That guy is a “reluctant academic?” What in the world does he think the qualifications are to be an academic? Being a car-theist is not an academic qualification.
It would be interesting to know which degrees this chap holds and where he earned them. That is, which particular fundamentalist dogma does HE subscribe to?
@@Alex_Mitchelldegrees? Who needs degrees? Where I live there’s an abundance of “prophets” who consider their own dogmas to be way more accurate and authoritative than any actual scholarly work. We don’t need all that fancy book learning!
@@jlcl96he once did a Mic drop moment after pointing out Jesus didn't return before his followers died as he apparently said he would. I didn't expect that. He was annoyed.
I don't think most nevermos can appreciate just how bold this video is from Dan. I'm actually low key concerned that this one could land him in some ecclesiastical hot waters. But I appreciate the hell out of the frankness and directness of his points here. Kudos, Dan! This one is a banger! And the fit for this comment is my Gremlins hoodie.
@@perryekimae Why? Nothing Dan has said in this video, or any other video of his I have seen, contradicts any official stances of the LDS church. While individual Mormons might claim otherwise, the church itself does not claim that the data supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Their claim is about spiritual evidence, not empirical data. No contradiction with Dan at all. In interviews on other channels he has talked about having discussions with GAs when he was employed at the church office building. What exactly did Dan say you think is so dangerous?
You should instead ask yourself what sort of pathology would cause a man who believes Smith's BOM was not delivered to Smith as Smith claims it was to practice Smith's religion. From a scholarly perspective it is the opposite of commendable.
@termsofusepolice The scholarly perspective has nothing to say about it. From the perspective of actually wanting to engage with Mormons and have productive conversations with them, I'm glad Dan's in their camp.
@termsofusepolice I don't know what Dan actually believes, but he did not say that he does not believe the Book of Mormon was divinely delivered. He said that the objective data do not support that claim. If you already accept the necessity of faith in Christian belief, that's not a problem.
@@LoganKearsleyI think the problem is for me, as someone who is very existentialist in their faith and naturally skeptical, If I can't explain a problem in faith, and it cannot be left to mystery, meaning there is data disproving a point of view that my faith system hinges on, (ie. Presuppositions from creeds and what not), then it's like, why even bother being involved in the faith? It's clearly false and not worth engaging in. Granted, I know religion can be used as a vehicle for social change, but that isn't really the greatest thing it's known for, it's Got a bad history of doing the opposite too.
@@robertmoore2049 I’m glad someone else commented on that, because I was just listening (not watching) to that section and wasn’t sure if it was my imagination or not.
Not that I want to defend the pastor (he certainly says nothing worth defending) but this is a perfectly reasonable way for an English speaker to make what might grammatically appear to be singular into a plural. Most people without a tertiary education probably would not realise that data is the plural of datum. Let's not let elitist attitudes towards education get in the way of criticising this guy's utterly dogwater substantive arguments.
Step 1. Identify your enemy. Step 2. Characterise them as evil, ignorant, dishonest, or any combination of all three. Step 3. Attack the mis-characterisation, never the facts. Step 4. Never allow your side to question your motives. Repeat Step 2 _ad infinitum_ Step 5. Congratulations, you are now a man of god. You may produce the collection plate.
@@Grauenwolf yeah I know that. But it is possible there is a difference between a religious group of people and one person in the comments of TH-cam I reacted to. That's why I asked. 😉
I am a Christian Biblical Scholar. The "univocality" of the Bible is as easy to disprove as the "inerrancy" of the Bible. First, there are four gospels, three of which are the Synoptics, and there are glaring disagreements between those three authors, not to mention the clearly different timeline of Jesus's ministry found in John's Gospel. The Gospels are not univocal, the Bible is not univocal. Even if you want to say that the Scriptures should be interpreted consistantly, there are still problems. For example, Jude seems to register works like the Book of Enoch and the Ascension of Moses as "canonical" sources especially in Jude 9. Paul, on the other hand, seems to be very dismissive of those same sources in his letters. The author of Hebrews also seems to value extra-canonical works that were rejected by Paul. Then there is the fact that Paul values some Greek thoughts in a way that Jesus never considers. The Bible is a collection of many different voices speaking to and about many different time periods and addressing many different audiences and circumstances. The fact that a coherent message can be read through the sixty-six books (yes, I am Protestant) is almost a miracle in itself. Taking the Bible as an authority is a matter of faith, just like everything else in the Christian religion. Dr. McClellen is sharing the scholarly consensus which is reached via the debate of scholars from all over the world arguing over the text from different backgrounds, not all of them religious, and using various methods. He is a good scholar. I presume that he is a good Mormon, but I am not in a position to consider that, being neither a Mormon nor an actual acquaintance of Dr. McClellen.
I am not a scholar but an amateur researcher. It's not a black and white question. There are differentces but there are also general themes that exist in all the books. Eary Christians had no problem taking material from non canonical sources if they were used in a way that ally with their message like Jude using Enoch. I don't know about Dan's faith but I find his catering on atheist suspect. They are the reason why he has over 70K subs and buys his merch.
@@lightatthecape2009 Indeed they have. If you want to create an atheist, put a bright thirteen-year-old in a Southern Baptist pew with her own copy of the KJV. A voracious reader can knock out Genesis and the New Testament before she turns fourteen, and it's obvious that whatever else this literature might be, "inerrant" it ain't.
I've got to hand it to Dan, here. And I can understand why he doesn't talk about his personal beliefs on social media. His purpose of this channel as he's stated is to grant access to scholarly research and data on the bible, wherever that leads. He's stated on a few videos that while he represents the scholarly consensus on his channel, he sometimes has argued against the consensus academically (though not on the channel, because the channel is providing access to the current scholarly consensus). This suggest the possibility that Dan's personal beliefs do not always align with the scholarly consensus either, but that when it comes to academically engaging with the data, you can't allow your own personal beliefs to color that engagement of the data. It is a difficult thing to do, to represent the scholarly consensus regardless of whether it matches up with what you think or not, while withholding your own opinions almost all the time. I don't know what Dan's personal beliefs are, what he thinks about LDS doctrine, or what his activity level is with the LDS church is; that's his business. Those things aren't relevant to an academic presentation of the data. If you listen, at least in this video, he doesn't say "I believe" a lot, rather he says "the data support" or "the academic consensus is" kind of phrases. Anyway, I think a lot of the creators who respond to him don't realize how well he is keeping the academic study of religion disconnected from his personal beliefs, whatever those are. He'd be an interesting person to talk to outside of social media about what his personal religious beliefs are and why he believes them, but that is rightly reserved for his close friends and family, I expect.
I am an active member of the LDS church and have found myself often saying the same thing you have just said. Many times on this channel Dan has said things that have been in direct conflict with LDS teachings. The assertion that he uses his LDS dogmatic beliefs to support any of the claims he makes on this channel is laughable. I too, have thought it would be interesting to talk with Dan in real life about his personal beliefs and how he juggles academic study of the bible vs. LDS teachings. I appreciate what he brings and shares about the data. I’ve learned many new and interesting things from this channel.
I’ve thought about this too. I think it’s a rare practice. It’s probably difficult for many people, theist and atheist alike, to get their heads in a position to explain positions that are in opposition to their own beliefs and desired outcomes. The way he explains this information is likely foreign and uncomfortable for how most people approach arguing for a position. I enjoy watching Dan and respect him quite a bit.
@@mikehylton4950what's really interesting is that I only discovered Dan after I had one foot out the door, and was completely ex-Mo by the time he started out on his own, and I'd also love to sit down with him and find out from the other side how he can know all this stuff that flatly contradicts the church and still maintain belief, because that would be a really nice trick for me, being the only ex-Mo in my immediate or extended family, including my wife. I think that's a sign of a great scholar is that people on both sides aren't sure of your personal opinions. Unlike the "reluctant scholar," where we all know what team he is fighting for.
On some level, the idea of being committed to presenting information detached from own’s bias and then also maintaining belief in things that the information you present possibly contradict is inherently unintuitive. If a person believes something “personally” that isn’t supported academically or scientifically, it’s a pretty intuitive thought to think, “That person is being stupid/ naive/ doesn’t actually care about facts, etc” There isn’t enough talk on the subject of how it’s okay to believe things which data may not support or can’t be properly subjected to the scientific method. And that having beliefs which aren’t able to be verified or supported academically/scientifically doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
@@1877theflipactually it does in many cases. If someone believes in Santa Claus, flat earth, vaccine caused autism, etc. in this day and age, they could be called "stupid".
They forgot to mention that they're also a "reluctant researcher," as clearly ZERO research was done on the individual they attempted to attack the credibility of. I guess they figured dogma would be enough? 🤷 I'm an experienced debater and I can't imagine going toe to toe with Dan even AFTER a lengthy period of research and preparation, let alone with none at all! They're either incredibly brave or incredibly foolish.
6:33 "If anyone takes away from the words of this book, God will take away his share in the Tree of Life." You mean, the way Protestants took out 7 entire _books_ from the Bible?
