Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Dan McClellan on Mormon Stories


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My thoughts on the merits of methodological empiricism are beside the point. My point is that a BYU professor told David Bokovoy, “Don’t focus on Bible,” he said. “Because we’ve yet to have a Latter-day Saint pass through an academic program on the Bible and retain his or her testimony. Instead, choose an ancillary Near Eastern topic such as Assyriology, Comparative Semitics, Canaanite Languages, or even Egyptology. But whatever you do, don’t do Bible.”

Hearsay repetition of one statement from one (notably unnamed) BYU professor.  Not much of a point, that.

18 minutes ago, Analytics said:
Quote

Dan goes about critiquing others' "dogmas," but doesn't seem to be short of a steady supply of his own.  

The question is whether or not he can defend his beliefs with valid evidence.

I suspect he can.  But then, so can I.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
25 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh, I don't take it that seriously, but I appreciate the sentiment. It's just always a bit of a surprise to see that kind of thing posted online by a person with whom I might have once shared a pew. Besides, I have a C&C permit for self-protection.

Here in the LA megalopolis I was browsing today in a store, and I heard more "please" and  "thank you" and yessir's!" than I have in years.

And there were two police cars parked in front, with one cop in each, just idling presumably to keep the a/c going.

It was a gun store.

Noting like concealed carry to keep folks polite. 😏

But that is the difference between LA and Utah in general!

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Here in the LA megalopolis I was browsing today in a store, and I heard more "please" and  "thank you" and yessir's!" than I have in years.

And there were two police cars parked in front, with one cop in each, just idling presumably to keep the a/c going.

It was a gun store.

Noting like concealed carry to keep folks polite. 😏

But that is the difference between LA and Utah in general!

I don't live in Utah.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If he’d said “postmodern Marxism” we’d at least know where he’s coming from. 

As for the OP, Dan is a good man and someone who has tried to help me return to the LDS church, so it bothers me to hear people questioning his loyalty and testimony. It’s commendable to provide a consistent academic approach, and to my mind, Dan promoting his faith would be missing the mark. 

I've had a substantially different experience with him.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Hmmm. From what I’ve seen, your disagreements with Dan have mostly been political or matters of perceived lack of orthodoxy.

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  It is not uncommon to be compared to Reel, Dehlin, and others - just as I see happening with Dan in this thread.  It is really hurtful and unfortunate when people are publicly betting against your faith.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, pogi said:

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  It is not uncommon to be compared to Reel, Dehlin, and others - just as I see happening with Dan in this thread.  It is really hurtful and unfortunate when people are publicly betting against your faith.

I’m sorry you’ve had to deal with that. I’m not sure what it is that drives people to compile long checklists of what it means to be a faithful church member. But it’s awfully common. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

That is how it was meant to come across, meaningless lawyerly protestation to the contrary.

I couldn’t say either way, but that seemed to be the implication. David (and now possibly Dan?) is a good example of this weird trend I’ve seen trying to get “progressive” or slightly unorthodox members to leave the church. There are several Twitter accounts, for example, that exist to out and shame the struggling into leaving the church. Yesterday someone was called a “spiritual cockroach” for having acknowledged her struggles with church history and doctrine while trying to maintain her faith. I was told “thank you for leaving the church. … We don’t want people like YOU.”

Interesting times for Mormonism. 

Link to comment
On 9/1/2023 at 10:15 AM, pogi said:

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  It is not uncommon to be compared to Reel, Dehlin, and others - just as I see happening with Dan in this thread.  It is really hurtful and unfortunate when people are publicly betting against your faith.

Dan

  • has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"
  • that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"
  • that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"
  • that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"
  • that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"
  • that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, , which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"
  • that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"
  • that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"
  • that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,
  • that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

Much of this comes across as both conclusory and dogmatic (and framing moral issues as being about "power asymmetries" and such - rather than as issues to be resolved by the following of God's will - sounds more political and neo-marxist, than doctrinal/religious, particularly when coming from a professed Latter-day Saint).  

Our Hamba Tuhan commented to Dan as follows: (speaking of perspectives on abortion) :

Quote

I hold a PhD in non-Western history, so I'm disinclined to see this from an American-centric perspective full-stop. It seems to me that you've reduced the historical complexity of this issue to a simple projection of your current dislike for the American Republican Party -- which in turn appears to function as an important marker of your social identity.

My perspective on abortion is not derived from or based on a political party platform.  Or from a "conspiracy" centering on "controlling the agency of women."  Or from "racist motivations."  Or from a desire to support "the white nationalist movement."

Dan's various assertions to the contrary are wildly false and ignorant.  I expect more from a person presenting himself as a scholar, of a person who purports to insist on "data over dogma."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
4 hours ago, pogi said:

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  It is not uncommon to be compared to Reel, Dehlin, and others - just as I see happening with Dan in this thread.  It is really hurtful and unfortunate when people are publicly betting against your faith.

You should definitely stay away from Twitter. The so-called defenders revel in pushing out those they consider insufficiently orthodox and conservative. 

