Re-visiting Christian Nationalism

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Methinks you making Bad Orange Man an offender for a word.

I would hope to see a bit more grace from you.  But oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

In other words, I am lying when I said I would call out anyone? Or you are trying to redefine “I really believe it.  I just don't see how you can” into “I don’t really believe it, you can be happy without religion, it’s just more likely you will be with than without”?

So if someone says “I really believe it”. All Mormons are going to burn in hell forever”, that really means they believe only some Saints will be burning in hell forever?

Edited February 10, 2025 by Calm

[smac97]

Just now, ttribe said:

Good grief. Trump has never showed the least bit of interest in religion unless he can use to his own political benefit. Do you even know how conmen work?

The TDS is strong with this one. 

I disliked Pres. Biden on both personal and policy grounds, but I did not vote for him mostly because of the latter.  Same goes for Kamala Harris.

Let me put it this way: I'm willing to give the Bad Orange Man the same benefit of the doubt as to pronouncements regarding his personal faith as I am willing to grant to Dan McClellan.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

In other words, I am lying when I said I would call out anyone?

No.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Or you are trying to redefine “I really believe it.  I just don't see how you can” into “I don’t really believe it, you can be happy without religion, it’s just more likely you will be with than without”?

No.

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if someone says “I really believe it”. All Mormons are going to burn in hell forever”, that really means they believe only some Saints will be burning in hell forever?

Again, methinks you making Bad Orange Man an offender for a word.

Again, I would hope to see a bit more grace from you.  But oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The TDS is strong with this one. 

I disliked Pres. Biden on both personal and policy grounds, but I did not vote for him mostly because of the latter.  Same goes for Kamala Harris.

Let me put it this way: I'm willing to give the Bad Orange Man the same benefit of the doubt as to pronouncements regarding his personal faith as I am willing to grant to Dan McClellan.

Thanks,

-Smac

You just can't stop yourself from being insulting. TDS? Really? I make a living identifying, investigating and assisting in the prosecution of conmen. I know his history. I know the evidence that resulted in his conviction for 34 felonies. I suspect I know both of those much more thoroughly than you.

[Senator]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, methinks you making Bad Orange Man an offender for a word.

 

Really? One has to make Bad Orange Man an offender for a word?  When he wrote the book on how to offend by a word.....

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

he same benefit of the doubt as to pronouncements regarding his personal faith as I am willing to grant to Dan McClella

This is pretty laughable. You routinely question Dan’s beliefs on this board. On the other hand, the guy that brags about sexual assault, brags about invading the dressing room of young teenage girls, the guy that cheats on his wife, his taxes, the guy that brags about ripping off the people working for him? The guy that can’t quote a single Bible verse. Yes. I agree. You go out of your way to make excuses for that guy because his politics align with yours. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

he same benefit of the doubt as to pronouncements regarding his personal faith as I am willing to grant to Dan McClella

This is pretty laughable.

Which way?

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You routinely question Dan’s beliefs on this board.

Well, I don't think so.  I mostly critique his social media stuff, which has little to do with his membership in the Church.

I previously surmised, based on Dan's published-to-the-world statements, and on his happy receipt of the endorsements of anti-Mormons such as John Dehlin, that Dan may be on his way out of the Church.  I have also said, many times, that I hope I am wrong in that assessment.

Similarly, I have some doubts about the sincerity of professed religiosity of Donald Trump.  But I give both the benefit of the doubt.

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On the other hand, the guy that brags about sexual assault, brags about invading the dressing room of young teenage girls, the guy that cheats on his wife, his taxes, the guy that brags about ripping off the people working for him? The guy that can’t quote a single Bible verse. Yes. I agree. You go out of your way to make excuses for that guy because his politics align with yours. 

I have never made excuses for Mr. Trump's misconduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Which way?

Well, I don't think so.  I mostly critique his social media stuff, which has little to do with his membership in the Church.

I previously surmised, based on Dan's published-to-the-world statements, and on his happy receipt of the endorsements of anti-Mormons such as John Dehlin, that Dan may be on his way out of the Church.  I have also said, many times, that I hope I am wrong in that assessment.

Similarly, I have some doubts about the sincerity of professed religiosity of Donald Trump.  But I give both the benefit of the doubt.

I have never made excuses for Mr. Trump's misconduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

You use Dan social media advocacy to question his dedication to church teachings. But when it comes to Trump’s “ misconduct” not so much. Just have to take him out his word am I right?

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You use Dan social media advocacy to question his dedication to church teachings.

Well, not really.  Dan's a big pro-abortion guy, but that stems more from what he said on this board.  He may be able to thread the needle and find a way to justify his public advocacy, but that public advocacy is kinda hard to miss.