As a non christian, the fact that people still exclude Mormons from greater christianity is funny to me. I’ve always viewed them as christians with ties and nice dress shirts.
It's because trinitarians assert the Father, Son, and Spirit are made of the same essence. Latter-day Saints do not, seeing them as unified in purpose but fully distinct beings.
I think that can only be said by someone who have not read the book of mormon or know anyting about mormon history and beliefs. Which is not so strange, as it is not really in plain sight. For som insight mormon story podcast is a great source of both information and when it comes to those topics, entertainment. It is very sci-fi cultish.
The very first page of the preface of Dan's book _YHWH's Divine Images_ literally acknowledges that although he's writing as a "faithful Latter-day Saint, this book is strictly academic, and I have made a concerted effort to recognize and mitigate the potential influence of any devotional lenses that may color my methodologies and my readings" (ix).
I do wonder, as do many other viewers, in what way Dan is a “faithful Latter-Day Saint”? I grew up as a nonmember in a LDS community, so I think my relationship with the church is similar to Dan’s. However, since I don’t accept the church’s truth claims, I don’t think becoming a member would be right.
@@Christian-l8k I think the scholars who have peer reviewed his work who are not Mormons would not have passed his work in their review of it as his academic peers if he was not successful in doing so, and more besides I would add my voice to them in saying he was very successful in doing so.
@@Sotelurian You seem to be confusing Dan's commitment to accurately conveying the academic consensus as him asserting his personal opinion. He has stated many times he restrains himself from commenting on the consensus he reports even when he disagrees. He sees his role as increasing access, not standing on a soapbox. There are LDS evolutionary biologists who are called to serve as bishops and stake presidents. Several LDS apostles were credentialed scientists. I have not heard Dan express any personal views that would disqualify him from actively serving in a position of senor leadership in any of his videos. Mostly his disagreements seem to be with cultural assumptions rather than actual official doctrines.
This "it's all because he's Mormon" argument is SO WEIRD. It's really "well, he's outgroup, so every single disagreement we have must be based on that, and I absolutely will not explore further even though it would be really easy to do so."
that is the cool thing about out groups you aren't forced to interact with in daily life. You can just make up things they believe and do, and because they are the outgroup, you will make up things for them to believe and do that discredit their entire world-view in you're eyes. So you never even have to listen to them or learn anything about them, because all the things you've already made up about them prove that whatever they say or do can't be trusted. Makes arguments soo easy to win
This pastor has not read the Bible cover to cover, nor has he sorted through Bible contradictions. As a former Mormon, this pastor is confused about Mormon doctrine. I don't think I've ever seen Dan take a position against scholarly consensus in favor of Mormon/LDS doctrine. I had a pastor show up on my doorstep threatening harm because I shared a simple comparison between resurrection morning witnesses. This guy is cut from the same cloth.
@@AaronGardner98 One thing I’ve pointed out online is that Jesus said that only _one sign_ would be given of the truth, which would be the sign of the prophet Jonas (Jonah). For as Jonas was three days _and three nights_ in the belly of the whale, so too would the Son of Man be three days _and three nights_ in the heart of the earth. _None_ of the four Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion, Entombment and Resurrection allow for that. Going by the Biblical Hebrew version of how days and nights are measured (sunset starts the night, and sunrise starts the day, of a Hebrew calendar day), and even making the best possible case for them that if only _one second_ remained before sunset or happened after sunrise we’d count that as a _whole night_ or _whole day,_ respectively, even then it doesn’t work. All four say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon, then the soldiers came along and to break His and the two thieves’ legs to hasten their death (by preventing them from being able to push up with their legs to relieve some of the strain on their hearts) so that they’d die and could be taken down and buried before the sun sat which would’ve started the Sabbath, because there’d be an uprising if bodies were left unburied on the Sabbath. We’re told that Jesus’s legs weren’t broken because He’d already given up the ghost. The two thieves’ legs were broken, and they soon died, and all three were taken down and buried, with maybe minutes to spare before sunset. So even if we count those few minutes of Friday (aka the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath) as the whole of Friday daytime, that’s one daytime. Jesus remained in the tomb for all of that night (we’d call that Friday night until midnight and Saturday pre-dawn morning afterwards, but under the Hebrew reckoning it was all Saturday aka Sabbath night) so now one daytime and one nighttime, then all of Saturday daytime (two daytimes and one nighttime), then the sun set again starting Sunday night under the Hebrew reckoning (two daytimes and two nighttimes), and then the women come to the empty tomb. But when exactly did they come? Whether a third daytime happens, even a few seconds of it, depends on that. *• Matthew 28:1* - “In the end of the sabbath, as *it began to dawn toward* the first _day_ of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.” *• Mark 16:1-2* - “And when the sabbath was *past.* Mary Magdalene, and Mary _the mother of_ James, and Salome, had brought some sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. ²And *very early in the morning* on the first _day_ of the week, they came unto the sepulchre *at the rising of the sun.”* *• Luke 24:1* - “Now upon the first _day_ of the week, *very early in the morning,* they came upon the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared, and certain _others_ with them.” *• John 20:1* - “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early. *while it was yet dark,* unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.” Luke’s ambiguous about exactly when relative to sunrise. Mark says that the women came _at_ the rising of the sun, so at best if Jesus had been resurrected right as they came to the tomb, it was at most minutes into the first daytime of the week. Either of those accounts just barely allow for _three_ daytimes and _two_ nights. Both Matthew and John are clear: it was _before_ sunrise that they came. Matthew says as it _began to_ dawn, meaning the nighttime sky was just beginning to lighten a bit in the east. Assuming it wasn’t overcast, stars would’ve still been visible and would remain visible for the better part of an hour or so. John flat-out says that it was still dark when she (not “they”) _came to_ the sepulchre. Unless the sun had risen or was at least peeking over the horizon, it was still the nighttime of the first day, not the following daytime. For those two accounts we have only _two_ days and _two_ nights. So all four accounts _fail_ what _Jesus Himself said_ was the *one* and *_only_* sign that would be given!
Only the Evangelical seminaries, following the fundamentalist takeover of the late 80s. The bloodbath at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary occurred in 1994. There was a time when it wasn't ludicrous to speak of Evangelical scholarship, but it was long ago. Other denominations don't have this problem.
What’s especially funny about these people who use *Revelation 22:17* against the LDS because of _The Book of Mormon_ (and other LDS scripture such as _Doctrine & Covenants,_ neither of which claim to be _adding to_ the Bible) is that they completely ignore what the very next verse would mean to the Bible. The Bible mentions well over a dozen books by name that _should_ be in it, yet aren’t. Just off the top of my head, there’s the Book of Jasher (mentioned twice), the Book of Nathan the Prophet (one of King David’s main prophets who was considered a pretty important prophet [as opposed to, oh, say, Habbakuk, as in “Who the _heck_ is _Habbakuk?”_ yet _he does_ have a book in the Old Testament as we have it!] - it was Nathan who brought the word of the Lᴏʀᴅ to David that because his hands had been bloodied in war, the Lᴏʀᴅ would not allow him to build Him a house / temple, but that his son and successor would instead as told in *II Samuel Chapter 7,* it was Nathan who brought the condemnation of the Lᴏʀᴅ upon David over the Bathsheba thing in which the Lᴏʀᴅ smote the newborn firstborn son of David and Bathsheba and later Nathan [and Zadok the priest] _anoint_ Solomon to be king after David!), Gad the Seer (another major prophet of David’s - he’s the prophet who came to chastise David over the census thing that was his last great sin and the Lᴏʀᴅ smote thousands of Israelites over a three-day period over that, and to stop the plague David had to buy a threshingfloor and build an altar, and tradition says that that site became the site where Solomon later built the Temple), Iddo (grandfather of Zechariah), Shemiah, the Wars of the Lᴏʀᴅ, and more in the Old Testament. Over in the _New_ Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians in *I Cornithians 5:9* that he wrote unto them in a _previous_ epistle not to company with fornicators, but that’s in _First_ Corinthians! And he mentions another epistle to the Ephesians, and he tells the Colossians in 4:16 that after they read that epistle that they’re to forward it to the Laodiceans, and that the Colossians are likewise to read the Epistle _from_ Laodicea, which means that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans which _he_ believed to be on the _same level_ of inspiration and importance. _and_ had something unique in it not found in his other epistles, yet we don’t have it in our New Testament! So I guess those Third Century Councils knew _better_ than *Paul* did which of _his _*_own_*_ Epistles_ were inspired and important and unique enough to be included in the New Testament canon, huh? More in the New Testament include another Epistle of James and of Jude, and in a crossover with what should be in the Old Testament Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch. Note that none of these are in the Apocrypha nor pseudopigrapha nor any other such thing. These (and others) are books that _the Bible itself names_ that should be in it, yet which aren’t. So, the Third Century Councils _took away_ words from what should’ve been in the Bible! Dan has done a video on the subject of the prophecy Matthew refers to about Jesus being called a Nazarene. a prophecy found nowhere in the Old Testament as we have it. Other Christian apologists have tried to say that it just meant that Jesus would be called despised, but of course that’s not what it means. And without that prophecy, the whole Matthew account of Jesus’s infancy falls apart, since there’s no reason for the Holy Family to go to Nazareth instead of back to Bethlehem without it, without making God out to be utterly incompetent not to realize that a king’s son just _might succeed_ him on the throne (Archelaus succeeding Herod the Great). Could that prophecy perhaps be in the Book of Nathan, or Gad, or Iddo, or Shemaiah, _etc.?_
* Says Dan is biased because of his Mormon beliefs * - Proceeds to get Mormon beliefs wrong. Essentially this is just a smokescreen, if you can't argue based on the data, you've got to accuse your interlocuter of bad faith (no pun intended).
