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.

I only got through maybe 2 hours of the ~15 hours of conversation between Dan M. & John D. on the Mormon Stories podcast. The part that I listened to didn't have anything faith affirming. I'm curious for those that listened to the rest, was there anything?

I think Smac asks a great question above. What were the most faith-affirming comments Dan made about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and or Jesus Christ on the podcast? (or even in the last 6 months on Tic-Tok)


I strive to be a follower of Christ (although I am imperfect at it). I would hope that if someone interviewed me about Christianity for 15 hours there would be lots of quotes to build other's faith in Christ as well.

I know that Dan tries to keep his faith personal/private, but even with that approach, I hope that he would present the faithful side of the reality of Jesus Christ and his restored gospel. If not, then I am left to wonder about the fruits of his current chosen profession.

(Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to spend the 15 hours (or 7.5 hrs at 2x speed) and to actually write up the faith affirming parts of the interview)

Edited August 30, 2023 by Anonymous Mormon
Fixed typo

[rjohnson7]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Pretty much everything I say expands it, I think.

Can you see the Rorty quotes in my signature?

Reality AS WE KNOW IT is based solely on how we experience it, and ideas/paradigms are social constructs cobbled together by language.

We can't know anything but our personal experience.

How does that relate to spiritual light and knowledge.... I'm not being critical but I love to think outside the box... what I think I would never teach in church.... kind of a fan of Bringam Young

[ttribe]

Meanwhile, DezNats on X (aka, Twitter) are using violent imagery to express their displeasure with Dan McClellan:

 

[Duncan]

37 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I only got through maybe 2 hours of the ~15 hours of conversation between Dan M. & John D. on the Mormon Stories podcast. The part that I listened to didn't have anything faith affirming. I'm curious for those that listened to the rest, was there anything?

I think Smac asks a great question above. What were the most faith-affirming comments Dan made about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and or Jesus Christ on the podcast? (or even in the last 6 months on Tic-Tok)


I strive to be a follower of Christ (although I am imperfect at it). I would hope that if someone interviewed me about Christianity for 15 hours there would be lots of quotes to build other's faith in Christ as well.

I know that Dan tries to keep his faith personal/private, but even with that approach, I hope that he would present the faithful side of the reality of Jesus Christ and his restored gospel. If not, then I am left to wonder about the fruits of his current chosen profession.

(Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to spend the 15 hours (or 7.5 hrs at 2x speed) and to actually write up the faith affirming parts of the interview)

try this!

 

[Popper]

 

Biblical scholars face a huge task when trying to make sense of the Hebrew Bible. 

as Michael Coogan states:

“Visitors to any of the great museums of the world will notice the contrast between the extensive displays of magnificent objects from ancient Egypt, ancient Syria, and ancient Mesopotamia, and those from ancient Israel, which are generally unimpressive and often difficult to find. Artistically, at least for museum curators, ancient Israel was a cultural backwater. Nothing from it is comparable to the tombs and temples of Egypt, the libraries and ziggurats of Babylon, or the glazed tiles and palaces of Persepolis.

Yet one artifact from ancient Israel has sur-vived: its literature, commonly if somewhat controversially called the Old Testament.

Prohibited according to an ancient law from making graven images, the Israelites channeled their creative energy into literary activity. Not that literature, even great litera-ture, was exclusively an Israelite phenomenon in the ancient Near East- on the con-trary, as we will see. But Israelite literature did not just survive; it became authoritative scripture in both Judaism and Christianity, and it has profoundly influenced and inspired believers, writers, artists, and musicians in the Western world and beyond."

In the literature of ancient Israel as preserved in the Old Testament, we encounter dozens of vividly drawn characters whose stories have been told over and over again, retelling that begins in the pages of the Bible itself. We are also introduced to concepts that have profoundly shaped religious be-liefs, social values, and political institutions over the centuries, concepts such as coven-ant, commandments, chosen people, Promised Land, and divinely chosen rulers. Both the characters and the concepts occur in the context of a sweeping narrative of divine activity in history, from creation to the end of the first millennium BCE.

One understanding of the Old Testament is that it is an anthology of the literature of ancient Israel and early Judaism, comparable in scope to anthologies of English litera-ture. Like such anthologies, it is a selection of works from more than a thousand years, and like them too it contains many kinds of writing-in the Old Testament there are myths, historical narratives, prophecies, fic-tion, laws, instructions for rituals, proverbs, and hymns, to name just some.