As for his "social media" stuff, most of it has little to do with the Church directly.  My assessment of him being "on his way out" stemmed mostly from his commentary to, and happy receipt of plaudits from, John Dehlin and others.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But when it comes to Trump’s “ misconduct” not so much. Just have to take him out his word am I right?

I posted this back in 2023:

Quote

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.

I would be thrilled to see Dan publish expressions of faith in and appreciation for the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

And this:

Quote

I claim no stewardship over Dan McClellan.  That said, he published these statements to the world.  He is speaking publicly with the intent of influencing his audience - a substantial portion of which are Latter-day Saints - to his point of view.  I think it unreasonable to willfully blind ourselves to what he is saying, or to not acknowledge that some portions of what he is saying are incompatible with listening to the prophets and apostles. 

Here is what I said previously:

Quote

Sadly, it looks like Dan is on his way out.  I hope I'm wrong in that assessment.  However, it seems pretty clear that he is increasingly setting himself up as a voice of influence and authority that is alternative and superior to that of the Brethren.  I think it's just a matter of time before he becomes more explicit about this.  I hope he has a change of heart, but meanwhile I wish him the best.

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.

The last inquiry ("If anyone can point me to...") still stands.  If he professes membership in the Church and belief in the Restored Gospel, I would take him at his word.

I'm not holding my breath, though.  I do not see Dan as an advocate for the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, or the church that houses it.  He has repeatedly, and very publicly, spoken against the divinity of Jesus Christ, against the Church's position re: the origins of the Book of Mormon, against the prophetic mantle of Joseph Smith and his successors, and so on.  

I think Dan is too immersed in academic and neo-marxist claptrap, and too busy with pursuing Social Media click-bait content and attention (and, alas, money).  Oh, well.  I hope he has a change of heart.  Again, if anyone can point me to faith-affirming comments from Dan during the last while, I'd appreciate it.

As for Trump, I don't really know his religiosity.  Perhaps he's inconsistent in it (aren't we all, to an extent).  Perhaps he's re-discovering it.  Perhaps he's totally faking.  But I'll give his generalized profession of valuing religiosity a benefit of the doubt.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I'll give his generalized profession of valuing religiosity a benefit of the doubt.

 

Exactly. The guy that advocates for sexual assault, he gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his Christianity. The guy that advocates for gay rights? That’s a bridge too far. 

[ttribe]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  Dan's a big pro-abortion guy, but that stems more from what he said on this board.  He may be able to thread the needle and find a way to justify his public advocacy, but that public advocacy is kinda hard to miss.

No, Spencer. Dan is pro-choice, as is the Church, albeit perhaps in a more limited fashion. "Pro-abortion" is an intentionally pejorative label meant to demonize people and create the perception that such a person is in favor of maximizing abortions indiscriminately. You wouldn't be doing that on purpose, would you, Spencer?

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

We are living in strange times when the Bad Orange Man is a more credible and reasoned voice relative to the role of religion in American civic life than a fellow (and seemingly active) Latter-day Saint.

Broadly speaking, I think Mr. Trump is correct when he speaks approvingly of religion.  Even if we squint at his sincerity, what he actually says seems pretty reasonable, middle-of-the-road stuff.  And it drives Dan, a Latter-day Saint, batty.  That's pretty weird.

1. Dan immediately starts with an ad hominem.  "Someone like Trump."

2. He then construes BOM's comments about "religion" to be specifically about "Christian Nationalism."  And he immediately couches this characterization neo-marxist "power structure" terminology.

3. Dan then goes on a pretty wild ride about 70s-era politics being racialism hiding under the rubric of opposing abortion, and this then becoming Christian Nationalism.  He does this because he found articles about "Christian Nationalism" fomenting racism, and so wants to characterize all of Trump's commentary about "religion" as really being about Christian Nationalism (and, then, racism).

Interestingly, I have started several threads in which I express substantial reservations and concerns about Christian Nationalism.  So in a sense, I agree with some of Dan's critiques about that topic, but I disagree with the circuitous and tortured logic he uses to get there. 

And through it all, Dan's neo-marxist jargon shines annoyingly through.  It's weird how he castigates identitarianism when Christian Nationalists supposedly do it, when identity-based oppressed-versus-oppressor neo-marxism is Dan's bread-and-butter philosophical approach to pretty much any sociopolitical issue he addresses.

4. Quoth Bad Orange Man: "I really believe you can't be happy without religion, without that belief.  I really believe it.  I just don't see how you can, so let's bring religion back.  Let's bring back into our lives."