Thank you once again, Dr. Dan for coming to the rescue of us all from the sins self-righteousness and dogmatic hypocrisy! And I close with a sincere prayer for you: may God save you from his “followers “……..
I'm not a Christian, but I still have a lot of respect for the teachings of the Bible regarding loving and caring for each other. I really appreciate your content -thank you for being willing to discuss, question, and share!
It's funny that, in spite of Dan allegedly being a dogmatic mormon spewing LDS propaganda, other Mormon TH-camrs (such as Jacob Hansen) have questioned the legitimacy of his faith. This is really weird if everything he says truly aligns with Mormon doctrine.
I think having your legitimacy questioned by Jacob Hansen is a rite of passage and a badge of honor. In fact, even when I was a believing Mormon, I would have desired to have my name on the opposite side of the page from Jacob no matter what the comparison was about. One day, I hope to climb my Everest and have my face carved in the Jacob Hansen Hall of shame alongside Dan, JFF, RFM, and Cultch.
There was another reply up above where someone assumed Dan was a “good Mormon”. By definition, if Dan were a “good Mormon” he would believe in the divinity of Christ, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He does not. Since these are all questions asked in an interview to receive a recommend to enter the LDS temples, there is a good chance that Dan is unable to have a temple recommend. There is also a good chance that he will ultimately be excommunicated from the LDS church because of his teachings. I love watching his videos, but I’m also a bit wary about them. As Dan himself says, “You got the wrong Mormon!” (That was awesome, btw!) He doesn’t talk about his membership much. It could be his desire to maintain his membership to not disrupt family ties with believing members. It may be that he just doesn’t see a better alternative out there. I’m not sure if he will ever let us know. Dan has made it clear that his scholarly research has led him to beliefs that are decidedly non-Mormon. So, as he points out, it is silly to say he is limited by Mormon dogma. Please don’t attack me for what I have written above. I’m just trying to explain why it is not reasonable to assume Dan is a “good Mormon” just because he is/was Mormon. He is a good scholar. You may also feel that punitive actions on the part of the LDS church are unfair, but think about it… would you continually tolerate a member of your church that was teaching people that your doctrine was false? Dan is the one that can tell you of his current standing in the LDS church, but chooses not to do so and that is his business.
1. I loved this video. I loved how bold and direct you were in your responses. 2. If Julie Hanks is excommunicated, you better be as well. 3. From an anonymous scholar, thank you for your approach and honesty.
You're one of many scholars I follow on TH-cam. I've seen every single one of them have to make a video like this. It sucks, but they are important to make. One of the things I love about your channel is you don't let your personal opinions and biases influence the facts.
It feels like this guy set out to find something about you that he could point to. He saw “Mormon” and stopped. Because he thinks he knows Mormonism. Stunning.
It’s so funny when I reveal to other Christian’s when I have discussions about the Bible… …because just like those drug commercials from the early 90s, when they ask how can I pick apart the Bible like that, I say “from you…I learned it from you.” It took me a long time to shake off Mormon dogma, but to shake off mainstream Christian dogma was easy after that.
Dan - much respect for putting up a reasonable and calm response. It must be so frustrating to have a channel and, indeed, a career, engaging with data, scholarship and the difficulties of sources/interpretation etc., and then to be 'dismissed' on the basis of: 'Well, he just thinks like that because of dogma.' Such a sad response.
I sometimes disagree with Dan. But I certainly do not attack him personally in any way whatsoever. I respect his scholarship and appreciate his efforts.
I love it how Dan clearly demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of the writings and data. The “Pastor” thinks he is a scholar of the Bible and religion yet know next to nothing about the LDS church. (Yes I know you pointed that out Dan). It was just worth repeating because you get too many chumps trying to hold up to you. Thank you Dan for sharing and teaching us. Cheers. Signed gayexmormon
As an ExMo I have watched several of your videos and never did I get the feels you were Mormon. ALSO, thank you so so much for showing you can be a member of a group w/o believing that it is supernaturally only the One True Church that has all the answers.
2:28 "If The bible is univocal, it would mean Jesus is the son of God". -- No it wouldn't. That's like saying "If the various writers for some Superman movie(s) were able to stay internally consistent with the narrative, it would prove that Superman exists in reality and is the son of Jor-El". ---------------------------------- Also, "If The bible is univocal, it would mean Jesus came to take away the sins of the world"? -- Dude. Look around. According to your own religion, sin is still here ... on this world. Notice, also, that the phrase "take away sin" vs "forgave sins" are not-at-all the same thing. And yet, both of those ideas are ridiculous. Also, again, a consistent narrative wouldn't prove that a fiction is true. Also, it's simply a matter of absolute fact that bibles are not univocal. None of us needed Dan to point out this obvious fact. The only people who need to hear about that are Christian-cultists.
The critique being promoted is driven, I think, like so many others, by a person's total incapability of realising that true scholars are not pushing a particular dogma or viewpoint. Dan looks for evidence, and draws hypotheses and conclusions. That's why I, and many others follow him. I don't agree with his Mormonism, but so what? Evidence doesn't have to follow any particular faith, it just is what it is. Thank you Dan for sharing a level of erudition I couldn't ever begin to achieve.
Funny thing is I was just wondering what Dan's actual biases were. He does an excellent job of sticking with the data and discussing the issues in their own right as an academic rather than trying to shoehorn them to fit dogma.
I so appreciate your logical analysis of text, argument, data, dogma, etc. I dont find many people who are willing to operate on that level, or able. I'm definitely no scholar, but learning so much from your approach, it clicks with me. I'm wondering if you've addressed the role of systematic theology in negotiating a framework that takes disparate texts that are not univocal on an individual textual level and fits them together in such a way that they do seem to work all together in a coherent consistant way that does seem to make the message all together a univocal one? As an example, the conception of civil law being temporary and now ended, the ceremonial law being temporary and now fulfilled in Christ, and the moral law being eternal. The logical framework/systematic explaining why they differ, why we understand them in different ways, do or dont have present applicability...and how this framework seems to create/maintain a consistency in interpretation. Kinda like how science takes a bunch of hypotheses and finds a theory that shows how everything CAN be understood in a way that makes it all work together. I'm going to go hunting in your past videos, but if its not something you've addressed previously, perhaps you could consider doing so? Thanks!
As a Ex-Mormon, I love Dan's biblical scholarship, it usually flies in the face of Mormon dogma. Dan is one of my favorite Mormons because he is honest about the problems of Christian/Mormon doctrines.
Your honesty and directness on these topics within a church culture that has typically discouraged it so zealously is beautiful and bright and lovely. It is a shame to be recieving uninformed criticism from both sides. We appreciate your candor more than those who deride you hate (or, in this case, ignore) it.
I mean, i hear lots of people use data, singlur, including me, but ive never heard, or evtremely rarely heard “datas”. Haha. “EvidenceS” is common in flat earth or anti evo community, too. :)
@@tanyanguyen3704 Except that "Data" is the term you'd use to discuss multiple items of information, whereas "Datum" represents a singular piece. So "datas" really makes *no* sense.
I can feel the heat from the burn of Dan’s refutation all the way across the internet! You go Dan! I am a former Mormon, and while I don’t agree with the doctrine, this guy’s attempts to fight are so obviously ignorant that it’s funny!
I always love the irony of Evangelicals accusing people of doing the very thing they,. themselves are doing. I'm not Mormon and I'm no longer an Evangelical Christian and I could easily see that Dr. Dan is presenting his arguments and data from an academic perspective and not from his personal "dogmas". Presupposition is a dangerous mindset.
Thank you Dan. You’ve changed my life for the better! You have no idea! You are helping to make the world a better place. This pastor is one example of why people are leaving Christianity in droves. Perhaps you are a threat to their livelihood, sort of like how the character in the Bible named Jesus disrupted the norm.
If Dan were promoting LDS doctrine & dogma, he totally would back the idea of that the bible is univocal. This is something LDS teach just like most other major mainline Christian group. Also LDS doctrine tends to hold the doctrine of the inerrancy of the biblical autographs which is pretty common in mainline Christian theology as well. The big difference in the LDS view of the bible is the question of the canon. Evangelicals argue for a closed canon, while LDS argues for an open canon. Interestingly the Catholic & Orthodox churches' view of Holy Tradition is pretty close to an open canon. Also the idea of a closed canon is a post-biblical innovation at that.
