DiscussMormonism.com

malkie wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:07 am

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:27 am

You are mistaken. Dan has stated several times he doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. He has a very nuanced view of the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Most recently (responding to the 11th comment):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHgmL0kZBM

Of course, there are two schools of thought on this (I'm waiting for Kish to declare himself before I venture to do so ):

• those who - along with Mak - consider data to be plural
• those who consider data to be singular

Yeah well…whatever. I know I saw datum in the diction’ry

malkie wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 2:07 am

[*]those who - along with Mak - consider data to be plural

It’s the modern version of the Mormon pride cycle.


Mormon wants to defend his faith.
Mormon does more research to find the answers.
Mormon finds the answers don’t support Mormonism.
Mormon tries to nuance the problems to fix them.
Mormon strays from orthodoxy enough to get attention of TBMs.
Mormon called in for disciplinary council, or bishop drops callings.
Mormon ex-communicated or leaves or becomes “NOM” or “PIMO”

dastardly stem wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:08 pm

Shinzoa wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:49 pm

Because unlike the Bible the Book of Mormon and it's historicity is a pretty fundamental part of the Mormon faith which he believes in so while he can accept the fact/fiction of Bible stories without it affecting his faith to do so with the Book of Mormon would very heavily disprove the truth claims of the Mormon faith.

I'd say that's trying too hard to back someone into a corner. One can personally claim many stories lack historicity from the Book of Mormon and still think the religion is true in whatever sense they do. In fact, I'd think one could manage to think the whole of the Book of Mormon lacks historicity and still maintain the religion is true in a general sense. I know 'cause that was the path I intended some years back. It takes some serious effort to exhaust the level of nuance in one's faith, as they say, but it could be done.

I have to respectfully disagree as I think it's just consistently applying both standards to both the historicity of the Bible and the Book of Mormon and what this means for faith claims based on them. I also disagree that with the lack of historicity of the Book of Mormon you can still believe the religion is true as it's pretty clear from history Jospeh Smith clearly taught that it was a historical record so it not being historical destroys it's truth claims just like errors in evangelicals historical claims about what the Bible teaches destroys their truth claims

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Tue Jan 31, 2023 12:27 am

Shinzoa wrote: ↑

Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:28 pm

Unless I am mistaken I don't think Dan has ever said he doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

You are mistaken. Dan has stated several times he doesn't believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. He has a very nuanced view of the Book of Mormon as scripture.

Most recently (responding to the 11th comment):

Dan McClellan
1 month ago
I've talked many times before about how the data don't support the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RHgmL0kZBM

Can you please provide those several times he has stated it. In relation to his comment in the link he just says the data support it's historicity not that he himself believes it's not historical

I wonder: when will Stephen Smoot create a blog to attack Dan McClellan, with Dan Peterson backing him up? Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders still treat the Book of Mormon as a legitimate history. And yet here is McClellan, saying it’s *not* historical? And doesn’t he have somewhere in the neighborhood of *one MILLION* followers? How is he not more of a threat than the Heartlanders?

Shinzoa wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:30 am

Can you please provide those several times he has stated it. In relation to his comment in the link he just says the data support it's historicity not that he himself believes it's not historical

Shinzoa,

Dan does not say, "the data support it's historicity." I'm not sure where you are getting that information from.

Dan is saying the exact opposite. Here is Dan's quote again:

"I've talked many times before about how the data don't support the historicity of the Book of Mormon."

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:42 am

I wonder: when will Stephen Smoot create a blog to attack Dan McClellan, with Dan Peterson backing him up? Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders still treat the Book of Mormon as a legitimate history. And yet here is McClellan, saying it’s *not* historical? And doesn’t he have somewhere in the neighborhood of *one MILLION* followers? How is he not more of a threat than the Heartlanders?

Excellent point, Dr. Scratch. Dan McClellan has the biggest following of any Mormon that I know of. Nelson and the 12 don't even come close to the number of followers that Dan McClellan has.

I wonder what the response from the mopologists will be.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:48 am

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:42 am

I wonder: when will Stephen Smoot create a blog to attack Dan McClellan, with Dan Peterson backing him up? Jonathan Neville and the Heartlanders still treat the Book of Mormon as a legitimate history. And yet here is McClellan, saying it’s *not* historical? And doesn’t he have somewhere in the neighborhood of *one MILLION* followers? How is he not more of a threat than the Heartlanders?

Excellent point, Dr. Scratch. Dan McClellan has the biggest following of any Mormon that I know of. Nelson and the 12 don't even come close to the number of followers that Dan McClellan has.

I wonder what the response from the mopologists will be.

I predict that they will ignore him. They are no doubt afraid of his credentials (an Oxford grad tearing down the history of the Book of Mormon?), and they are probably terrified that their fan base might actually read his stuff. It may be that they are clinging to the hope that that 1 million number is mainly non-LDS.

But his assertion is an absolutely devastating assault on one of the Mopogists’ foundational claims, and it is coming from someone they once described as a “star student.” I imagine this will wind up becoming David Bokovoy 2.0, and it actually may be way, way worse than that.

Everybody Wang Chung wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 09, 2023 1:48 am

I wonder what the response from the mopologists will be.

That will be hard to determine if they choose to write it in parseltongue.