Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[Limnor]

So the Restoration is whatever the Church currently happens to be?

Don’t kid me, you know that makes no sense, right?

It does make sense. It is what it is. So that’s the restoration. A few times recently I’ve been wanting to say this to you but haven’t. And don’t take it as a criticism. It’s an observation for all concerned.

This isn’t rocket science.

Regards,
MG

Two centuries of continuing revelation, and you’ve arrived at “it is what it is.” Stunning progress.

[MG 2.0]

It does make sense. It is what it is. So that’s the restoration. A few times recently I’ve been wanting to say this to you but haven’t. And don’t take it as a criticism. It’s an observation for all concerned.

This isn’t rocket science.

Regards,
MG

Two centuries of continuing revelation, and you’ve arrived at “it is what it is.” Stunning progress.

Same as the other thread. We’re simply marching in place talking past each other. We can try again later.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Two centuries of continuing revelation, and you’ve arrived at “it is what it is.” Stunning progress.

Same as the other thread. We’re simply marching in place talking past each other. We can try again later.

Regards,
MG

That’s too bad. I thought we were making progress. We finally identified something that was restored, and now you’re withdrawing before we can determine which version.

[MG 2.0]

Same as the other thread. We’re simply marching in place talking past each other. We can try again later.

Regards,
MG

That’s too bad. I thought we were making progress. We finally identified something that was restored, and now you’re withdrawing before we can determine which version.

Riiiight.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Excellent missionary work again, Fibber!

[MG 2.0]

Excellent missionary work again, Fibber!

Thank you kind sir!

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

Yes. I don’t know if Dan McClellan is a temple recommend holder or not. That’s not my business. However, I don’t know how a member could honestly answer that Yes, they do have a testimony of the Restoration, but also disbelieve that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record that was written on gold plates. The two positions seem to me to be mutually exclusive.

I don’t have a lot of insight into what goes into a temple recommend, but it’s starting to sound like so long as you give them your money and recognize their leadership you can get a ticket. Oh and don’t drink that evil coffee.

Scam.

It would be an interesting exercise to sit in a temple recommend interview and say that yes you had a testimony of the Restoration, but believed that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, that it was a 19th Century faith promoting fiction developed by Joseph Smith and others. Would the Bishop sign off on a recommendation were that your answer?

We will never know, because they don’t ask the question in a way that suggests they want an explanation. They are just yes or no type questions. A member could quite easily believe the Book of Mormon is made up 19th century fiction and say that yes they believed in the Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ and genuinely think they weren’t lying. Which sort of renders the question moot.

Tithing is different. It’s a bit more specific about what it means, and you also have to attend an end of year audit to double check you’ve paid it. So you’re left with the inescapable conclusion that the money is more important to the church than your commitment to believing the Book of Mormon narrative that the Church promotes.

[Limnor]

Excellent missionary work again, Fibber!

Recap and observations:

It seems like MG is concerned more about the appearance of having an answer than in actually answering questions. I asked what to me seemed like a fairly straightforward question: What was restored, and how does that restoration relate to what existed before?

Instead of answering, we meandered through creedal Christianity, a detour by Trinity way, and then my grasp of LDS theology. I was suddenly accused of being coy, with an air of condescension that implied I should already know the answer. The best part was my request for clarity being countered by an accusation that I myself was the one being evasive.

It really isn’t clear to me whether MG consciously intends to deceive. He may genuinely regard his approach as effective apologetics. But it feels like trickery. There’s a big difference between trying to persuade someone that your beliefs are true and trying to maneuver them into conceding something.

Just some thoughts and constructive feedback regarding how you come across, MG.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t have a lot of insight into what goes into a temple recommend, but it’s starting to sound like so long as you give them your money and recognize their leadership you can get a ticket. Oh and don’t drink that evil coffee.

Scam.

It would be an interesting exercise to sit in a temple recommend interview and say that yes you had a testimony of the Restoration, but believed that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient record, that it was a 19th Century faith promoting fiction developed by Joseph Smith and others. Would the Bishop sign off on a recommendation were that your answer?

Then again, in at least some (many nowadays?) cases, you might have Bishops that actually have some knowledge of the issues in support and against Book of Mormon historicity...and knowing the jury is still out and not a 'slam dunk' as the critics would like to have it...err on the side of leniency.

Who's to say?

I have a son that's in a Bishopric, knows the issues, etc., and I think he would err on the side of leniency if the member is able to answer the other questions in the affirmative although I haven't probed him to find out. Don't know that I will.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

The Book of Mormon could be historical. The moon could also have a center made of Jarlsberg cheese. We won’t know for sure until we examine every molecule of each. The jury is still out, and the science is unsettled!