As I used to put it, the main difference between the LDS and mainstream Christianity is that the LDS don’t believe that God came down with Eternal Laryngitis after Revelation 22:21.
doctrine ≠ dogmas. latter-day saints don't believe in biblical inerrancy, even the autographs. they also don't believe in inerrancy for the book of mormon or anything else held as scripture. scriptural errancy is a core belief that separates them from protestants. perhaps im poking at a typo too much that makes this incorrect: "LDS doctrine tends to hold the doctrine [...]". cheers.
@@sk7ecd Sorry this took a bit to respond to. Doctrine typically refers to anything a religious group teaches. So all dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas. Differing groups make a stronger or weaker distinctions between the two of course. As to the LDS view of scripture, they do believe that when the scriptures were written they were the word of God. If asked, do you think any of them would believe God made mistakes or that the scriptures at composition were exactly what God wanted them to be? The issue for the LDS for the Bible and even the Book of Mormon is transmission. As Joseph Smith put it, “I do not believe it has come down to us in its pristine purity as it was written by the original authors.” Now obviously LDS theology is not a fan of the term inerrant but that has to do more with Evangelicalism's rather extreme view of it (even that is more recent than some realize). So in short I totally agree that the LDS church does not believe the scriptures to be inerrant today. However, the evidence is pretty clear they do believe they were without error (that's all inerrant really means) when given & composed.
I really have an immense appreciation for Dan’s approach to Biblical study and using his array of knowledge to highlight the many ways Christians attempt to downplay and dismiss critical study to retain their dogmatic positions. This is a really good example of that. Kudos, Dan!
It's sad when someone has to resort to ad hominem. It's sadder still when they can't even get their ad hominem right. Bonus, I love it when theists talk about "the" Bible. Because I have to ask, are they talking about the Biblical canon confirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Biblical canon established by the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Biblical canon established by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), or are they talking about the Hebrew Scripture in the form of the Septuagint which would have been considered canon by the author of the Book of Revelation as well as the early church including Paul? Because depending on which church you're standing in you may be reading a different "the" Bible, with a different collection of books that have to agree with each other. Here's an interesting question for those who consider there to be one Bible: does the Book of Enoch belong in "the" Bible? Because you won't find it in the King James Bible. But Jesus had no problem referencing it as holy scripture (Matt 19:28, Luke 6:24, John 12:36). I guess Jesus is now burning in Hell for the sin of adding to "the" Bible.
This is a personal question, so I don't expect an answer. I am intensly interested in this question. How you reconcile your personal religious practices with your scholarship and study of the Bible? I don't mean to predescribe any religious practices you might engage in because if your affiliation with mormonism. As you stated earlier, these two perspective are in such stark contrast, even conflict with each other, it is of great interest exactly how you go about it. Know that this question is in good faith. It is your experience I am asking for, not for judgement, but for enlightenment. I do understand if you don't respond.
I am an admirer of McClellan but there are many of us that wonder why Dan is still a Mormon if he can cavaleirly dismiss so many Mormon tenants. There are hundreds of denominations to choose from today......
I don't know why I am continually surprised just how dence fundamentalists are. In the army, I had to constantly tell a wannabe pastor that not only were his preconceived notions of my former religion wrong, but that i no longer followed that religion. I just couldn't get anything through his thick head. Like dude, i am now agnostic (at that time).
The type of dude who sees actual experts using big words such as “dogma” and tries to use the same word against them to sound smart but clearly has no idea how to use the word at all
You're wasting your time if you are trying to help this guy understand your position. He is a prime example of the biggest problem our discourse suffers from today, people don't listen to understand because they don't want to understand, they want to find anything they think they can fit into one of their talking point cubby holes. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here...lol. Thanks for what you do Dan. It's much needed at what I believe is a critical point in our history. And it really has helped me gain a much better understand of the how's and why's of scripture/the bible, and religion in general for that matter.
Thanks Dan for your openness and honesty. And for addressing these topics too. I know your relationship with LDS is personal, is something I really wanted to know more.
I'm glad you made this video because I'm not the only one who watches your videos and generally likes you who has questioned how balanced you are based on the Aassumption that your Mormonism bleeds over to your professional work. It's good to know you aren't in any way tied to traditional Mormonism.
If you have a car and a cell phone you too can be a pastor and a reluctant academic
I enjoy learning, does that make me “an academic” ?
Pasta 🙃
😂😂😂
@@FahadAyazPastor a la Putanescor? 👀
@@FahadAyaza la Putanesca?
“You got the wrong Mormon.”
Greatest quote ever.
❤
A need a T-shirt with that quote on it.
I would benefit from a shirt like that.
Joshua Graham energy.
There's millions of the other kind. Dan stands out on the stage, alone.
"You are not good at this"😂
That guy is a “reluctant academic?” What in the world does he think the qualifications are to be an academic? Being a car-theist is not an academic qualification.
It would be interesting to know which degrees this chap holds and where he earned them. That is, which particular fundamentalist dogma does HE subscribe to?
If Michael Jones can do it, then we can all be scholars
@@Alex_Mitchelldegrees? Who needs degrees? Where I live there’s an abundance of “prophets” who consider their own dogmas to be way more accurate and authoritative than any actual scholarly work. We don’t need all that fancy book learning!
Lol car theist
@@mrq6270 now I wonder where you live?
9:48 Dan: "You are not good at this" 🤣🤣
Legitimately laughed out loud at that. Usually Dan is a bit less in your face about the incompetence of the people he argues against
Somehow that seemed like the toughest burn I’ve ever heard him say.
@@jlcl96he once did a Mic drop moment after pointing out Jesus didn't return before his followers died as he apparently said he would.
I didn't expect that. He was annoyed.
I've binge watched alot of your videos and have never once seen you proselytizing for the LDS.
You probably never will. Especially not on his social media.
He has explicitly said that his religious views won't be talked about on social media. And he is very good at keeping his word to that.
Because he hides what he truly believes because most Christians know that Mormons shouldn't be taken too seriously
He proselytizes for atheism on here constantly. That's why you all love him.
@@JGreyJens embarrassing, unwilling to talk about whats actually important. A fraud who uses “consensus” and “probably” alot lol
I don't think most nevermos can appreciate just how bold this video is from Dan. I'm actually low key concerned that this one could land him in some ecclesiastical hot waters. But I appreciate the hell out of the frankness and directness of his points here. Kudos, Dan! This one is a banger!
And the fit for this comment is my Gremlins hoodie.
@@perryekimae Why? Nothing Dan has said in this video, or any other video of his I have seen, contradicts any official stances of the LDS church. While individual Mormons might claim otherwise, the church itself does not claim that the data supports the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Their claim is about spiritual evidence, not empirical data. No contradiction with Dan at all. In interviews on other channels he has talked about having discussions with GAs when he was employed at the church office building.
What exactly did Dan say you think is so dangerous?
You should instead ask yourself what sort of pathology would cause a man who believes Smith's BOM was not delivered to Smith as Smith claims it was to practice Smith's religion. From a scholarly perspective it is the opposite of commendable.
@termsofusepolice The scholarly perspective has nothing to say about it. From the perspective of actually wanting to engage with Mormons and have productive conversations with them, I'm glad Dan's in their camp.
@termsofusepolice I don't know what Dan actually believes, but he did not say that he does not believe the Book of Mormon was divinely delivered. He said that the objective data do not support that claim. If you already accept the necessity of faith in Christian belief, that's not a problem.
@@LoganKearsleyI think the problem is for me, as someone who is very existentialist in their faith and naturally skeptical, If I can't explain a problem in faith, and it cannot be left to mystery, meaning there is data disproving a point of view that my faith system hinges on, (ie. Presuppositions from creeds and what not), then it's like, why even bother being involved in the faith? It's clearly false and not worth engaging in.
Granted, I know religion can be used as a vehicle for social change, but that isn't really the greatest thing it's known for, it's Got a bad history of doing the opposite too.
Doing the low angle has to be a direct counter to his ridiculously high angle shot
Exactly what I was thinking
I’ve been scrolling comments going “how has nobody appreciated the camera angle joke?” Glad the datas eventually proved me wrong
I thought the camera angle was really weird, but the ironic joke flew right over my head. Nice catch!
Absolutely felt this too. And I'm all for it.
Bravo, Dan. When one cannot argue the facts, they attack the messenger.
I love Dan’s expression after the pastor said “datas” 🤣
@@robertmoore2049 I’m glad someone else commented on that, because I was just listening (not watching) to that section and wasn’t sure if it was my imagination or not.
Pastor catches fishes and watches the deers cross the road.
Yeah, data is either already plural, or more commonly, uncountable.
Not that I want to defend the pastor (he certainly says nothing worth defending) but this is a perfectly reasonable way for an English speaker to make what might grammatically appear to be singular into a plural. Most people without a tertiary education probably would not realise that data is the plural of datum. Let's not let elitist attitudes towards education get in the way of criticising this guy's utterly dogwater substantive arguments.