These kinds of writing are embedded in larger units called "books." For the most part each book is a relatively self-contained unit, but sometimes the separation between books is arbitrary. For example, the beginning of the book of Judges continues the narrative from the end of the book of Joshua without any break, and the same is true of the books of 1 and 2 Samuel, 2 Samuel and 1 Kings, and others. Within individual books, moreover, the genres are frequently mixed. The historical narratives in Genesis, for example, are sprinkled with both short and long poems, as well as with laws and accounts of rituals.

challenges we face include.

1. **Limited Historical Records:** The events described in the Hebrew Bible often lack contemporary historical records outside of the biblical texts themselves. This makes it difficult to independently verify the accuracy of the biblical accounts through external sources

2. **Ancient Textual Variants:** The Hebrew Bible has been transmitted over centuries, leading to variations and textual differences in different manuscript traditions. Scholars must carefully analyze these variants to determine the most accurate and original readings.

3. **Dating and Chronology:** Establishing precise dates for events in the Hebrew Bible can be challenging. The biblical texts often use relative dating methods (e.g., "in the days of King X") rather than absolute dates, making it difficult to synchronize biblical events with other historical records.

4. **Archaeological Evidence:** While archaeology has provided valuable insights into the ancient Near East, there is not always a clear correlation between archaeological findings and specific biblical events or figures. Scholars must exercise caution when drawing conclusions from archaeological data.

5. **Historical Bias:** The Hebrew Bible was written with theological and religious purposes in mind, not as a purely historical or scientific document. This can lead to selective or biased reporting of events and figures, making it challenging to separate religious narrative from historical fact.

6. **Scientific Anachronisms:** The Hebrew Bible sometimes contains descriptions that seem anachronistic when viewed through a modern scientific lens. For example, descriptions of the natural world or cosmology may not align with contemporary scientific understanding.

7. **Cultural and Linguistic Context:** Understanding the cultural, linguistic, and social context of the ancient Near East is essential for interpreting the Hebrew Bible accurately. This requires expertise in fields such as archaeology, ancient languages, and comparative literature.

8. **Ethical and Moral Values:** Certain biblical stories and practices may conflict with modern ethical and moral values. Scholars must navigate these issues carefully when presenting information to a contemporary audience.

9. **Diverse Interpretations:** The Hebrew Bible has been interpreted in various ways by different religious traditions and scholars. Presenting information that is both historically and scientifically accurate may require addressing differing interpretations and perspectives.

To overcome these challenges, scholars employ a multidisciplinary approach that combines textual analysis, archaeology, comparative studies, anthropology and an understanding of the cultural and historical context of the ancient Near East. 

Michael Coogan has written a short introduction and an expanded version which highlights how the Hebrew Bible was compiled and the different styles and genres it contains.

The two most common hypothesis for comprehension of the text and making sense of some of the conflicting issues that arise from it are the documentary hypothesis.

The Documentary Hypothesis, also known as the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis, is a scholarly theory developed in the 19th century to explain the origins of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, known as the Torah or Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). This hypothesis suggests that these books were not the work of a single author, such as Moses, as traditionally believed, but rather a composite of multiple source documents, edited and redacted over time by different individuals or groups. The theory is based on a close analysis of the text, particularly the repetition of stories, variations in vocabulary and style, and apparent contradictions.

Which proposes the existence of four primary source documents, each attributed to different authors or traditions, which were later combined to create the Torah:

1. **J (Yahwist Source):** This source is characterized by its use of the name "Yahweh" for God. It is often associated with a southern Judean tradition and is thought to be one of the earliest sources. The J source is known for its vivid and anthropomorphic portrayals of God, such as God walking in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:8).

2. **E (Elohist Source):** The E source refers to a tradition that used the term "Elohim" for God. It is believed to come from the northern kingdom of Israel. This source often emphasizes prophecy and dreams and portrays God in a more distant and majestic manner compared to the J source.

3. **D (Deuteronomist Source):** The D source is closely associated with the Book of Deuteronomy. It contains much of the legal material and is thought to have been written during or after the religious reforms of King Josiah in the 7th century BCE. The Deuteronomist emphasizes the importance of obedience to God's laws.

