Daniel McClellan's New Book Is A Best Seller

[Peppermint Patty]

I've seen Daniel post here before, a long time ago. I haven't bought his book yet, but it looks like it is selling like hotcakes at McDonalds and is on the New York Times Best Seller List. 

 

Hardcover Nonfiction Books - Best Sellers - Books

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Peppermint Patty said:

I've seen Daniel post here before, a long time ago. I haven't bought his book yet, but it looks like it is selling like hotcakes at McDonalds and is on the New York Times Best Seller List. 

 

Hardcover Nonfiction Books - Best Sellers - Books

Lol that took me way too long to figure out why the book was being sold at McDonalds. 🤣

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Rain said:

Lol that took me way too long to figure out why the book was being sold at McDonalds. 🤣

I went there too.  Been too long since I had hotcakes at McDonald’s.

[sunstoned]

I'm happy for Dan. I really appreciate his scholarship.

[halconero]

Congratulations, @Dan McClellan!

I know that he isn’t here frequently (if at all, anymore), but I appreciate his scholarship.

I disagree with some of his takes, but they’re the sort of disagreements that are fun to have and engage with secular scholars and theologians in this particular field.

[halconero]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I went there too.  Been too long since I had hotcakes at McDonald’s.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the menu is different in the States, but the A&W full breakfast is excellent as far as fast food breakfasts go.

[Amulek]

It's been a while since I've seen @Dan McClellan around here, but I catch his YouTube posts from time to time and generally find them to be pretty enjoyable. Glad to see he's having success with his most recent book. Keep it up!

 

[phaedrus ut]

IIRC Dan was posting here(or a previous version of here) since he was a undergrad. I haven't read the book but it's something I'm likely to pick up. He has done a great job of separating his scholarship from Mormonism but I'm a bit worried since a lot of his scholarship isn't supportive of the foundational tenets of the church. I can see that becoming a problem when Oaks is president.

It's always nice to see good biblical scholarship make it into the public discourse.

 

Phaedrus

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

He has done a great job of separating his scholarship from Mormonism but I'm a bit worried since a lot of his scholarship isn't supportive of the foundational tenets of the church. I can see that becoming a problem when Oaks is president.

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by the bolded portion above?

The goal of such academic studies (in my opinion) should be to foster a greater understanding of history and culture, and at the same time acknowledge the limitations of the available evidence and the diverse interpretations of that evidence. There are always limitations in such studies due to the available evidence, and the same goes for our own interpretation of that evidence as it may or may not apply to "the foundational tenets of the church".

[Calm]

7 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

I can see that becoming a problem when Oaks is president.

I don’t remember there being anything that would signal less supportive of scholarship when Oaks was president of BYU.   Is there something in particular, some action he took that leads you to this concern?

[Stargazer]

In my personal opinion Dan is a MINO.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In my personal opinion Dan is a MINO.

I don’t think it’s appropriate to make public judgment of others’ faithfulness/commitment to the faith and depending on how moderators interpret this, could be breaking board rules as this is under banned behaviours:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66538-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

Quote

Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing

Criticize if necessary what he does, not who he is.

[Benjamin McGuire]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

In my personal opinion Dan is a MINO.

There is a reason why we don't use these sorts of issues when determining who is and who isn't a Mormon. Full participation in the LDS Church (having a temple recommend) doesn't carry with it much of a litmus test in terms of what you believe on a whole range of topics. The moment that we try to become pharisees - by demanding certain specific beliefs and actions - that is the moment where we also start denying the legitimacy of past and present leaders of the Church who also don't live up to our standards.

[Stargazer]

18 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

There is a reason why we don't use these sorts of issues when determining who is and who isn't a Mormon. Full participation in the LDS Church (having a temple recommend) doesn't carry with it much of a litmus test in terms of what you believe on a whole range of topics. The moment that we try to become pharisees - by demanding certain specific beliefs and actions - that is the moment where we also start denying the legitimacy of past and present leaders of the Church who also don't live up to our standards.

My opinion about him has little to nothing to do with any litmus test on theological matters. 

I probably shouldn't even comment on him. I have a strong degree of personal animus due to some very intense personal and non-theological acrimonious interactions with him. In short, he personally attacked me over a matter that utterly surprised me at the time. So take my "take" of him with a grain of salt, if you like. After our little contretemps I wondered about him, and upon further investigation I came to the conclusion that regardless of his personal theological beliefs, I think that he is in love with himself and his intellectual brilliance. And I don't much trust his intellect.

