The Mopologists Attack Daniel McClellan

[Everybody Wang Chung]

As Tom recently posted, LDS scholar, Daniel McClellan was on Mormon Stories with John Dehlin:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=157962

Mormon Stories has created a few shorts, based on Daniel McClellan's interview. This short on the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to have ruffled the Mopologists' feathers:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0l0XseFq ... ture=share

Mopologist Jacob Hansen decided to jump in and "critique" Daniel McClellan. Jacob is clearly out of his league and offers absolutely nothing of substance. He also tries to take a personal swipe at Daniel McClellan at the end of the short. If this is the best they can do, the Church is in deep trouble:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DUHKj0Uk ... ture=share

Expect many more personal attacks on Daniel McClellan from the Mopologists, since they are incapable of attacking his scholarship.

[drumdude]

Dan McClellan's interview was fantastic. Mormonism needs more members like him.

[I Have Questions]

If my memory serves me, Dan was involved in translating the Book of Mormon into various other languages. As such, he will have studied the language and contents of the book more than most. I’d say his opinion on the book’s historicity is to be taken seriously, he’s a credible person. Hence why the Mopologists need to try to undermine him - it’s their way of signalling that Dan has a point.

[TapirDangerDan]

As Tom recently posted, LDS scholar, Daniel McClellan was on Mormon Stories with John Dehlin:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=157962

Mormon Stories has created a few shorts, based on Daniel McClellan's interview. This short on the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to have ruffled the Mopologists' feathers:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0l0XseFq ... ture=share

Mopologist Jacob Hansen decided to jump in and "critique" Daniel McClellan. Jacob is clearly out of his league and offers absolutely nothing of substance. He also tries to take a personal swipe at Daniel McClellan at the end of the short. If this is the best they can do, the Church is in deep trouble:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DUHKj0Uk ... ture=share

Expect many more personal attacks on Daniel McClellan from the Mopologists, since they are incapable of attacking his scholarship.

What's the data that doesn't support The Book of Mormon? Data from Mopologists? Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists?

[Moksha]

Why did Dr. Dehlin talk with Dr. McClellan rather than Jacob Mortimer Hansen? I suspect he was looking for honesty.

[huckelberry]

As Tom recently posted, LDS scholar, Daniel McClellan was on Mormon Stories with John Dehlin:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=157962

Mormon Stories has created a few shorts, based on Daniel McClellan's interview. This short on the non-historicity of the Book of Mormon seems to have ruffled the Mopologists' feathers:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/0l0XseFq ... ture=share

Mopologist Jacob Hansen decided to jump in and "critique" Daniel McClellan. Jacob is clearly out of his league and offers absolutely nothing of substance. He also tries to take a personal swipe at Daniel McClellan at the end of the short. If this is the best they can do, the Church is in deep trouble:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/DUHKj0Uk ... ture=share

Expect many more personal attacks on Daniel McClellan from the Mopologists, since they are incapable of attacking his scholarship.

What's the data that doesn't support The Book of Mormon? Data from Mopologists? Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists?

Tapir danger, I do not understand why you would think Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists. His scope of awareness and study is much broader.

Well these shorts are so short that they communicate little. Longer presentations by Dan would be clearer.

[drumdude]

What's the data that doesn't support The Book of Mormon? Data from Mopologists? Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists?

Tapir danger, I do not understand why you would think Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists. His scope of awareness and study is much broader.

Well these shorts are so short that they communicate little. Longer presentations by Dan would be clearer.

It's the unfortunate reality of modern social media that shorts get eyeballs. Especially among younger viewers. The shorter the better, because most people are just flicking through hundreds of shorts at a time.

[TapirDangerDan]

What's the data that doesn't support The Book of Mormon? Data from Mopologists? Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists?

Tapir danger, I do not understand why you would think Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists. His scope of awareness and study is much broader.

Well these shorts are so short that they communicate little. Longer presentations by Dan would be clearer.

Because that’s what McClellan stated in the short vid presented here by you antis; he stated “apologetics.”

If that’s the best you antis can present for your unbeliefs, some short vid, then claiming a longer presentation by Dan would be clearer, that’s lame. But keep trying.

[TapirDangerDan]

Tapir danger, I do not understand why you would think Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists. His scope of awareness and study is much broader.

Well these shorts are so short that they communicate little. Longer presentations by Dan would be clearer.

It's the unfortunate reality of modern social media that shorts get eyeballs. Especially among younger viewers. The shorter the better, because most people are just flicking through hundreds of shorts at a time.

Seriously? I’m in my 60s. You’re condemning yourselves. You “intellectuals” make all these presumptions about others then claim you’re intelligent.

That fact is is that McClellan is repeating what both the Bible and The Book of Mormon state, that faith is belief in things unseen. People receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost. You all have at one time. But now you’re hung up on some historicity issue because you can’t find bones or whatever it is that you claim will provide proof.

[huckelberry]

Tapir danger, I do not understand why you would think Dan McClellan is relying on data from Mopologists.His scope of awareness and study is much broader.

Well these shorts are so short that they communicate little. Longer presentations by Dan would be clearer.

Because that’s what McClellan stated in the short vid presented here by you antis; he stated “apologetics.”

If that’s the best you antis can present for your unbeliefs, some short vid, then claiming a longer presentation by Dan would be clearer, that’s lame. But keep trying.

Tapir, why would you think Dans comments have any part in my disbelief of the Book of Mormon? His comment was a protection for his fellow members of the church.