I support extended pluralisation. Now if you'll excuse me, I have half a chee to eat.
Step 1. Identify your enemy.
Step 2. Characterise them as evil, ignorant, dishonest, or any combination of all three.
Step 3. Attack the mis-characterisation, never the facts.
Step 4. Never allow your side to question your motives. Repeat Step 2 _ad infinitum_
Step 5. Congratulations, you are now a man of god. You may produce the collection plate.
In other words, create a straw man, attack that straw man, and get your tribe to agree with everything you say and do. Profit!
Do you really want to call Trump a man of god? 🤔
@@susa5846 No thank you.
@@Grauenwolf yeah I know that. But it is possible there is a difference between a religious group of people and one person in the comments of TH-cam I reacted to. That's why I asked. 😉
@@susa5846Surely, you're being sarcastic? If so, please use the /s for clarity these days.
I am a Christian Biblical Scholar. The "univocality" of the Bible is as easy to disprove as the "inerrancy" of the Bible. First, there are four gospels, three of which are the Synoptics, and there are glaring disagreements between those three authors, not to mention the clearly different timeline of Jesus's ministry found in John's Gospel. The Gospels are not univocal, the Bible is not univocal. Even if you want to say that the Scriptures should be interpreted consistantly, there are still problems. For example, Jude seems to register works like the Book of Enoch and the Ascension of Moses as "canonical" sources especially in Jude 9. Paul, on the other hand, seems to be very dismissive of those same sources in his letters. The author of Hebrews also seems to value extra-canonical works that were rejected by Paul. Then there is the fact that Paul values some Greek thoughts in a way that Jesus never considers. The Bible is a collection of many different voices speaking to and about many different time periods and addressing many different audiences and circumstances. The fact that a coherent message can be read through the sixty-six books (yes, I am Protestant) is almost a miracle in itself.
Taking the Bible as an authority is a matter of faith, just like everything else in the Christian religion. Dr. McClellen is sharing the scholarly consensus which is reached via the debate of scholars from all over the world arguing over the text from different backgrounds, not all of them religious, and using various methods. He is a good scholar. I presume that he is a good Mormon, but I am not in a position to consider that, being neither a Mormon nor an actual acquaintance of Dr. McClellen.
I am not a scholar but an amateur researcher. It's not a black and white question. There are differentces but there are also general themes that exist in all the books. Eary Christians had no problem taking material from non canonical sources if they were used in a way that ally with their message like Jude using Enoch. I don't know about Dan's faith but I find his catering on atheist suspect. They are the reason why he has over 70K subs and buys his merch.
Inerrancy and literalism are very modern ideas and they have certainly caused problems.
@@lightatthecape2009 Indeed they have. If you want to create an atheist, put a bright thirteen-year-old in a Southern Baptist pew with her own copy of the KJV. A voracious reader can knock out Genesis and the New Testament before she turns fourteen, and it's obvious that whatever else this literature might be, "inerrant" it ain't.
@@Stepi01 Sadly people fail to to read the book
🙌🌟👏thank u! 👍
I have decided just now that I, too, am a reluctant academic. Yup, I'm an academic now.
@@wildlifefishingshow if you are learning...it is achademic to ask Who Teaches As Your Master, You?
I'm just here for the datas.
😂😅😊
😆 👍
A fistful of Datas?
Sounds like that belongs on a t-shirt
Better watch out for the Lores though (Star Trek TNG joke) ;)
These guys are always arguing with a version of Dan they've invented in their head rather than Dan's actual beliefs, and it shows.
They think strawmen can’t hit back.
I've got to hand it to Dan, here. And I can understand why he doesn't talk about his personal beliefs on social media. His purpose of this channel as he's stated is to grant access to scholarly research and data on the bible, wherever that leads. He's stated on a few videos that while he represents the scholarly consensus on his channel, he sometimes has argued against the consensus academically (though not on the channel, because the channel is providing access to the current scholarly consensus). This suggest the possibility that Dan's personal beliefs do not always align with the scholarly consensus either, but that when it comes to academically engaging with the data, you can't allow your own personal beliefs to color that engagement of the data.
It is a difficult thing to do, to represent the scholarly consensus regardless of whether it matches up with what you think or not, while withholding your own opinions almost all the time. I don't know what Dan's personal beliefs are, what he thinks about LDS doctrine, or what his activity level is with the LDS church is; that's his business. Those things aren't relevant to an academic presentation of the data. If you listen, at least in this video, he doesn't say "I believe" a lot, rather he says "the data support" or "the academic consensus is" kind of phrases. Anyway, I think a lot of the creators who respond to him don't realize how well he is keeping the academic study of religion disconnected from his personal beliefs, whatever those are. He'd be an interesting person to talk to outside of social media about what his personal religious beliefs are and why he believes them, but that is rightly reserved for his close friends and family, I expect.
I am an active member of the LDS church and have found myself often saying the same thing you have just said. Many times on this channel Dan has said things that have been in direct conflict with LDS teachings. The assertion that he uses his LDS dogmatic beliefs to support any of the claims he makes on this channel is laughable.
I too, have thought it would be interesting to talk with Dan in real life about his personal beliefs and how he juggles academic study of the bible vs. LDS teachings. I appreciate what he brings and shares about the data. I’ve learned many new and interesting things from this channel.
I’ve thought about this too. I think it’s a rare practice. It’s probably difficult for many people, theist and atheist alike, to get their heads in a position to explain positions that are in opposition to their own beliefs and desired outcomes. The way he explains this information is likely foreign and uncomfortable for how most people approach arguing for a position.
I enjoy watching Dan and respect him quite a bit.
@@mikehylton4950what's really interesting is that I only discovered Dan after I had one foot out the door, and was completely ex-Mo by the time he started out on his own, and I'd also love to sit down with him and find out from the other side how he can know all this stuff that flatly contradicts the church and still maintain belief, because that would be a really nice trick for me, being the only ex-Mo in my immediate or extended family, including my wife. I think that's a sign of a great scholar is that people on both sides aren't sure of your personal opinions. Unlike the "reluctant scholar," where we all know what team he is fighting for.
On some level, the idea of being committed to presenting information detached from own’s bias and then also maintaining belief in things that the information you present possibly contradict is inherently unintuitive.
If a person believes something “personally” that isn’t supported academically or scientifically, it’s a pretty intuitive thought to think, “That person is being stupid/ naive/ doesn’t actually care about facts, etc”
There isn’t enough talk on the subject of how it’s okay to believe things which data may not support or can’t be properly subjected to the scientific method.
And that having beliefs which aren’t able to be verified or supported academically/scientifically doesn’t mean you’re stupid.
@@1877theflipactually it does in many cases. If someone believes in Santa Claus, flat earth, vaccine caused autism, etc. in this day and age, they could be called "stupid".
"You got the wrong Mornon". New T-shirt surely>
I hope so! I'm a non-believer but I would wear it proudly
As a non literal, non denominational Mormon, I would love that shirt so much
Ditto - Dan take my money
Sort of like the “I’m not that kind of Christian” t-shirt?
This was an absolute bloodbath… RIP to the poor pastor
They forgot to mention that they're also a "reluctant researcher," as clearly ZERO research was done on the individual they attempted to attack the credibility of. I guess they figured dogma would be enough? 🤷
I'm an experienced debater and I can't imagine going toe to toe with Dan even AFTER a lengthy period of research and preparation, let alone with none at all! They're either incredibly brave or incredibly foolish.
I vote for foolish.
He's a pastor is used to having unchallenged authority over everyone that comes and listens to him with his high school diploma
I guess he's both.
@@susa5846 Nope. He's too ignorant to be brave. He's like a child wandering onto a highway.
6:33 "If anyone takes away from the words of this book, God will take away his share in the Tree of Life."
You mean, the way Protestants took out 7 entire _books_ from the Bible?
As a non christian, the fact that people still exclude Mormons from greater christianity is funny to me. I’ve always viewed them as christians with ties and nice dress shirts.
It's because trinitarians assert the Father, Son, and Spirit are made of the same essence. Latter-day Saints do not, seeing them as unified in purpose but fully distinct beings.
@@TheFranchiseCAactually impressed with how perfectly you explained that in so few words.
I think that can only be said by someone who have not read the book of mormon or know anyting about mormon history and beliefs. Which is not so strange, as it is not really in plain sight. For som insight mormon story podcast is a great source of both information and when it comes to those topics, entertainment. It is very sci-fi cultish.
The very first page of the preface of Dan's book _YHWH's Divine Images_ literally acknowledges that although he's writing as a "faithful Latter-day Saint, this book is strictly academic, and I have made a concerted effort to recognize and mitigate the potential influence of any devotional lenses that may color my methodologies and my readings" (ix).
nearly all of Dan's critics haven't read a lick of his academic writings, which is always clear from how they choose to critique him
I do wonder, as do many other viewers, in what way Dan is a “faithful Latter-Day Saint”? I grew up as a nonmember in a LDS community, so I think my relationship with the church is similar to Dan’s. However, since I don’t accept the church’s truth claims, I don’t think becoming a member would be right.