4. **P (Priestly Source):** The P source is characterized by its concern for priestly matters, genealogies, and ritual. It is thought to have been composed by priests and is often considered the latest of the sources. P is responsible for many of the detailed regulations found in the Torah, especially in Leviticus and Numbers.

According to the Documentary Hypothesis, these four source documents were woven together over centuries by various editors or redactors to create the Torah as we know it today. These editors integrated and harmonized the material, resulting in the sometimes repetitive or contradictory elements found in the text.

The Documentary Hypothesis has been influential in biblical scholarship and has provided valuable insights into the composition of the Torah. However, it is not without its critics, and alternative theories and refinements have been proposed over the years.

One such alternative is the supplementary hypothesis.

The Supplementary Hypothesis is a theory in biblical scholarship that is closely related to the Documentary Hypothesis, which I explained earlier. While both hypotheses address the composite nature of the Torah (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), they focus on different aspects of its composition. Here's how they differ:

1. **Documentary Hypothesis (DH):** As previously explained, the Documentary Hypothesis proposes the existence of four primary source documents (J, E, D, and P) that were later combined by editors or redactors to form the Torah. The DH primarily addresses the question of multiple source documents and the redaction process.

2. **Supplementary Hypothesis (SH):** The Supplementary Hypothesis, on the other hand, does not suggest the existence of separate source documents in the same way as the DH. Instead, it emphasizes the idea of "supplementary" additions or layers of material that were added to the Torah over time. These supplementary additions include additional laws, narratives, and explanations that were inserted into the text at various points in its development.

In essence, the Supplementary Hypothesis recognizes that the Torah was not only composed of distinct source documents but also underwent a process of expansion and accretion over time. This expansion could have occurred through the addition of new material by later scribes, editors, or religious leaders to address evolving theological, legal, or historical concerns within the Israelite community.

The key differences between the two hypotheses are:

- **Source Documents:** The Documentary Hypothesis identifies specific source documents (J, E, D, and P), each with its own characteristics and vocabulary. The Supplementary Hypothesis does not propose the same level of separation of sources but rather looks at additional layers or insertions within a more unified text.

- **Focus:** The DH primarily focuses on identifying distinct sources and explaining how they were combined. The SH focuses on identifying supplementary material and understanding why and when it was added to the text.

It is also worth noting that Israel has a special relationship with God called a covenant.

The purpose of the covenant is at the heart of the Hebrew Bible and an understanding of it grows over time as we better keep our side of it we learn more about God.

John H Walton describes the covenant in a unique way and a process of revelation concerning the character and nature of God.

“God has a plan in history that He is sovereignty executing. The goal of that plan is for Him to be In a relationship with those whom He has created, it would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God they did not know. If His nature was obsure, or distorted  and honest relationship would be impossible, in order to clear a way for this relationship then. God has undertaken a primary objective of self revelation. He wants His people to know Him. The mechanism which drives this program is the covenant and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God.”

Scholars like Walton also express the meaning of the covenant to include:

• Relationship and Identity: One primary purpose of God's covenant with Israel is to establish a special relationship between God and the Israelites. The covenant is seen as a means of forming a unique identity for the Israelite people as God's chosen nation. It includes promises of blessings for obedience and consequences for disobedience, reinforcing the idea of a covenantal relationship.
• Moral and Ethical Framework: The covenant contains laws, commandments, and ethical guidelines that are intended to shape the moral conduct of the Israelites. It provides a framework for righteous living and establishes principles of justice, mercy, and holiness.
• Promises and Blessings: God's covenant includes promises of blessings and benefits for the Israelites if they remain faithful to the covenant. These blessings often include prosperity, protection, and the land of Canaan as an inheritance.
• Responsibility: Alongside blessings, the covenant places responsibility on the Israelites to obey God's commandments and uphold their end of the covenant. This includes adherence to moral and religious practices, as well as maintaining exclusive worship of Yahweh.
• Atonement and Forgiveness: The covenant system often includes provisions for atonement and forgiveness of sins. Sacrifices and rituals are seen as ways to seek reconciliation with God when the covenant is violated.
• Witness to the Nations: The covenant with Israel is sometimes seen as a means by which God's character and values are revealed to the surrounding nations. Through the faithfulness of Israel to the covenant, other nations may come to know and acknowledge the God of Israel.
• Covenant Renewal: The covenant is not static but is subject to renewal and adaptation over time. Events like the renewal of the covenant at Mount Sinai or in the time of King Josiah are seen as moments when the covenant was reaffirmed and adapted to the changing circumstances of the Israelites.