That seems pretty . . . reasonable.  And Dan throws a fit in response.  Again, he re-defines BOM's references to "religion" to mean specifically "Christian Nationalism" and nothing else (excluding, I guess, the Jewish people in BOM's life, like his own daughter).

Dan is doing here what so many anti-Mormons do when they stand up and presume to speak on behalf of their ideological opponents/targets.  

5. Dan then targets people who "are religious and think that religion is a social good overall," saying that they "don't think very hard about it."  

6. Dan concludes with even prolonged ad hominem screed: "If you would like to see our country deal with its social ills and overcome them, don't listen to rapists who can barely read.  They are not concerned for you or anyone else other than themselves.  Donald Trump does not have the first clue what he is talking about when it comes to anything related to religion, much less how we can be happy and can overcome the social ills that have been plaguing us.  Donald Trump is one of the primary facilitators of the social ills that are plaguing us.  And Christian Nationalism is another one.  Get educated about these topics.  Do some research.  Learn to think critically and google competently, and stop listening to ignorant and hateful people."

I don't find Dan to be very persuasive here.  Angry, yes.  Hostile, yes.  Overflowing with neo-marxist jargon and philosophy, yes.

7. As I have noted previously: "I still watch some of Dan's content, but his social media stuff is coming across more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience."

I had sort of surmised that after January 20, Dan's social media content would deteriorate even further, and get further away from "thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience."  Looks like my surmise was accurate.  Didn't quite anticipate the wild-eyed rage bit, though.  Seriously, take a look at the 15:35 - 16:15 portion of this video and judge for yourself.  I think Dan is materially diminishing his competency as a scholar with rhetoric like this.

Thanks,

-Smac

The divisions are getting wider and wider...

I appreciate your input, we may not agree on the Orange (your word, haha) man but I appreciate when you bring up topics that you know you may have push back even. 

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Good grief. Trump has never showed the least bit of interest in religion unless he can use to his own political benefit/self- validation. Do you even know how conmen work?

Now I mostly* agree with you. He's had a relationship with religion pre-politics. I haven't seen evidence of said relationship where he really grappled and took in the many many teachings of JC that definitely conflict with his behaviors and values. Such as turning the other cheek, being a peacemaker, loving thy neighbor, seeing the stranger and the destitute as one of said neighbors, love others as oneself, fidelity to spouse, relationship to wealth and power, etc etc etc. 

I get that all of us who hold any value in holy texts will "negotiate" with them. But if the only negotiation happening is to validate ones current lifestyle while ignoring weaknesses and points of growth needed in everyone, that kinda defeats the purpose of practicing faith IMHO. 

But generally I prefer religion as a source of introspection moreso than a source of validation. 

 

*(Mostly is for the benefit of the doubt I would give to anyone. Everyone's capable of having an exception or two to their general predisposition in their lives. Even him, I presume. I just assume like many who present similar traits to Trump it's usually exceptionally short lived or limited)

 

With luv, 

BD 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

The divisions are getting wider and wider...

I appreciate your input, we may not agree on the Orange (your word, haha) man but I appreciate when you bring up topics that you know you may have push back even. 

That's what the board is for.  If I wanted to talk in an echo chamber, I wouldn't come here. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Well, not really.  Dan's a big pro-abortion guy, but that stems more from what he said on this board.  He may be able to thread the needle and find a way to justify his public advocacy, but that public advocacy is kinda hard to miss.

No, Spencer. Dan is pro-choice, 

The "choice" being . . . elective abortion.

"Don't want an abortion?  Don't have one!" = "Don't want a slave?  Don't own one!"

"My Body, My Choice!" = "My Chattel Property, My Choice!"

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

as is the Church, albeit perhaps in a more limited fashion.

Well, no.  The Church is not in favor of elective abortions.

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

"Pro-abortion" is an intentionally pejorative label 

There is no "label" that is not pejorative when it comes to endorsing electively killing babies.

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

meant to demonize people

I think electively killing babies ought to be condemned.  

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

and create the perception that such a person is in favor of maximizing abortions indiscriminately.

We're a few decades out from the "safe, legal and rare" approach to abortion.  

Now, "indiscriminate" is the order of the day.  No limits.  We're in the "Shout Your Abortion" and up-to-the-moment-of-birth era.  

Thousands of images like these.

To which I say:

 

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

You wouldn't be doing that on purpose, would you, Spencer?

You wouldn't be trying to obscure the horrific reality of people justifying the elective killing of babies by hiding it under circumlocutions like "choice" and "healthcare," would you, ttribe?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly. The guy that advocates for sexual assault, he gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his Christianity.  

