Dan McClellan On The Joe Rogan Show

[MG 2.0]

QED

Indeed.

Best wishes.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

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.

That's how the leaders want you to believe all right....

I have not followed everything Dan has said but have followed a bunch. I have not heard him say that he does not think the Book of Mormon is historical. I have heard him say a few times that the data does not support the book as history. He then has added faith can go beyond data, hope can go beyond what is demonstrated (referencing that line in Hebrews).

I do not know what he thinks on that, he has declined to say. I imagine he may see it as something uncertain but hoped for.

[I Have Questions]

That's how the leaders want you to believe all right....

I have not followed everything Dan has said but have followed a bunch. I have not heard him say that he does not think the Book of Mormon is historical. I have heard him say a few times that the data does not support the book as history. He then has added faith can go beyond data, hope can go beyond what is demonstrated (referencing that line in Hebrews).

I do not know what he thinks on that, he has declined to say. I imagine he may see it as something uncertain but hoped for.

Yes, on the face of it Dan does seem to be trying to have a foot in both camps. He’s acknowledging that the evidence for it being of 19th century origin is strong, whilst also acknowledging that there’s room for people believing it’s of ancient origin despite the evidence. That’s intellectually inconsistent. But as you say, he’s not really articulating his own position. He’s sort of arguing for “belief despite evidence” which is fine when there aren’t in real life consequences. What I mean is, believing in the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins despite the evidence showing it isn’t ancient, is different to a wall street trader throwing good money after bad to try and rescue a losing position in the hopes the stock will come good despite the evidence that it’s bombing.

[MG 2.0]

Yes, on the face of it Dan does seem to be trying to have a foot in both camps.

For the reasons he’s given that may be perfectly reasonable…and honest. You’re a bit more diehard and dogmatically certain than he is. Jury’s still out.

And no, I’m not going to be led into “show me” trap. You can look at the online sources and read the books for yourself. Have you?

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I have not followed everything Dan has said but have followed a bunch. I have not heard him say that he does not think the Book of Mormon is historical. I have heard him say a few times that the data does not support the book as history. He then has added faith can go beyond data, hope can go beyond what is demonstrated (referencing that line in Hebrews).

I do not know what he thinks on that, he has declined to say. I imagine he may see it as something uncertain but hoped for.

Yes, on the face of it Dan does seem to be trying to have a foot in both camps. He’s acknowledging that the evidence for it being of 19th century origin is strong, whilst also acknowledging that there’s room for people believing it’s of ancient origin despite the evidence. That’s intellectually inconsistent. But as you say, he’s not really articulating his own position. He’s sort of arguing for “belief despite evidence” which is fine when there aren’t in real life consequences. What I mean is, believing in the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins despite the evidence showing it isn’t ancient, is different to a wall street trader throwing good money after bad to try and rescue a losing position in the hopes the stock will come good despite the evidence that it’s bombing.

That's a good point. I see the "arguing for 'belief despite evidence' " to be his acknowledgement that people actually do this and that it's not really relevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. He's absolutely correct in that. In no academic analysis would you find someone arguing that non-factually based beliefs should be considered as a factor in an evaluation of a fact-based assessment of something.

It would be like saying that the fact that there are many, many 9/11 conspiracy theory believers means conspiracy theories are fact-based. That's not rational.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for 'appeal to the people')[1] is an informal fallacy that asserts a claim is true, good, or correct because many people allegedly think so.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

[MG 2.0]

It would be like saying that the fact that there are many, many 9/11 conspiracy theory believers means conspiracy theories are fact-based. That's not rational.

For many religious believers historical data is viewed through a lens of meaning, covenant, heart, and personal spiritual experience rather than or exclusively as a strict laboratory hypothesis to be proven or disproven by secular standards such as the investigations of the 9/11 'conspiracy'.

In that sense, I suppose you're right in saying that religious belief is not always rational.

For Book of Mormon believers there are reasons 'between the covers' to take an approach which includes meaning, covenant, heart, and spiritual experience while at the same time accepting that secular learning may not line up in all aspects. At the same time, we see things such as stylometry, Hebraisms, Old World connections, complexity, etc., as being 'interesting' as we also accept the anomalies that stand out if one only looks at the translation of the book as being purely physical/earthly based.

You are right. If one depends exclusively on rational reasons to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon you may come away empty and/or doubtful of its provenance.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

It would be like saying that the fact that there are many, many 9/11 conspiracy theory believers means conspiracy theories are fact-based. That's not rational.

For many religious believers historical data is viewed through a lens of meaning, covenant, heart, and personal spiritual experience rather than or exclusively as a strict laboratory hypothesis to be proven or disproven by secular standards such as the investigations of the 9/11 'conspiracy'...

Did you read the post you are responding to? Your paragraph above mangles every concept discussed.

First, no 'secular standards' re investigations of 9/11 conspiracy were mentioned, the argument was that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Second, I noted that McClellan acknowledges that religious people may not use evidence like he does. My point was that he seems to consider that irrelevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. Your rehashing is pointless.

And last, you know that partial quotes should have ellipses due to the possibility of misreading a commenter's intent and yet you continue to do it, AND follow up with misreading intent. It's just another of your trolling mechanisms. It's become so obvious however that all you are accomplishing is reminding readers you are here to disrupt. But please, render forth another teeth-gnashing explanation of how you forgot.

[MG 2.0]

For many religious believers historical data is viewed through a lens of meaning, covenant, heart, and personal spiritual experience rather than or exclusively as a strict laboratory hypothesis to be proven or disproven by secular standards such as the investigations of the 9/11 'conspiracy'...

Did you read the post you are responding to? Your paragraph above mangles every concept discussed.

First, no 'secular standards' re investigations of 9/11 conspiracy were mentioned, the argument was that argumentum ad populum is a fallacy.

Second, I noted that McClellan acknowledges that religious people may not use evidence like he does. My point was that he seems to consider that irrelevant to his evidence and fact-based discussion about Book of Mormon historicity. Your rehashing is pointless.

And last, you know that partial quotes should have ellipses due to the possibility of misreading a commenter's intent and yet you continue to do it, AND follow up with misreading intent. It's just another of your trolling mechanisms. It's become so obvious however that all you are accomplishing is reminding readers you are here to disrupt. But please, render forth another teeth-gnashing explanation of how you forgot.

Alright, I tried to have a conversation with you. I will again on another thread and see how it goes. But no further on this thread. As I've mentioned to one or two others...I'm not playing that game anymore. You'll have to go solo and/or play with your tag team.

Communication is a two way street. Your conversational style doesn't lend itself to that goal. And it saves time for me having to feed into or deflect your gamesmanship efforts. It can get tiring!

Have a nice day!

Your friend,
MG

[Marcus]

QED.

[Limnor]

Did you read the post you are responding to? Your paragraph above mangles every concept discussed.

It looks like he is getting better at AI prompting. “Answer the question I wish they'd asked, not the one they actually asked.”