I don't think I was looking for a particular video/response. I just wanted to see if anyone remembered bringing him up and asking me for my thoughts. I cannot remember if the conversation I had was about him or someone else, or even if was here at GSC or some other site.
I understand how you might remember him as being "refreshingly honest about his approach to the evidence he has." His premise concerning the study of the bible is "data over dogma." McClellan thinks it's normal that there should be actual contradictions in the bible and the problem with accepting this is because so many Christians are stuck on the mistaken concept of "univocality." This minute-long video is about his viewpoint on the book of Mormon. It's noteworthy since according to his "About Me" web page, he "worked as a scripture translation supervisor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City from 2013–2023 and have occasionally taught courses at Brigham Young University as an adjunct instructor."
On one of McClellan's podcast called "The Genesis of Genesis" with David Carr, they talk about the creation story in Genesis 2 being written before the one in Genesis 1. Each one was composed by a separate group of people (non-priestly and priestly respectively) who had their own perception of God. Possible explanation(s) for why both stories ended up being in the bible instead of one winning over the other is also given.
Trying to remember if someone tried to turn me on to these videos some time ago.
Last May I reference him once on Charity’s Deconconversiob thread. The comment got no traction then, but maybe you saw it and this is what you are now trying to remember.
Last May I reference him once on Charity’s Deconconversiob thread. The comment got no traction then, but maybe you saw it and this is what you are now trying to remember.
It didn't get traction at the time, but the seed was planted in Raf's mind - thank you for that.
I'm curious to know more about McClellan's faith as a believer given his scholarly positions on parts of the Old Testament. I'm searching now for some videos he's done on the New Testament.
It didn't get traction at the time, but the seed was planted in Raf's mind - thank you for that.
I'm curious to know more about McClellan's faith as a believer given his scholarly positions on parts of the Old Testament. I'm searching now for some videos he's done on the New Testament.
Well, he claims to be Mormon. Pretty easy to find out about that.
i've never seen him expand on his personal theology. I think he intentionally avoids it, at least on IG and YT. He usually presents scholarly consensus and sometimes points to alternative perspectives outside the consensus. He seems to be a serious student of Hebrew, it's all very academic. I agree with Raf that he is fair and even-handed. I don't think what he presents is controversial or radical.
Trying to remember if someone tried to turn me on to these videos some time ago.
This guy has been popping up on my Facebook feed A LOT as a scholar of the Bible and religion.
He comes from a Mormon background, which initially made me suspicious, but he seems to be refreshingly honest about his approach to the evidence he has.
Anyone have thoughts?
Yes! Thank you thank you thank you for bringing up some of his research. He's good... and he may be a Preterist. He handles the Book of Revelation as it should have been handled all along... a piece about the First Century ONLY. In this video, he shows the folly of a futurist preacher misinterpreting scripture. Enjoy:
Yes! Thank you thank you thank you for bringing up some of his research. He's good... and he may be a Preterist. He handles the Book of Revelation as it should have been handled all along... a piece about the First Century ONLY. In this video, he shows the folly of a futurist preacher misinterpreting scripture. Enjoy:
He gives a lot of info/data in this video and from the others that I've watched so far - it's all new to my ears and a lot to consider. I very much appreciate his response to people who see the suffering going on in the world today as joyful signs of the imminent rapture of the church (@ the 6:30 point).
Below is a quote from the article linked below where McClellan is responding to a book written by Sam Harris titled "The End of Faith." Although I sincerely wonder whether I fit in with those McClellan speaks of in his two last sentences, he does seem to be saying that criticizing fundamentalist dogma (which is based on the inerrant accuracy of the bible) is making "much ado about nothing" since the concept itself is erroneous/illogical and therefore should not have to necessarily cause the end of someone's faith.
"The irony of Harris’ claim is that he has to adopt a fundamentalist dogma in order to serve his own ideology (“Religion bad!”). This is a habit with a long and storied history in ideological bickering. It’s a lot easier to criticize religious traditions if you adopt the fragile and brittle worldviews of the most fundamentalist and uncritical groups within that tradition. Then the more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives can be dismissed before they complicate your arguments and make you think too hard. This is a tactic employed frequently by apologists of all kinds, including, evidently, the dogmatic and belligerent apologists from the New Atheist movement. Dogmas, whether religious or anti-religious, are a lot easier to proliferate when they’re black and white and reducible to small conceptual chunks that are easily digestible for young white males in trilbies who are infatuated with the transcendence of their own genius."
