I think more than a “naughty list,” McClellan is on a “puzzling list.” I find it puzzling that he would grant authority, time, and money (acknowledging Gad’s comment: So you pay 10% of your income to a prophet who only knows something is wrong after everyone else stops doing it?) to an organization whose claims to divine authority rest on historical events he regards as having no basis in historical fact.
I don’t know Dan’s personal position with regards to tithing etc. but I agree that I don’t know how a person can tread both paths - that the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be, but the Church is. It makes no sense to me and I couldn’t rationalise those two things in an intellectually honest way. Maybe Dan can.
Breadth and depth.
I think that's one of the reasons the church, years ago, had the foresight to put out the volumes of information contained in the Joseph Smith Papers.
I would guess you have it bookmarked in your browser and refer to it now and then. Right?
I think more than a “naughty list,” McClellan is on a “puzzling list.” I find it puzzling that he would grant authority, time, and money (acknowledging Gad’s comment: So you pay 10% of your income to a prophet who only knows something is wrong after everyone else stops doing it?) to an organization whose claims to divine authority rest on historical events he regards as having no basis in historical fact.
I don’t know Dan’s personal position with regards to tithing etc. but I agree that I don’t know how a person can tread both paths - that the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be, but the Church is. It makes no sense to me and I couldn’t rationalise those two things in an intellectually honest way. Maybe Dan can.
When Dan said the church is his "cultural tribe," he isn't making a truth claim, he’s making an anthropological one. He clearly doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is a literal ancient text, rather he’s treating the church the way people treat an ethnic heritage or a family tradition.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
I don’t know Dan’s personal position with regards to tithing etc. but I agree that I don’t know how a person can tread both paths - that the Book of Mormon isn’t what it claims to be, but the Church is. It makes no sense to me and I couldn’t rationalise those two things in an intellectually honest way. Maybe Dan can.
When Dan said the church is his "cultural tribe," he isn't making a truth claim, he’s making an anthropological one. He clearly doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is a literal ancient text, rather he’s treating the church the way people treat an ethnic heritage or a family tradition.
Everybody. I hope I am not misremembering but I recall Dan as a convert. His speech indicates, I think, a displeasure and rejection of some elements of Christian Orthodoxy. (Theories of monotheism and trinity to start.) LDS offers a restart and new approaches.
I have not heard, though he has said more than I have heard, that he does not believe the Book of Mormon is historical. I have only heard him warn apologists that at this time the data does not support it. In discussing 19th century language he wanted to clarify the meaning of use at that time not determine the language of ultimate source.
When Dan said the church is his "cultural tribe," he isn't making a truth claim, he’s making an anthropological one. He clearly doesn’t believe the Book of Mormon is a literal ancient text, rather he’s treating the church the way people treat an ethnic heritage or a family tradition.
Everybody. I hope I am not misremembering but I recall Dan as a convert. His speech indicates, I think, a displeasure and rejection of some elements of Christian Orthodoxy. (Theories of monotheism and trinity to start.) LDS offers a restart and new approaches.
I have not heard, though he has said more than I have heard, that he does not believe the Book of Mormon is historical. I have only heard him warn apologists that at this time the data does not support it. In discussing 19th century language he wanted to clarify the meaning of use at that time not determine the language of ultimate source.
Huck, here’s a lightning-fast, one-minute summary of Dan’s airtight case for the historical Book of Mormon:
Everybody. I hope I am not misremembering but I recall Dan as a convert. His speech indicates, I think, a displeasure and rejection of some elements of Christian Orthodoxy. (Theories of monotheism and trinity to start.) LDS offers a restart and new approaches.
I have not heard, though he has said more than I have heard, that he does not believe the Book of Mormon is historical. I have only heard him warn apologists that at this time the data does not support it. In discussing 19th century language he wanted to clarify the meaning of use at that time not determine the language of ultimate source.
Huck, here’s a lightning-fast, one-minute summary of Dan’s airtight case for the historical Book of Mormon:
Everybody, that is a clip I am familiar with and was thinking of. I can see how it might be heard as stating he does not believe in a historical Book of Mormon. I would not be at all surprised if he doesn't. I think he is playing his cards very close to his chest. He stated in his work he does not allow faith to influence how he sees and analyzes data. He wants to present data as clearly as possible.
Everybody, that is a clip I am familiar with and was thinking of. I can see how it might be heard as stating he does not believe in a historical Book of Mormon. I would not be at all surprised if he doesn't. I think he is playing his cards very close to his chest. He stated in his work he does not allow faith to influence how he sees and analyzes data. He wants to present data as clearly as possible.
I can respect his position there.
Agreed.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Everybody, that is a clip I am familiar with and was thinking of. I can see how it might be heard as stating he does not believe in a historical Book of Mormon. I would not be at all surprised if he doesn't. I think he is playing his cards very close to his chest. He stated in his work he does not allow faith to influence how he sees and analyzes data. He wants to present data as clearly as possible.
I can respect his position there.
He remains ambiguous about how his data analysis and what he sees therein influences his faith. Saying that the evidence shows the Book of Mormon is not 100% what it claims to be, and is instead of 19th original, but also having the faith that it is “true”, seems to me to be a dishonest position. I’m not saying that’s where Dan sits. But I am saying that a person who holds two mutually exclusive opinions like that is being intellectually dishonest. I can’t respect that.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
Everybody, that is a clip I am familiar with and was thinking of. I can see how it might be heard as stating he does not believe in a historical Book of Mormon. I would not be at all surprised if he doesn't. I think he is playing his cards very close to his chest. He stated in his work he does not allow faith to influence how he sees and analyzes data. He wants to present data as clearly as possible.
I can respect his position there.
He remains ambiguous about how his data analysis and what he sees therein influences his faith. Saying that the evidence shows the Book of Mormon is not 100% what it claims to be, and is instead of 19th original, but also having the faith that it is “true”, seems to me to be a dishonest position. I’m not saying that’s where Dan sits. But I am saying that a person who holds two mutually exclusive opinions like that is being intellectually dishonest. I can’t respect that.
Ultimately, his views and his faith are between him and God.
I have been listening to his Rogan interview. So far pretty banal, and stuff he has already covered. That's not a criticism. Atheists are disowning him from their "tribe" because he pays tithing which is humorous as if atheists on the internet own the group - CHORTLE! Other than that, Dan is doing San as best he can.
I have been listening to his Rogan interview. So far pretty banal, and stuff he has already covered. That's not a criticism. Atheists are disowning him from their "tribe" because he pays tithing which is humorous as if atheists on the internet own the group - CHORTLE! Other than that, Dan is doing San as best he can.
Not sure if you saw this earlier in the thread but I posted a link to a recent interview with Dan McClellan on the Inside Out podcast:
