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!
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@susa5846evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States have already determined that Trump is a representative of their god. You don't have to like it, but to understand the US you need to acknowledge it.
@@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. 😉
@@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.
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.
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.
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.?_
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.
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 "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
* 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).
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?
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.
@@CaptainCanuck68 No, he knows better. Preachers are sent to school to learn about the real contents of the Bible, it's issues and contradictions, and the excuses for them. They are taught the acceptable lies so that they can answer the questions from their audiences. Those who cannot stomach the lies are washed out of the program and never become ordained preachers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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!
Thank you, Dan, your arguments are clear and concise and show great scholarship. You are threatening their world views with factual evidence. Hard for the “truth-is-what-I-want-it-to-be-because-I-say-so” crowd.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#DataFTW. Thanks for being a friend to reason, Dan, and for defending the positions of so many who embrace their cultural upbringing while acknowledging that living our faith leaves room for nuance "according to the dictates of our own conscience"--nuance that is willing to update belief based on receipt of new information/data. There is such a thing as choosing the better part of any faith tradition and those of us who find it easier to sleep at night without professing the incredible certitude advanced by the more zealous/dogmatic in our faith traditions really appreciate your example. I would say you are succeeding at the kind of "Fides querens intellectum" (sp?; faith seeking understanding) St. Augustin intended, but sans his apparent preferences for torture of infidels 😂. Anyway, my wife and I asked Santa for Data>Dogma hoodies and a subscription for full-access to your content--we'll see if he delivers (though some family who consider us apostates may prefer we just get coal).
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!
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.
Dan obliterated this guy! 👏 and he wasn’t shy about telling the Mormons how it really is as well. Lot of enemies he will create but he and his channel are SOOOO important right now as everyone is starting to wake up! 🙌
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.
That pastor has no clue... shame he can't see outside his own dogma. I'm lds and accept any sort of improvements. I love the (1) the NEMENHAH records (2) the ANG AKLATAN records (3) the KAILEDY GOSPEL (4) the SILK ROAD GOSPEL (5) the ETHIOPIAN BIBLE (6) ACTS 29 (7) the BOOK OF MELCHIZEDEK (dead sea scrolls) (8) ZEN BUDHISM Etc... There are good gems of wisdom in each of these books and writing. I, too, don't always agree with opinions in the lds church, but I am with them because of a personal spiritual experience. I just do what I feel is right.
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.
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.
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.
You are the problem Dan. You have yet to agree to a debate against me on if the 90's X-Men run is better than the Current X-Men run. With my taking the affirmative.
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?
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!
Pippin / Gandalf energy
Absolutely felt this too. And I'm all for it.
Bravo, Dan. When one cannot argue the facts, they attack the messenger.
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.
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.
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.
@@susa5846evangelicals and fundamentalists in the United States have already determined that Trump is a representative of their god. You don't have to like it, but to understand the US you need to acknowledge it.
@@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 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.
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'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".
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) ;)
"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
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.
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.
Not at all Dan. I’m so thankful you share your knowledge with us. We are blessed to have you.
We really are
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.
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.?_
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.
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 “……..
Plausibly one of the best rebuttal videos made on this channel.
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 datas" priceless. I can't stop laughing 😂
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
Appreciate you and what you do, Dan.
* 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.
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
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?
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.
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!
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 read the part where Paul says that he can ignore most of the old laws such as not lying.
He's just plain confused by his own dogma.
I got kicked out of a church for speaking about the resurrection account differences.
@@CaptainCanuck68 No, he knows better. Preachers are sent to school to learn about the real contents of the Bible, it's issues and contradictions, and the excuses for them.
They are taught the acceptable lies so that they can answer the questions from their audiences.
Those who cannot stomach the lies are washed out of the program and never become ordained preachers.
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 😢
No you are not a problem.
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.
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.
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!
"You're not even good at this." Indeed.
Thank you for your honesty, and work Dan. I love listening to your words.
I freaking loved this. Thank you Dan for this! Swing and a miss had me rolling
Thanks Dan. Your scholarship and integrity are impeccable and much appreciated. ❤
You " have the wrong Mormon" OMG that made my day
Dan McClellan muzzles the dogmas and leashes them.
I love this rejoinder. Just the right tone: ferocious, yet gracious.
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.
"You got the wrong Mormon" - Dan McClellan
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."
👏👏👏. Dan, I’m glad you’re shutting up all these ego-driven “know-it-all’s.”
They preach constantly without doing their homework.
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.
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.
For a sec, I was afraid Dan was breaking up with us. 🥺
Did he also use the No True Scotsman argument? "If he's truly a Mormon..." 🙄
Dan’s asserting dominance with that angle
A fitting response to the other guy's submissive angle.
Terrific, Dan! I love listening to your clear and apparently correct argumentation.
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
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!