Since McClellan believes the bible has no inherent authority or inherent meaning and that it is thoroughly inconsistent, what matters are the "more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives" concerning it. I'm assuming that through these perspectives, one is able to still believe in God and have a subjective, but authentic, relationship with him and Jesus Christ.
This appears to be similar to perspectives shared by some posters on this forum. I still don't get the practical application of this, but I am continuing to find out more about McClellan's scholarly viewpoints on a variety of topics.
It's funny. I found the "New Atheists" helpful at the beginning of my deconversion, but I find my patience for them wearing thin as time goes on.
Some of their arguments are still quite useful, but I honestly care about them so little as people that it bores me when people bring them up as spokeswhatevers for atheism.
I gather from listening to Sam Harris's pod that he, too, has grown weary of the topics of religion and atheism. I was reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens before his God Is Not Great book, since before he moved right of center politically. So much of the so-called "New Atheist" movement was a reaction to 9/11, which was an act of terror in the name of god. A reaction with which I can sympathize.
I don't believe good dogma is the answer to bad dogma, or right ideology fixes wrong ideology. Dogmatism and ideology themselves are inherently problematic. There is simply too much subtlety and nuance and complexity in this life. To see this requires being able to see. Ideology and dogmatism cloud the required vision. IMHO.
Trying to remember if someone tried to turn me on to these videos some time ago.
This guy has been popping up on my Facebook feed A LOT as a scholar of the Bible and religion.
He comes from a Mormon background, which initially made me suspicious, but he seems to be refreshingly honest about his approach to the evidence he has.
Anyone have thoughts?
He has shown up on my FB feed too. The few times I’ve watched his videos he seems to be knowledgeable and honest, but I haven’t checked them out for accuracy.
Not surprising at all. Dan’s is not a political platform. As far as I can tell, he has NEVER mixed politics and biblical studies. The content of this video is so apolitical, it’s not even fair to describe it that way.
Here it is. It should be good for discussion. Censor me if you like, but I think Dan’s evisceration of Charlie’s claims would find purchase here.
There's another one where Charlie gets political and Dan tears him apart there too. Dan does occasionally criticize Charlie and others for using the Bible to advance political agendas. THOSE videos should not be posted here. The one you chose is perfectly fine.
Recommended Posts
Charity
The name is new to me. I've picked one of his podcasts to watch (Episode 6 of the Data Over Dogma Podcast, “God Breathed?”).
Any specific evidence you'd like to bring up here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
BTW, here's McClellan's website:
Daniel McClellan
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think I was looking for a particular video/response. I just wanted to see if anyone remembered bringing him up and asking me for my thoughts. I cannot remember if the conversation I had was about him or someone else, or even if was here at GSC or some other site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I understand how you might remember him as being "refreshingly honest about his approach to the evidence he has." His premise concerning the study of the bible is "data over dogma." McClellan thinks it's normal that there should be actual contradictions in the bible and the problem with accepting this is because so many Christians are stuck on the mistaken concept of "univocality." This minute-long video is about his viewpoint on the book of Mormon. It's noteworthy since according to his "About Me" web page, he "worked as a scripture translation supervisor for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City from 2013–2023 and have occasionally taught courses at Brigham Young University as an adjunct instructor."
Is the Book of Mormon historical? - Dan McClellan
On one of McClellan's podcast called "The Genesis of Genesis" with David Carr, they talk about the creation story in Genesis 2 being written before the one in Genesis 1. Each one was composed by a separate group of people (non-priestly and priestly respectively) who had their own perception of God. Possible explanation(s) for why both stories ended up being in the bible instead of one winning over the other is also given.
Thanks for bringing up his name Raf.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Last May I reference him once on Charity’s Deconconversiob thread. The comment got no traction then, but maybe you saw it and this is what you are now trying to remember.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
It didn't get traction at the time, but the seed was planted in Raf's mind - thank you for that.