By the time we come to the New Testament Christians encounter  another issue with Jesus the fulfillment of the Torah and the only true authority on the meaning of the Hebrew Bible 

Thus reading being able to correctly read law from its constitutional foundations to its legislative and civics end is something that again proves very difficult for scholars to do.

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, rjohnson7 said:

How does that relate to spiritual light and knowledge.... I'm not being critical but I love to think outside the box... what I think I would never teach in church.... kind of a fan of Bringam Young

I am kind of in rush mode and will be.

Think about color. You experience wavelengths of light  as colors.

Your body changes colorless light into colored light.  You are programmed to do so,perhaps because the red berries are nutritious but the purple ones are deadly

Similarly you know good from evil from the  "still small voice".

You are programmed that way to know good from evil.

It is part of your EXPERIENCE to interpret the difference.  It " feels" right or wrong

You read Moroni 10 and it "feels right"

You read Alma 32 and it says to experiment with what grows "sweet" in your heart.

THAT is "the spirit"

 

[smac97]

On 8/30/2023 at 5:43 PM, ttribe said:

Meanwhile, DezNats on X (aka, Twitter) are using violent imagery to express their displeasure with Dan McClellan:

 

Patently unacceptable and wrong.  

And I say this as someone whom Dan has publicly accused of some pretty terrible things.  Regardless of such disagreements, there is no place in our society for threats such as this, even hinted ones.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 4, 2023 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

Meanwhile, DezNats on X (aka, Twitter) are using violent imagery to express their displeasure with Dan McClellan:

 

It dawns on me that I've never considered DezNat to be worthy of any sort of response from me, or even notice.   But just to be fully transparently unambiguous:

I absolutely reject Bojames/EphraimOnline's tweet.  Vague memes about unaliving people are unacceptable.   If this person somehow thinks they're a disciple of Christ or a Christian, I don't recognize this sort of behavior from anyone who might claim to follow the 2nd great commandment.  This guy ain't one of me. 

Dude wants a better combo?  Here:

[rjohnson7]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am kind of in rush mode and will be.

Think about color. You experience wavelengths of light  as colors.

Your body changes colorless light into colored light.  You are programmed to do so,perhaps because the red berries are nutritious but the purple ones are deadly

Similarly you know good from evil from the  "still small voice".

You are programmed that way to know good from evil.

It is part of your EXPERIENCE to interpret the difference.  It " feels" right or wrong

You read Moroni 10 and it "feels right"

You read Alma 32 and it says to experiment with what grows "sweet" in your heart.

THAT is "the spirit"

 

Not in any hurry, talk when you have time.  Are we living in the past, present or future as in space and time?  Our universe is past and not present, so in our solar system we are what. Present and yet past if viewed from another galaxy.  There is no time or is there?

God was always God, why. Because He was always divine  Godly and pure love as is Christ and the Holy Ghost, from eternity to eternity Gods always... not so with us.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I only got through maybe 2 hours of the ~15 hours of conversation between Dan M. & John D. on the Mormon Stories podcast. The part that I listened to didn't have anything faith affirming. I'm curious for those that listened to the rest, was there anything?

I think Smac asks a great question above. What were the most faith-affirming comments Dan made about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and or Jesus Christ on the podcast? (or even in the last 6 months on Tic-Tok)


I strive to be a follower of Christ (although I am imperfect at it). I would hope that if someone interviewed me about Christianity for 15 hours there would be lots of quotes to build other's faith in Christ as well.

I know that Dan tries to keep his faith personal/private, but even with that approach, I hope that he would present the faithful side of the reality of Jesus Christ and his restored gospel. If not, then I am left to wonder about the fruits of his current chosen profession.

(Thanks in advance to anyone who is willing to spend the 15 hours (or 7.5 hrs at 2x speed) and to actually write up the faith affirming parts of the interview)

What do you hope he said, maybe it'll refresh my memory. I've listened to a lot of each podcast. The recent one hasn't been mentioned I don't believe. It's called: How "Thoughtful" Mormons Stay in the Church part 3.

@Dan McClellan

Maybe he'll tune in and give some feedback on the thread.