Edited by ttribe
Link to comment
5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

That’s how it came across. 

 

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

That is how it was meant to come across, meaningless lawyerly protestation to the contrary.


I can only speak for myself, but I certainly didn’t read it that way. When I read this response, I went back to read it and still didn’t read it that way. I’m not a lawyer, but to me seemed fairly clear that referencing hearsay about what an unknown person professor said to Bokovoy implies that we know very little of the context. There’s a lot of ground of possible explanation that can change said meaning that has little, if anything, to do with an implication on Bokovoy’s character.

Link to comment
On 8/31/2023 at 9:07 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

That's a really strange accusation given your other comments. Perhaps you could explain what you mean when you use the term "post-modern" in this context.

Ben,

Here's a good definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism

Dan is clearly a subscriber to moral relativism, and that paradigm invades his scholarship.  His obsession with renegotiating scriptural text to undermine--what he sees as--power structures, is so crassly subjective that it is no scholarship at all.  For Dan, scholarship is not an end in and of its self, but the means to promote pet theories and personal moralities.  Dan is an intellectual hypocrite, doing precisely what he condemns others of doing.  Postmodernism (and Dan McClellan) provide absolutely no benefit in a milieu of restoration and revelation.

Edited by PacMan
Link to comment
3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dan

has declared that those people who oppose elective abortion are doing so as a matter of "identity politics,"

that "opposition to abortion ... fall{s} under the rubric of controlling the agency of women,"

that this objective ("'controlling the agency of women'") is "firmly embedded in right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation ... it's a reification of identity politics,"

that in opposing elective abortion I am "seek{ing} social capital through carrying water for others structuring power against the interests of their social identities,"

that women who oppose elective abortion are merely pursuing "social capital and/or self-realization,"

that "the vast majority of the anti-abortion argument is built on a foundation of right wing authoritarian identity politics, , which is absolutely aimed at prioritizing the agency of men over women,"

that there is a "conspiracy" or "movement" afoot to subjugate women and control their agency, and that I am part of this conspiracy, and that this is "absolutely true,"

that "'men are almost entirely responsible for accidental pregnancies,'"

that "those who catalyzed America's anti-abortion movement" have/had "underlying racist motivations" for doing so,

that "{t}he anti-abortion movement overlaps significantly with the white nationalist movement," and so on.

Much of this comes across as both conclusory and dogmatic (and framing moral issues as being about "power asymmetries" and such - rather than as issues to be resolved by the following of God's will - sounds more political and neo-marxist, than doctrinal/religious, particularly when coming from a professed Latter-day Saint).  

Our Hamba Tuhan commented to Dan as follows: (speaking of perspectives on abortion) :

My perspective on abortion is not derived from or based on a political party platform.  Or from a "conspiracy" centering on "controlling the agency of women."  Or from "racist motivations."  Or from a desire to support "the white nationalist movement."

Dan's various assertions to the contrary are wildly false and ignorant.  I expect more from a person presenting himself as a scholar, of a person who purports to insist on "data over dogma."

Thanks,

-Smac

I think you are just proving my point, honestly. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, pogi said:

From what has been directed at me it seems that in some parts, left of center leaning in politics and orthodoxy is enough to question one's current testimony and the future of one's faith.  

I think stuff like watching Dan publicly speak against the divinity of Jesus Christ and the origins of the Book of Mormon (as taught by the Church), on a podcast run by the most visible anti-Mormon alive today, and following it up by stating that he is influencing/inducing some people in the Church "to feel justified in not remaining faithful" and that this is - in his words - a "sweet spot," and him pretty much affirming Dehlin's speculation about Dan's tenure at BYU being adversely influenced by his (Dan's) conduct (conduct inimical to faith in the Restored Gospel, and incompatible with employment at BYU), are pretty reasonable grounds for someone "to question {his} current testimony and the future of one's faith.

In fact, it would be willfully obtuse to not have such questions.  He's putting this stuff out for public consumption, after all.  He's a smart fella.  I think he knows what he's doing, and what impressions he is giving.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
1 hour ago, PacMan said:

Postmodernism (and Dan McClellan) provide absolutely no benefit in a milieu of restoration and revelation.

This just shows that you probably don't understand postmodernism with such absolute statements.  I don't think you realize how many active, faithful Latter-day Saints there are who subscribe to Postmodern philosophy.  In regard to continuing "revelation" and postmodernism, you might want to check out this article by our own @Benjamin McGuire 

Then of course we have @mfbukowski who was in part converted to Mormonism because of the postmodernism philosophy he saw as intrinsic to the faith.

Dan himself is another poster on this forum from time to time.  Then there is me - a postmodern leaning believer.  That is at least 4 members of the church who participate on this forum alone that you are calling out as providing "no benefit" with their views.   Mark has been a long ambassador of the benefits of postmodernism within a Mormon milieu.  Just because you disagree, doesn't mean it doesn't provide benefit and "good fruits" to those who do subscribe to postmodern ideas. 

 

 

Edited by pogi
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...