Making a concerted effort does not necessarily mean that he was successful in doing so
@@Christian-l8k I think the scholars who have peer reviewed his work who are not Mormons would not have passed his work in their review of it as his academic peers if he was not successful in doing so, and more besides I would add my voice to them in saying he was very successful in doing so.
@@Sotelurian You seem to be confusing Dan's commitment to accurately conveying the academic consensus as him asserting his personal opinion. He has stated many times he restrains himself from commenting on the consensus he reports even when he disagrees. He sees his role as increasing access, not standing on a soapbox. There are LDS evolutionary biologists who are called to serve as bishops and stake presidents. Several LDS apostles were credentialed scientists. I have not heard Dan express any personal views that would disqualify him from actively serving in a position of senor leadership in any of his videos. Mostly his disagreements seem to be with cultural assumptions rather than actual official doctrines.
This "it's all because he's Mormon" argument is SO WEIRD. It's really "well, he's outgroup, so every single disagreement we have must be based on that, and I absolutely will not explore further even though it would be really easy to do so."
that is the cool thing about out groups you aren't forced to interact with in daily life. You can just make up things they believe and do, and because they are the outgroup, you will make up things for them to believe and do that discredit their entire world-view in you're eyes. So you never even have to listen to them or learn anything about them, because all the things you've already made up about them prove that whatever they say or do can't be trusted. Makes arguments soo easy to win
Great summary @Ifilm3.
@@lfilm3 yep.
I mean that's the common abrahamic theist regardless of which brand they follow.
@@WhichDoctor1This observation is true. Thought I notice the more "Liberal" churches tend to be more understanding of others.
the confused look at 0:29 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Dan plz do more of these faces. They are wholly justified given the amount of craziness you have to deal with
This pastor has not read the Bible cover to cover, nor has he sorted through Bible contradictions. As a former Mormon, this pastor is confused about Mormon doctrine. I don't think I've ever seen Dan take a position against scholarly consensus in favor of Mormon/LDS doctrine. I had a pastor show up on my doorstep threatening harm because I shared a simple comparison between resurrection morning witnesses. This guy is cut from the same cloth.
Is he even the product of a seminary?
He's just plain confused by his own dogma.
I got kicked out of a church for speaking about the resurrection account differences.
@@AaronGardner98 One thing I’ve pointed out online is that Jesus said that only _one sign_ would be given of the truth, which would be the sign of the prophet Jonas (Jonah). For as Jonas was three days _and three nights_ in the belly of the whale, so too would the Son of Man be three days _and three nights_ in the heart of the earth.
_None_ of the four Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion, Entombment and Resurrection allow for that. Going by the Biblical Hebrew version of how days and nights are measured (sunset starts the night, and sunrise starts the day, of a Hebrew calendar day), and even making the best possible case for them that if only _one second_ remained before sunset or happened after sunrise we’d count that as a _whole night_ or _whole day,_ respectively, even then it doesn’t work.
All four say that Jesus was crucified on a Friday afternoon, then the soldiers came along and to break His and the two thieves’ legs to hasten their death (by preventing them from being able to push up with their legs to relieve some of the strain on their hearts) so that they’d die and could be taken down and buried before the sun sat which would’ve started the Sabbath, because there’d be an uprising if bodies were left unburied on the Sabbath. We’re told that Jesus’s legs weren’t broken because He’d already given up the ghost. The two thieves’ legs were broken, and they soon died, and all three were taken down and buried, with maybe minutes to spare before sunset.
So even if we count those few minutes of Friday (aka the Day of Preparation for the Sabbath) as the whole of Friday daytime, that’s one daytime. Jesus remained in the tomb for all of that night (we’d call that Friday night until midnight and Saturday pre-dawn morning afterwards, but under the Hebrew reckoning it was all Saturday aka Sabbath night) so now one daytime and one nighttime, then all of Saturday daytime (two daytimes and one nighttime), then the sun set again starting Sunday night under the Hebrew reckoning (two daytimes and two nighttimes), and then the women come to the empty tomb. But when exactly did they come? Whether a third daytime happens, even a few seconds of it, depends on that.
*• Matthew 28:1* - “In the end of the sabbath, as *it began to dawn toward* the first _day_ of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”
*• Mark 16:1-2* - “And when the sabbath was *past.* Mary Magdalene, and Mary _the mother of_ James, and Salome, had brought some sweet spices, that they might come and anoint Him. ²And *very early in the morning* on the first _day_ of the week, they came unto the sepulchre *at the rising of the sun.”*
*• Luke 24:1* - “Now upon the first _day_ of the week, *very early in the morning,* they came upon the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared, and certain _others_ with them.”
*• John 20:1* - “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early. *while it was yet dark,* unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.”
Luke’s ambiguous about exactly when relative to sunrise. Mark says that the women came _at_ the rising of the sun, so at best if Jesus had been resurrected right as they came to the tomb, it was at most minutes into the first daytime of the week. Either of those accounts just barely allow for _three_ daytimes and _two_ nights.
Both Matthew and John are clear: it was _before_ sunrise that they came. Matthew says as it _began to_ dawn, meaning the nighttime sky was just beginning to lighten a bit in the east. Assuming it wasn’t overcast, stars would’ve still been visible and would remain visible for the better part of an hour or so. John flat-out says that it was still dark when she (not “they”) _came to_ the sepulchre. Unless the sun had risen or was at least peeking over the horizon, it was still the nighttime of the first day, not the following daytime. For those two accounts we have only _two_ days and _two_ nights.
So all four accounts _fail_ what _Jesus Himself said_ was the *one* and *_only_* sign that would be given!
Only the Evangelical seminaries, following the fundamentalist takeover of the late 80s. The bloodbath at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary occurred in 1994.
There was a time when it wasn't ludicrous to speak of Evangelical scholarship, but it was long ago.
Other denominations don't have this problem.
Not at all Dan. I’m so thankful you share your knowledge with us. We are blessed to have you.
We really are
"The datas" priceless. I can't stop laughing 😂
Combating Dan's dogma with Revelations. That's gold medal apologetics right there...
"I know the bible is true because the bible tells me it's true." One would think they would get dizzy.
What’s especially funny about these people who use *Revelation 22:17* against the LDS because of _The Book of Mormon_ (and other LDS scripture such as _Doctrine & Covenants,_ neither of which claim to be _adding to_ the Bible) is that they completely ignore what the very next verse would mean to the Bible.
The Bible mentions well over a dozen books by name that _should_ be in it, yet aren’t. Just off the top of my head, there’s the Book of Jasher (mentioned twice), the Book of Nathan the Prophet (one of King David’s main prophets who was considered a pretty important prophet [as opposed to, oh, say, Habbakuk, as in “Who the _heck_ is _Habbakuk?”_ yet _he does_ have a book in the Old Testament as we have it!] - it was Nathan who brought the word of the Lᴏʀᴅ to David that because his hands had been bloodied in war, the Lᴏʀᴅ would not allow him to build Him a house / temple, but that his son and successor would instead as told in *II Samuel Chapter 7,* it was Nathan who brought the condemnation of the Lᴏʀᴅ upon David over the Bathsheba thing in which the Lᴏʀᴅ smote the newborn firstborn son of David and Bathsheba and later Nathan [and Zadok the priest] _anoint_ Solomon to be king after David!), Gad the Seer (another major prophet of David’s - he’s the prophet who came to chastise David over the census thing that was his last great sin and the Lᴏʀᴅ smote thousands of Israelites over a three-day period over that, and to stop the plague David had to buy a threshingfloor and build an altar, and tradition says that that site became the site where Solomon later built the Temple), Iddo (grandfather of Zechariah), Shemiah, the Wars of the Lᴏʀᴅ, and more in the Old Testament.
Over in the _New_ Testament, Paul tells the Corinthians in *I Cornithians 5:9* that he wrote unto them in a _previous_ epistle not to company with fornicators, but that’s in _First_ Corinthians! And he mentions another epistle to the Ephesians, and he tells the Colossians in 4:16 that after they read that epistle that they’re to forward it to the Laodiceans, and that the Colossians are likewise to read the Epistle _from_ Laodicea, which means that Paul wrote an Epistle to the Laodiceans which _he_ believed to be on the _same level_ of inspiration and importance. _and_ had something unique in it not found in his other epistles, yet we don’t have it in our New Testament! So I guess those Third Century Councils knew _better_ than *Paul* did which of _his _*_own_*_ Epistles_ were inspired and important and unique enough to be included in the New Testament canon, huh? More in the New Testament include another Epistle of James and of Jude, and in a crossover with what should be in the Old Testament Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch.
Note that none of these are in the Apocrypha nor pseudopigrapha nor any other such thing. These (and others) are books that _the Bible itself names_ that should be in it, yet which aren’t. So, the Third Century Councils _took away_ words from what should’ve been in the Bible!