 

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think it’s appropriate to make public judgment of others’ faithfulness/commitment to the faith and depending on how moderators interpret this, could be breaking board rules as this is under banned behaviours:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66538-board-guidelines-update-please-review-before-posting/

Criticize if necessary what he does, not who he is.

As I mentioned to Ben, I have had extremely unpleasant personal interactions with him that lead me to believe that he is a snake in the grass. And that is my feeling about what he does -- which makes him what he is. And his interactions with me were very public (at least as far as social media is concerned), so I'm quite happy to be public about my feelings regarding him.

But I will say nothing more about him. 

[Okrahomer]

“Who am I to judge another, when I myself walk imperfectly?”

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

“Who am I to judge another, when I myself walk imperfectly?”

But we all do it, don't we? 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But we all do it, don't we? 

Sure because at heart we are likely all at least a little arrogant and often a lot, but we don’t have to be public about it and demonstrate another level/kind of arrogance and a willingness to hurt others.

You can protect others you are concerned about by speaking to destructive behaviours.

As okra implies, you don’t do this very often, I am thinking that is why it bothers me more than when some others do it.

I admit there are a couple of people I dislike enough I let this weakness dominate my more reasonable self.  In these cases there appears to me to be an intentional narcissistic and malicious desire to hurt others because they enjoy demonstrating the power to control others.  Misguided efforts even if destructive don’t generally push that button for me.  (Not saying Dan’s work is destructive, I do know a few people who think it is though.)

Edited June 22, 2025 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But we all do it, don't we? 

Yes, we do…darn it!  And from what I know about you, you walk the path with much more perfection than I do.

By the way:  ich war in Hamburg auf Mission.  🤓

Edited June 22, 2025 by Okrahomer

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Calm said:

Sure because at heart we are likely all at least a little arrogant and often a lot, but we don’t have to be public about it and demonstrate another level/kind of arrogance and a willingness to hurt others.

You can protect others you are concerned about by speaking to destructive behaviours.

As okra implies, you don’t do this very often, I am thinking that is why it bothers me more than when some others do it.

I admit there are a couple of people I dislike enough I let this weakness dominate my more reasonable self.  In these cases there appears to me to be an intentional narcissistic and malicious desire to hurt others because they enjoy demonstrating the power to control others.  Misguided efforts even if destructive don’t generally push that button for me.  (Not saying Dan’s work is destructive, I do know a few people who think it is though.)

In Mr. Dan's case, it was a highly personal attack on me on Facebook in 2016 that was completely unjustified and extremely offensive. We had been FB friends prior to this. 

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

Yes, we do…darn it!  And from what I know about you, you walk the path with much more perfection than I do.

I try to love everyone. Mr. Dan made being so towards him very, very, very difficult. He probably doesn't remember me at all. But then, I didn't behave towards him in the way that he behaved towards me. Yes, I hold a grudge. Almost my only grudge. 

20 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

By the way:  ich war in Hamburg auf Mission.  🤓

Wann war das? Ich habe in Düsseldorf zwischen 1972 und 1974 missioniert.

[Pyreaux]

I know little of Dan, I've seen him speak when LDS podcasters want a clip of someone authoritative to give short and well-explained answers. I heard he went on (ex-)Mormon Stories, but didn't watch it, but heard he didn't explain his beliefs. So, I just assume he does a lot of unbiased textual criticism of the Bible and Early Christianity and in that way his unbiased materials inadvertently favors the church. I always assumed Dan may or may not have great faith but enjoys the academic freedom the church generally affords him to pursue truth, and also may never publicly proclaim his faith, to never show his bias in his work or to the public.

Reminds me of how Jordan Peterson isn't considered a Christian by the way he views Biblical stories as "true-myths", so he's in a position where he doesn't need to defend any inerrant truth claim.

Edited June 22, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

in that way his unbiased materials inadvertently favors the church.

Not really***, unless you mean he is an example of the range of thought/scholarship that is allowed in the Church?

***some of his stuff contradicts more traditional interpretations of doctrine

Edited June 22, 2025 by Calm

[Okrahomer]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Wann war das? Ich habe in Düsseldorf zwischen 1972 und 1974 missioniert.

1976 bis 1978 

Edited June 23, 2025 by Okrahomer

[Malc]

On 6/21/2025 at 9:05 PM, Okrahomer said:

Yes, we do…darn it!  And from what I know about you, you walk the path with much more perfection than I do.

By the way:  ich war in Hamburg auf Mission.  🤓

Also, du bist ein Hamburger, nicht war? :v