Dan McClellan podcast has caused much concern....

[Dr. Sunstoned]

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9okeHVIFKFI

I'm pretty proud of a fellow BYU guy that's done good.

[Moksha]

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.

Dan spends a lot of time disputing unfounded claims by YouTube and TikTok quacks making hateful or boastful claims by citing misunderstood passages from the Bible to support their position of Bible unerrancy. He does not spend much time at all on LDS stuff.

Keeping LDS people honest in LDS-related claims would put him more on the level of Coffee with Kish or RFM.

[huckelberry]

Dear me Mak has been an interesting poster here. It is too bad that many of his better contributions got buried in a thread of someone else posting the entire contents of the Bible which occasionally invited discussions which have become lost due to the ridiculous size of the thread.

Mak is interesting because history is of value even to people holding a religion. Data may not prove or disprove a religion but knowledge affects how people understand religion.

[Kishkumen]

Mak is interesting because history is of value even to people holding a religion. Data may not prove or disprove a religion but knowledge affects how people understand religion.

Another excellent comment, huckelberry. You so often make me grateful you are here. Same with Moksha.

[Kishkumen]

Dan spends a lot of time disputing unfounded claims by YouTube and TikTok quacks making hateful or boastful claims by citing misunderstood passages from the Bible to support their position of Bible unerrancy. He does not spend much time at all on LDS stuff.

Keeping LDS people honest in LDS-related claims would put him more on the level of Coffee with Kish or RFM.

Thanks, Moksha. This is good to know. I don't have time to follow everything, and it is good to know that someone of Mak's high caliber is fighting the quacks.

[PseudoPaul]

"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."

On Dan's social media channels he primarily just reports out on the findings of mainstream Biblical scholarship in regards to various topics and claims by other social media channels. And it's just a fact that Biblical scholarship doesn't agree with LDS dogmas (or the dogmas of mainstream Christianity for that matter). The criticism you refer to above seems really like the typical fundamentalist's kneejerk reaction when confronted with academic Biblical scholarship.

[PseudoPaul]

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 think Dan remains a believing member. Many believing Christians are also good critical Biblical scholars. They know very well that historical criticism doesn't support faith. Their personal faith is one thing, and their scholarship is another. The rules for both are very different.

[Kishkumen]

I think Dan remains a believing member. Many believing Christians are also good critical Biblical scholars. They know very well that historical criticism doesn't support faith. Their personal faith is one thing, and their scholarship is another. The rules for both are very different.

That's cool. But, as it is presented here, and may just be a function of this place and its demographics, the critical scholarship can be treated as a magic bullet for killing the faith problem. One can suggest that without positively affirming it to similar effect.

[PseudoPaul]

I think Dan remains a believing member. Many believing Christians are also good critical Biblical scholars. They know very well that historical criticism doesn't support faith. Their personal faith is one thing, and their scholarship is another. The rules for both are very different.

That's cool. But, as it is presented here, and may just be a function of this place and its demographics, the critical scholarship can be treated as a magic bullet for killing the faith problem. One can suggest that without positively affirming it to similar effect.

Critical scholarship of the Bible never addresses faith directly. It's just that history doesn't confirm many of the traditional beliefs of Christianity.

For example, a historical critical approach to the Bible would generally invalidate the idea of the virgin birth (or even its existence as an early tradition), and the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It would invalidate the idea that Jesus went around claiming to be divine or talking about his atonement for humanity's sins.

There are lots of Christian Biblical scholars who know all this and will put out scholarship to that effect, but will still take things like the virgin birth on faith. Personal faith is different from what can be argued historically.

[Kishkumen]

Critical scholarship of the Bible never addresses faith directly. It's just that history doesn't confirm many of the traditional beliefs of Christianity.

For example, a historical critical approach to the Bible would generally invalidate the idea of the virgin birth (or even its existence as an early tradition), and the idea that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It would invalidate the idea that Jesus went around claiming to be divine or talking about his atonement for humanity's sins.

There are lots of Christian Biblical scholars who know all this and will put out scholarship to that effect, but will still take things like the virgin birth on faith. Personal faith is different from what can be argued historically.

I am aware of the purpose of the historical critical approach. What I am saying is that the folks who post here generally look at what is not affirming as disaffirming and thus faith destroying, which is generally viewed as a good thing. That is why I entered this conversation. I did not enter the conversation because I am ignorant of critical scholarship and its purpose.