Dan has done a video on the subject of the prophecy Matthew refers to about Jesus being called a Nazarene. a prophecy found nowhere in the Old Testament as we have it. Other Christian apologists have tried to say that it just meant that Jesus would be called despised, but of course that’s not what it means. And without that prophecy, the whole Matthew account of Jesus’s infancy falls apart, since there’s no reason for the Holy Family to go to Nazareth instead of back to Bethlehem without it, without making God out to be utterly incompetent not to realize that a king’s son just _might succeed_ him on the throne (Archelaus succeeding Herod the Great).
Could that prophecy perhaps be in the Book of Nathan, or Gad, or Iddo, or Shemaiah, _etc.?_
Plausibly one of the best rebuttal videos made on this channel.
* Says Dan is biased because of his Mormon beliefs * - Proceeds to get Mormon beliefs wrong. Essentially this is just a smokescreen, if you can't argue based on the data, you've got to accuse your interlocuter of bad faith (no pun intended).
Indeed, and that's generally their go-to strategy because they know they can't prove their claims.
Thank you once again, Dr. Dan for coming to the rescue of us all from the sins self-righteousness and dogmatic hypocrisy! And I close with a sincere prayer for you: may God save you from his “followers “……..
This guy doesn't even understand what dogma is!!
or "data" is already plural
I'm sure "datum" would blow this guy's mind
That’s what I was thinking. It’s like he just kept repeating the word in futile attempt to subconsciously understand the meaning of the word.
Yet he lives it, maybe can't see the tree for the forest LOL
@@dwightdhansen lol
I'm not a Christian, but I still have a lot of respect for the teachings of the Bible regarding loving and caring for each other. I really appreciate your content -thank you for being willing to discuss, question, and share!
Appreciate you and what you do, Dan.
It's funny that, in spite of Dan allegedly being a dogmatic mormon spewing LDS propaganda, other Mormon TH-camrs (such as Jacob Hansen) have questioned the legitimacy of his faith. This is really weird if everything he says truly aligns with Mormon doctrine.
I think having your legitimacy questioned by Jacob Hansen is a rite of passage and a badge of honor. In fact, even when I was a believing Mormon, I would have desired to have my name on the opposite side of the page from Jacob no matter what the comparison was about. One day, I hope to climb my Everest and have my face carved in the Jacob Hansen Hall of shame alongside Dan, JFF, RFM, and Cultch.
There was another reply up above where someone assumed Dan was a “good Mormon”. By definition, if Dan were a “good Mormon” he would believe in the divinity of Christ, the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. He does not. Since these are all questions asked in an interview to receive a recommend to enter the LDS temples, there is a good chance that Dan is unable to have a temple recommend. There is also a good chance that he will ultimately be excommunicated from the LDS church because of his teachings. I love watching his videos, but I’m also a bit wary about them. As Dan himself says, “You got the wrong Mormon!” (That was awesome, btw!) He doesn’t talk about his membership much. It could be his desire to maintain his membership to not disrupt family ties with believing members. It may be that he just doesn’t see a better alternative out there. I’m not sure if he will ever let us know. Dan has made it clear that his scholarly research has led him to beliefs that are decidedly non-Mormon. So, as he points out, it is silly to say he is limited by Mormon dogma.
Please don’t attack me for what I have written above. I’m just trying to explain why it is not reasonable to assume Dan is a “good Mormon” just because he is/was Mormon. He is a good scholar. You may also feel that punitive actions on the part of the LDS church are unfair, but think about it… would you continually tolerate a member of your church that was teaching people that your doctrine was false?
Dan is the one that can tell you of his current standing in the LDS church, but chooses not to do so and that is his business.
I say the data, you say the datas......let's call the whole thing off.
You must be over, let's say, a certain age to get the reference 😂
I'm only 41 but a fan of Billie Holliday and jazz in general
@@jesseterpstra5472 Yeah, it's been done by newer artists. But the thing is from 1937.😎
"Shall We Dance?" Bespoke Gershwin!
1. I loved this video. I loved how bold and direct you were in your responses.
2. If Julie Hanks is excommunicated, you better be as well.
3. From an anonymous scholar, thank you for your approach and honesty.
"You're not even good at this." Indeed.
That pastor needs to put his ego to bed.
He is a bit prideful.
Authoritarians, I swear. He's got him a little soap box where no one says him nay, and he's confused that with having a brain.
You're one of many scholars I follow on TH-cam. I've seen every single one of them have to make a video like this. It sucks, but they are important to make. One of the things I love about your channel is you don't let your personal opinions and biases influence the facts.
It feels like this guy set out to find something about you that he could point to.
He saw “Mormon” and stopped. Because he thinks he knows Mormonism.
Stunning.
No you are not a problem.
Well done! Excellently argued. Although it’s much like taking a Q-tip to smash a piece of granite to argue these points with certain folks.
Ever thus is the strength of dogma 😢
It’s so funny when I reveal to other Christian’s when I have discussions about the Bible…
…because just like those drug commercials from the early 90s, when they ask how can I pick apart the Bible like that, I say “from you…I learned it from you.”
It took me a long time to shake off Mormon dogma, but to shake off mainstream Christian dogma was easy after that.
Dan - much respect for putting up a reasonable and calm response. It must be so frustrating to have a channel and, indeed, a career, engaging with data, scholarship and the difficulties of sources/interpretation etc., and then to be 'dismissed' on the basis of: 'Well, he just thinks like that because of dogma.' Such a sad response.
"I'm not dogmatic, you are!" is such a compelling argument.
The guy with the metal music fabricating an argument against a guy wearing a Spawn shirt is what completes the video for me 💙
Maybe he is a reluctant scholar because he doesn't want to have to learn all the datas.
I love this rejoinder. Just the right tone: ferocious, yet gracious.
Does “reluctant academic” translate to “I don’t have the first clue what I’m talking about?” Asking for a friend
I think it is, "I hate learning, but my church keeps shrinking and it seems that learning is the only thing I can do to stop it."
"Haha! My dogmas can't be bad, because actually YOUR dogmas are bad."
He's so friggin' close to figuring it out...
Did he also use the No True Scotsman argument? "If he's truly a Mormon..." 🙄
You " have the wrong Mormon" OMG that made my day
Thanks Dan. Your scholarship and integrity are impeccable and much appreciated. ❤
Ad hominem, the best form of an attack when you run out of ammunition.
Generous of you to imply the pastor ever had any ammunition, or indeed a weapon.
He didn't even bring a knife to this gunfight.
Thank you for your honesty, and work Dan. I love listening to your words.
I love your demonstration of how to logically and coherently argue a point, Dan.
By “relectant” academic I assume he means “not remotely one at all.”
I sometimes disagree with Dan. But I certainly do not attack him personally in any way whatsoever. I respect his scholarship and appreciate his efforts.
Dan McClellan muzzles the dogmas and leashes them.
I love it how Dan clearly demonstrates clear knowledge and understanding of the writings and data. The “Pastor” thinks he is a scholar of the Bible and religion yet know next to nothing about the LDS church. (Yes I know you pointed that out Dan). It was just worth repeating because you get too many chumps trying to hold up to you. Thank you Dan for sharing and teaching us. Cheers. Signed gayexmormon
For a sec, I was afraid Dan was breaking up with us. 🥺
As an ExMo I have watched several of your videos and never did I get the feels you were Mormon. ALSO, thank you so so much for showing you can be a member of a group w/o believing that it is supernaturally only the One True Church that has all the answers.
Pastor Dingbat's arguments are so circular it's no surprise he manages to keep kicking himself in his own beehind.
👏👏👏. Dan, I’m glad you’re shutting up all these ego-driven “know-it-all’s.”
They preach constantly without doing their homework.
"data" is a plural word. You don't have to pluralize it.
2:28
"If The bible is univocal, it would mean Jesus is the son of God".
--
No it wouldn't.
That's like saying "If the various writers for some Superman movie(s) were able to stay internally consistent with the narrative, it would prove that Superman exists in reality and is the son of Jor-El".
----------------------------------
Also,
"If The bible is univocal, it would mean Jesus came to take away the sins of the world"?
--
Dude.
Look around.
According to your own religion, sin is still here ... on this world.
Notice, also, that the phrase "take away sin" vs "forgave sins" are not-at-all the same thing.
And yet, both of those ideas are ridiculous.
Also,
again,
a consistent narrative wouldn't prove that a fiction is true.
Also,
it's simply a matter of absolute fact that bibles are not univocal.
None of us needed Dan to point out this obvious fact. The only people who need to hear about that are Christian-cultists.
The critique being promoted is driven, I think, like so many others, by a person's total incapability of realising that true scholars are not pushing a particular dogma or viewpoint. Dan looks for evidence, and draws hypotheses and conclusions. That's why I, and many others follow him. I don't agree with his Mormonism, but so what? Evidence doesn't have to follow any particular faith, it just is what it is. Thank you Dan for sharing a level of erudition I couldn't ever begin to achieve.
