...with the folks over on the other discussion board. As least one poster has stated that "it looks like Dan is on his way out" and that 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."
This is in response to Dan's statement:
The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas. And I've repeatedly responded to questions about that. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement.
It takes courage to be a lone voice in the crowd saying the emperor has no clothes. The crowd will hate you for it, until the emperor caves and admits it.
We’ve seen this with polygamy, with the racist temple ban, with LGBT issues… and I can guarantee you it will happen again with historicity.
There’s nothing to be gained by holding on to a historical Book of Mormon. We have the papyrus and know Joseph was not translating. We have the sections of the Book of Mormon that were copies of documents which didn’t exist when the book was supposedly written. We have Joseph’s wrong (so wrong it’s not even wrong) explanation of the facsimiles. All the evidence undermines the historical position. All the evidence supports the secular position.
It doesn’t matter how many chiasmus Dan Peterson finds, the book is still not ancient nor impossible to explain with a naturalistic explanation.
Once enough of the older brethren die off, the newer ones will proclaim the Book of Mormon is just a divinely inspired fiction comparable to the mythical stories of the global flood and parting of the Red Sea. Not to be taken literally.
Once enough of the older brethren die off, the newer ones will proclaim the Book of Mormon is just a divinely inspired fiction comparable to the mythical stories of the global flood and parting of the Red Sea. Not to be taken literally.
I believe this will have to happen for the church to survive. Right now, TSCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They need to move forward and disallow what Bushman calls the dominant narratives, which he says cannot be sustained. That's the rock part. The hard spot is the Boomers. That big, wealthy group who were raised and indoctrinated on these dominant narratives. If the church moves too quickly to jettison the traditional core beliefs of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, worship of Joseph Smith, and my favorite, the 6000-year-old earth, the result could be mass defection or even schisms.
...with the folks over on the other discussion board. As least one poster has stated that "it looks like Dan is on his way out" and that 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."
This is in response to Dan's statement:
The data I present on this channel almost unilaterally conflicts with and undermines LDS dogmas. And I've repeatedly responded to questions about that. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do no support an ancient origin for The Book of Mormon. I've repeatedly pointed out that the data do not support any kind of supernatural insight on the part of Joseph Smith or any other leaders of the Latter-day Saint movement.
I do enjoy Dan's podcasts, and this one has become one of my favorites.
Perhaps it is the data itself that holds the authority.
"Now to him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you blameless before the presence of his glory with great joy” Jude 1:24
“the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7 ESV
I am happy for Dan's success, but I can't help but think that the secular dogma that data can prove or disprove religion is the prevalent if not ubiquitous categorical error that feeds his success. I don't think it is a bad thing for Dan to leave the LDS Church. It is probably good, since he doesn't seem to fit in or care to fit in anyways. He belongs to another church in his heart, and he seems to be quite comfortable there. Indeed, he is enjoying a good deal of success there. And, I think that's great for him.
I am happy for Dan's success, but I can't help but think that the secular dogma that data can prove or disprove religion is the prevalent if not ubiquitous categorical error that feeds his success. I don't think it is a bad thing for Dan to leave the LDS Church. It is probably good, since he doesn't seem to fit in or care to fit in anyways. He belongs to another church in his heart, and he seems to be quite comfortable there. Indeed, he is enjoying a good deal of success there. And, I think that's great for him.
I don't think Dan is trying to prove or disprove religion. If anything, he is trying to disprove scurrilous claims by citing accurate Biblical scholarship.
Do disproving scurrilous claims make him an enemy of the LDS Church?
I don't think Dan is trying to prove or disprove religion. If anything, he is trying to disprove scurrilous claims by citing accurate Biblical scholarship.
Do disproving scurrilous claims make him an enemy of the LDS Church?
My take away from what you say is that I need to watch Dan before I comment. True. I was just going by comments here. I need some context for what a spurious claim is. If the problem is that LDS interpretations of the Bible don’t square with the original intentions of the authors, that doesn’t bother me any more than the New Testament writers creatively interpreting the Hebrew Bible.
Do disproving scurrilous claims make him an enemy of the LDS Church?
Maybe not an enemy, but critical Bible scholars are not seen as friends.
Seems like the ones who would object the most are apologists. I think many Mormons would be proud that Dr. McClellan is a world-class Biblical scholar.