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!
Thank you, Dan, your arguments are clear and concise and show great scholarship. You are threatening their world views with factual evidence. Hard for the “truth-is-what-I-want-it-to-be-because-I-say-so” crowd.
Pastor Dingbat's arguments are so circular it's no surprise he manages to keep kicking himself in his own beehind.
If you're the problem, I oppose solutions. Thanks, Dan.
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.
"data" is a plural word. You don't have to pluralize it.
"I'm not dogmatic, you are!" is such a compelling argument.
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.
Ad hominems are weak sauce. "Don't listen to him, he's not a REAL Christian."
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.
Yeah, dan is so biased, sounds like such a typical mormon...
yes, sarcasm
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
By “relectant” academic I assume he means “not remotely one at all.”
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.
#DataFTW. Thanks for being a friend to reason, Dan, and for defending the positions of so many who embrace their cultural upbringing while acknowledging that living our faith leaves room for nuance "according to the dictates of our own conscience"--nuance that is willing to update belief based on receipt of new information/data. There is such a thing as choosing the better part of any faith tradition and those of us who find it easier to sleep at night without professing the incredible certitude advanced by the more zealous/dogmatic in our faith traditions really appreciate your example. I would say you are succeeding at the kind of "Fides querens intellectum" (sp?; faith seeking understanding) St. Augustin intended, but sans his apparent preferences for torture of infidels 😂. Anyway, my wife and I asked Santa for Data>Dogma hoodies and a subscription for full-access to your content--we'll see if he delivers (though some family who consider us apostates may prefer we just get coal).
I certainly hope you are on the "nice" list, not the "naughty" one and Santa gets them for you.
@aussie405 well, thanks! Happy holidays to you!
"You are not good at this."
Dan's Atomic Elbow Drop
Your videos are very educational, thank you
Oh Dan, how do you manage to stay so cool and collected in your takedowns of these fools? I'm in awe! Bravo!!!👏💖
Because he's obviously an atheist pretending to be a Mormon.
Maybe he is a reluctant scholar because he doesn't want to have to learn all the datas.
Just found this channel recently and loving it
He is my favorite Mormon.
In competition with Jim Bennett.
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
I always enjoy your straightforward and educational content, and I happen to be an atheist. As such, I have referred to you on other channels as well.
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.
A fine refutation and defense. I am among the audience that agree with Dan and the Data.
Dan obliterated this guy! 👏 and he wasn’t shy about telling the Mormons how it really is as well. Lot of enemies he will create but he and his channel are SOOOO important right now as everyone is starting to wake up! 🙌
I learned a new word from the comments section: a "Car-thiest". Love it!
same
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
In a ot of ways, this is the video I've been waiting for from Dan. Kudos, man.
If Dan had a dog, would he name it Data?
He does. But the name part, not so sure
@@small_shifter Schouldn't the name be "Ma"?
Then if the dog's mom was standing over it it would be dog ma over Data
His cat's name is Dogma, they don't get along.
If he got a second dog, he could name it Data. Then when he takes them on a walk, he could announce, "I'm following the Datas wherever they lead!"
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.
That pastor has no clue... shame he can't see outside his own dogma. I'm lds and accept any sort of improvements. I love the
(1) the NEMENHAH records
(2) the ANG AKLATAN records
(3) the KAILEDY GOSPEL
(4) the SILK ROAD GOSPEL
(5) the ETHIOPIAN BIBLE
(6) ACTS 29
(7) the BOOK OF MELCHIZEDEK (dead sea scrolls)
(8) ZEN BUDHISM
Etc...
There are good gems of wisdom in each of these books and writing. I, too, don't always agree with opinions in the lds church, but I am with them because of a personal spiritual experience. I just do what I feel is right.
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.
"I try not to be part of the problem. I am the whole entire problem. I wake up extra early so I have more time to be a hater. I want all the problems"
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.
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.
I protect my dogmas because they're the bestest boys
Someone introduce this guy to Pete Enns. I’m sure he’ll have an aneurism when he finds out that Pete’s a Christian that agrees with Dan and Bart.
All he’d say is that Enns is a heretic, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, or some other character attack.
Yeah, but at the same time that's fallacious because it's an appeal to authority.
@@Chomper750you’re probably right
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.
You are the problem Dan. You have yet to agree to a debate against me on if the 90's X-Men run is better than the Current X-Men run. With my taking the affirmative.
Im still trying, as a fiftyyear old relucatnt observer, the univocality of the damn MCU. SOMEONE HELP ME UNDERSTAND DEADPOOL!
@@tanyanguyen3704 Disney finally bought the rest of the MCU from FOX (the X-Men and Deadpool rights) _Univocality... ACTIVATE!_
You're welcome
Strong beliefs, dogmas, blind people from rational argumentation. We all have them, but some are more entrenched than others.