If Dan rejects Mormon dogmas and disagrees with the prophet-status of Joseph Smith, then besides membership, what makes one a Mormon?
Funny thing is I was just wondering what Dan's actual biases were. He does an excellent job of sticking with the data and discussing the issues in their own right as an academic rather than trying to shoehorn them to fit dogma.
I freaking loved this. Thank you Dan for this! Swing and a miss had me rolling
I so appreciate your logical analysis of text, argument, data, dogma, etc. I dont find many people who are willing to operate on that level, or able. I'm definitely no scholar, but learning so much from your approach, it clicks with me.
I'm wondering if you've addressed the role of systematic theology in negotiating a framework that takes disparate texts that are not univocal on an individual textual level and fits them together in such a way that they do seem to work all together in a coherent consistant way that does seem to make the message all together a univocal one? As an example, the conception of civil law being temporary and now ended, the ceremonial law being temporary and now fulfilled in Christ, and the moral law being eternal. The logical framework/systematic explaining why they differ, why we understand them in different ways, do or dont have present applicability...and how this framework seems to create/maintain a consistency in interpretation. Kinda like how science takes a bunch of hypotheses and finds a theory that shows how everything CAN be understood in a way that makes it all work together.
I'm going to go hunting in your past videos, but if its not something you've addressed previously, perhaps you could consider doing so? Thanks!
As a Ex-Mormon, I love Dan's biblical scholarship, it usually flies in the face of Mormon dogma. Dan is one of my favorite Mormons because he is honest about the problems of Christian/Mormon doctrines.
The "because he is a mormon" argument is so ignorant and failed so hard. And that "You got the wrong mormon" just killed me, it was so funny.
Your honesty and directness on these topics within a church culture that has typically discouraged it so zealously is beautiful and bright and lovely. It is a shame to be recieving uninformed criticism from both sides. We appreciate your candor more than those who deride you hate (or, in this case, ignore) it.
Dan’s asserting dominance with that angle
A fitting response to the other guy's submissive angle.
"You got the wrong Mormon" - Dan McClellan
Back again for the sequel!
Edit: "the datas" XD
Tell a friend.
I mean, i hear lots of people use data, singlur, including me, but ive never heard, or evtremely rarely heard “datas”. Haha. “EvidenceS” is common in flat earth or anti evo community, too. :)
@@tanyanguyen3704 Except that "Data" is the term you'd use to discuss multiple items of information, whereas "Datum" represents a singular piece. So "datas" really makes *no* sense.
I can feel the heat from the burn of Dan’s refutation all the way across the internet! You go Dan!
I am a former Mormon, and while I don’t agree with the doctrine, this guy’s attempts to fight are so obviously ignorant that it’s funny!
Ad hominems are weak sauce. "Don't listen to him, he's not a REAL Christian."
Tell me you've never had a conversation with a Mormon, without telling me you've never had a conversation with a Mormon 😂
Or an academic.
Usually my conversations with Mormons tend to focus on caffeine and the occasional pajama joke
Yeah, dan is so biased, sounds like such a typical mormon...
yes, sarcasm
Terrific, Dan! I love listening to your clear and apparently correct argumentation.
This guy has done the impossible. He allowed Dan to come out swinging.
Sucks to be you dude.
Get ‘em Dan!!!
here to second this
I thank our Father in heaven for his perfect love,that is to me everything.
I always love the irony of Evangelicals accusing people of doing the very thing they,. themselves are doing. I'm not Mormon and I'm no longer an Evangelical Christian and I could easily see that Dr. Dan is presenting his arguments and data from an academic perspective and not from his personal "dogmas". Presupposition is a dangerous mindset.
Thank you Dan. You’ve changed my life for the better! You have no idea! You are helping to make the world a better place. This pastor is one example of why people are leaving Christianity in droves.
Perhaps you are a threat to their livelihood, sort of like how the character in the Bible named Jesus disrupted the norm.
If Dan were promoting LDS doctrine & dogma, he totally would back the idea of that the bible is univocal. This is something LDS teach just like most other major mainline Christian group. Also LDS doctrine tends to hold the doctrine of the inerrancy of the biblical autographs which is pretty common in mainline Christian theology as well. The big difference in the LDS view of the bible is the question of the canon. Evangelicals argue for a closed canon, while LDS argues for an open canon. Interestingly the Catholic & Orthodox churches' view of Holy Tradition is pretty close to an open canon. Also the idea of a closed canon is a post-biblical innovation at that.
As I used to put it, the main difference between the LDS and mainstream Christianity is that the LDS don’t believe that God came down with Eternal Laryngitis after Revelation 22:21.
doctrine ≠ dogmas. latter-day saints don't believe in biblical inerrancy, even the autographs. they also don't believe in inerrancy for the book of mormon or anything else held as scripture. scriptural errancy is a core belief that separates them from protestants. perhaps im poking at a typo too much that makes this incorrect: "LDS doctrine tends to hold the doctrine [...]". cheers.
@@sk7ecd Sorry this took a bit to respond to. Doctrine typically refers to anything a religious group teaches. So all dogmas are doctrines but not all doctrines are dogmas. Differing groups make a stronger or weaker distinctions between the two of course. As to the LDS view of scripture, they do believe that when the scriptures were written they were the word of God. If asked, do you think any of them would believe God made mistakes or that the scriptures at composition were exactly what God wanted them to be? The issue for the LDS for the Bible and even the Book of Mormon is transmission. As Joseph Smith put it, “I do not believe it has come down to us in its pristine purity as it was written by the original authors.” Now obviously LDS theology is not a fan of the term inerrant but that has to do more with Evangelicalism's rather extreme view of it (even that is more recent than some realize). So in short I totally agree that the LDS church does not believe the scriptures to be inerrant today. However, the evidence is pretty clear they do believe they were without error (that's all inerrant really means) when given & composed.
I really have an immense appreciation for Dan’s approach to Biblical study and using his array of knowledge to highlight the many ways Christians attempt to downplay and dismiss critical study to retain their dogmatic positions. This is a really good example of that. Kudos, Dan!
That's quite a non-argument from that guy's forehead.
i appreciated this comment
Dan!!!! You’re therapeutic for me my friend! I am glad I came across your videos again!
If you're the problem, I oppose solutions. Thanks, Dan.
It's sad when someone has to resort to ad hominem. It's sadder still when they can't even get their ad hominem right.
Bonus, I love it when theists talk about "the" Bible. Because I have to ask, are they talking about the Biblical canon confirmed by the Council of Trent (1545-1563), the Biblical canon established by the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), the Biblical canon established by the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), or are they talking about the Hebrew Scripture in the form of the Septuagint which would have been considered canon by the author of the Book of Revelation as well as the early church including Paul? Because depending on which church you're standing in you may be reading a different "the" Bible, with a different collection of books that have to agree with each other.
Here's an interesting question for those who consider there to be one Bible: does the Book of Enoch belong in "the" Bible? Because you won't find it in the King James Bible. But Jesus had no problem referencing it as holy scripture (Matt 19:28, Luke 6:24, John 12:36). I guess Jesus is now burning in Hell for the sin of adding to "the" Bible.
This is a personal question, so I don't expect an answer. I am intensly interested in this question. How you reconcile your personal religious practices with your scholarship and study of the Bible? I don't mean to predescribe any religious practices you might engage in because if your affiliation with mormonism. As you stated earlier, these two perspective are in such stark contrast, even conflict with each other, it is of great interest exactly how you go about it.
Know that this question is in good faith. It is your experience I am asking for, not for judgement, but for enlightenment. I do understand if you don't respond.
I am an admirer of McClellan but there are many of us that wonder why Dan is still a Mormon if he can cavaleirly dismiss so many Mormon tenants. There are hundreds of denominations to choose from today......
I don't know why I am continually surprised just how dence fundamentalists are. In the army, I had to constantly tell a wannabe pastor that not only were his preconceived notions of my former religion wrong, but that i no longer followed that religion. I just couldn't get anything through his thick head. Like dude, i am now agnostic (at that time).
The type of dude who sees actual experts using big words such as “dogma” and tries to use the same word against them to sound smart but clearly has no idea how to use the word at all
You're wasting your time if you are trying to help this guy understand your position. He is a prime example of the biggest problem our discourse suffers from today, people don't listen to understand because they don't want to understand, they want to find anything they think they can fit into one of their talking point cubby holes. Yeah, I know I'm preaching to the choir here...lol.
Thanks for what you do Dan. It's much needed at what I believe is a critical point in our history. And it really has helped me gain a much better understand of the how's and why's of scripture/the bible, and religion in general for that matter.
Thanks Dan for your openness and honesty. And for addressing these topics too. I know your relationship with LDS is personal, is something I really wanted to know more.
He is my favorite Mormon.
In competition with Jim Bennett.
I'm glad you made this video because I'm not the only one who watches your videos and generally likes you who has questioned how balanced you are based on the Aassumption that your Mormonism bleeds over to your professional work. It's good to know you aren't in any way tied to traditional Mormonism.