I thoroughly condemn any such thing.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The guy that advocates for gay rights? That’s a bridge too far. 

I don't recall disagreeing with Dan advocating for "gay rights" (details matter, as the Church has advocated for certain protections, so "gay rights" is not an all-or-nothing proposition). 

Instead, I have found his pro-abortion advocacy to be morally repellant, his false accusations of people who he disagrees with on sociopolitical issues to be reprehensible, his alignment with enemies of his (our) faith to be profoundly disappointing, his public disparagements of the fundamental tenets of our faith to be dispiriting (though clarifying), his neo-marxist approach to, well, pretty much everything to be obnoxious, and his social media efforts to be "more and more as self-aggrandizing, conclusory, stirring-the-pot, politicized, click-baity, berating and dunking on amateurs, etc., and less about thoughtfully distilling and presenting the nuances and complexities of biblical scholarship to a lay audience."

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...  

thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

37 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The "choice" being . . . elective abortion.

"Don't want an abortion?  Don't have one!" = "Don't want a slave?  Don't own one!"

"My Body, My Choice!" = "My Chattel Property, My Choice!"

Well, no.  The Church is not in favor of elective abortions.

There is no "label" that is not pejorative when it comes to endorsing electively killing babies.

I think electively killing babies ought to be condemned.  

We're a few decades out from the "safe, legal and rare" approach to abortion.  

Now, "indiscriminate" is the order of the day.  No limits.  We're in the "Shout Your Abortion" and up-to-the-moment-of-birth era.  

Thousands of images like these.

To which I say:

 

You wouldn't be trying to obscure the horrific reality of people justifying the elective killing of babies by hiding it under circumlocutions like "choice" and "healthcare," would you, ttribe?

Thanks,

-Smac

IOW, it is impossible for you to conduct yourself in good faith on this subject. Got it.

[Tacenda]

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DF4a4hood_F/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link if true, it feels like the end.

[sunstoned]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I have never made excuses for Mr. Trump's misconduct.

Thanks,

-Smac

But yet you support him.   He is a wicked man who abuses women and knows nothing about religion.

[Tacenda]

nvm

 

Edited February 11, 2025 by Tacenda

[The Nehor]

There are more credible accounts of Donald Trump perving on women and girls in women’s changing rooms than there are of biological men identifying as transgender in order to perv on women. So you put the big threat in the White House to fight the smaller, mostly imaginary one. Makes no sense.

 

Also those abortion t-shirts do not capture the general mood of any movement. You can find some really deranged pro-Mormon t-shirts like “All Wives Matter” and “I survived the three hour block”. Also some pretty interesting former member ones. I laughed at the “Ex-Mormon Slut” one the most. There are literally programs scouring the internet finding things to put on generic t-shirt images to try to sell them. With only a small amount of work a group of friends and I convinced bots to create a really really weird t-shirt slogan and try to sell it. It costs them nothing and none are actually produced until they are ordered.

You are trying to use a kind of self-caricature and trying to make it reality. That is lunacy.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, methinks you making Bad Orange Man an offender for a word.

Again, I would hope to see a bit more grace from you.  But oh well.

You are acting like I have never called anyone out for using absolute language before when I have a history of doing so that goes way back.

The President of the US when speaking publicly should hold himself to a higher standard of precision than someone speaking in casual conversation.  But even so, all I am doing here is treating him like I treat anyone who uses absolute language, doubles down on it and therefore makes false statements.

Edited February 11, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

killing of babies

This is a position of faith that you take, one that is not shared by your church (unless your stance is that your church is ok with murdering babies as long as the Mom didn't choose to have sex), nor most of your fellow Americans. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

killing of babies

This is a position of faith that you take,

It's also a position of science and biology.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

one that is not shared by your church (unless your stance is that your church is ok with murdering babies as long as the Mom didn't choose to have sex), nor most of your fellow Americans. 

The Church opposes and condemns the elective killing of in utero babies.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 hours ago, ttribe said:

IOW, it is impossible for you to conduct yourself in good faith on this subject. Got it.

I think it is hard for people like you, who support elective abortion - the elective killing of in utero babies -, to justify/defend that practice on a moral/ethical plane, so you

A) retreat to circumlocutions which describe these elective killings with comfortable euphemisms like "choice" and "healthcare," or

B) accuse anti-abortion folks (see what I did there?) of hating women, wanting to subjugate them. etc. (our favorite local user of neo-marxist claptrap, Dan McClellan, did this a lot), or

C) literally dehumanize the babies in question (using words like chattel property "clump of cells," "parasite," and so on), or

D) deny or refuse to address the personhood of the babies in question, or

E) some or all of A-D.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2025 by smac97