I'm curious to know more about McClellan's faith as a believer given his scholarly positions on parts of the Old Testament. I'm searching now for some videos he's done on the New Testament.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Well, he claims to be Mormon. Pretty easy to find out about that.
i've never seen him expand on his personal theology. I think he intentionally avoids it, at least on IG and YT. He usually presents scholarly consensus and sometimes points to alternative perspectives outside the consensus. He seems to be a serious student of Hebrew, it's all very academic. I agree with Raf that he is fair and even-handed. I don't think what he presents is controversial or radical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Yes! Thank you thank you thank you for bringing up some of his research. He's good... and he may be a Preterist. He handles the Book of Revelation as it should have been handled all along... a piece about the First Century ONLY. In this video, he shows the folly of a futurist preacher misinterpreting scripture. Enjoy:
Does the Bible prophesy about the Israel/Hamas war?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
He gives a lot of info/data in this video and from the others that I've watched so far - it's all new to my ears and a lot to consider. I very much appreciate his response to people who see the suffering going on in the world today as joyful signs of the imminent rapture of the church (@ the 6:30 point).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
My "test" link I just posted didn't work so I've edited out the whole post.
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Below is a quote from the article linked below where McClellan is responding to a book written by Sam Harris titled "The End of Faith." Although I sincerely wonder whether I fit in with those McClellan speaks of in his two last sentences, he does seem to be saying that criticizing fundamentalist dogma (which is based on the inerrant accuracy of the bible) is making "much ado about nothing" since the concept itself is erroneous/illogical and therefore should not have to necessarily cause the end of someone's faith.
"The irony of Harris’ claim is that he has to adopt a fundamentalist dogma in order to serve his own ideology (“Religion bad!”). This is a habit with a long and storied history in ideological bickering. It’s a lot easier to criticize religious traditions if you adopt the fragile and brittle worldviews of the most fundamentalist and uncritical groups within that tradition. Then the more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives can be dismissed before they complicate your arguments and make you think too hard. This is a tactic employed frequently by apologists of all kinds, including, evidently, the dogmatic and belligerent apologists from the New Atheist movement. Dogmas, whether religious or anti-religious, are a lot easier to proliferate when they’re black and white and reducible to small conceptual chunks that are easily digestible for young white males in trilbies who are infatuated with the transcendence of their own genius."
Since McClellan believes the bible has no inherent authority or inherent meaning and that it is thoroughly inconsistent, what matters are the "more reasonable and informed and complex perspectives" concerning it. I'm assuming that through these perspectives, one is able to still believe in God and have a subjective, but authentic, relationship with him and Jesus Christ.
This appears to be similar to perspectives shared by some posters on this forum. I still don't get the practical application of this, but I am continuing to find out more about McClellan's scholarly viewpoints on a variety of topics.
On the Myth of Scriptural Literalism
Edited by CharityLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's funny. I found the "New Atheists" helpful at the beginning of my deconversion, but I find my patience for them wearing thin as time goes on.
Some of their arguments are still quite useful, but I honestly care about them so little as people that it bores me when people bring them up as spokeswhatevers for atheism.
More later.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I gather from listening to Sam Harris's pod that he, too, has grown weary of the topics of religion and atheism. I was reading and listening to Christopher Hitchens before his God Is Not Great book, since before he moved right of center politically. So much of the so-called "New Atheist" movement was a reaction to 9/11, which was an act of terror in the name of god. A reaction with which I can sympathize.
I don't believe good dogma is the answer to bad dogma, or right ideology fixes wrong ideology. Dogmatism and ideology themselves are inherently problematic. There is simply too much subtlety and nuance and complexity in this life. To see this requires being able to see. Ideology and dogmatism cloud the required vision. IMHO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
He doesn't answer how he believes but points out the biblical variables... he's got me thinking... which is good...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
He has shown up on my FB feed too. The few times I’ve watched his videos he seems to be knowledgeable and honest, but I haven’t checked them out for accuracy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/19qaL59UTC/
Trying to find the non-facebook version of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Thanks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There was a really cool video where he responds to Charlie Kirk and embarrasses the hell out of him.'
And it is surprisingly apolitical.
But I figured I'd err on the safe side and post a different one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I haven't vetted this video, but lest this become a Dan McClellan Admiration Society...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok that turned out to defend him a little more than i expected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Not surprising at all. Dan’s is not a political platform. As far as I can tell, he has NEVER mixed politics and biblical studies. The content of this video is so apolitical, it’s not even fair to describe it that way.
Here it is. It should be good for discussion. Censor me if you like, but I think Dan’s evisceration of Charlie’s claims would find purchase here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There's another one where Charlie gets political and Dan tears him apart there too. Dan does occasionally criticize Charlie and others for using the Bible to advance political agendas. THOSE videos should not be posted here. The one you chose is perfectly fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.